A changing military

Thursday, April 9, 2009 | 2:06 a.m.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ proposal to transform the Pentagon’s budget so it better reflects the post-Cold War mission of today’s military is certain to be met with opposition by many members of Congress.

It has been apparent for years that sustained, conventional war by the United States against the uniformed military of another major country is not likely to occur in the foreseeable future.

Yet long-standing relationships among generals, defense contractors, senators and House members have lingered, even though the result has been an overabundance of equipment that is incompatible with fighting terrorists or undertaking counterinsurgency missions.

Jobs are one reason much of the Pentagon’s procurement hearkens back to the Cold War. Many senators and members of the House, for political reasons, do not want to lose defense industries that have long operated in their states.

That has a major downside, as Gates explained this week.

“It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk, or, in effect, run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant, is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable,” he said.

An example of Gates’ vision for change is his plan to stop purchases of the costly F-22 fighter jet and put the savings into more relevant programs. Although the plane has never been used in Afghanistan or Iraq, Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, where many of the F-22s are made, is protesting Gates’ recommendation.

Gates is not trying to cut the Pentagon’s budget so much as he is trying to reshape it, so troops encountering enemy tactics such as roadside bombs have the right equipment and training.

There would still be plenty of defense industry jobs, but they would be more aligned with the needs of the military as opposed to the needs of the politicians.