In defense of the defense industry.
For most of my lifetime, one of the undebatable beliefs of the left was with respect to the inherent evils of the the US military and its partner in international crime - the defense industry. It was given the attributes of a colossal, single minded entity capable of leading the nation into war for its own gain. No one ever produced any actual evidence of that, but from the late sixties, the left believed it with the sort of fervor they now reserve for climate change and pronouns.
The catalyst, of course, was the Vietnam War coupled with a belief on the left that the fine over enthusiastic socialist fellow travelers in the Soviet Union weren't really the threat the right claimed they represented. The very success of deterrence was touted as the reason it wasn't needed - a circular argument often aimed at NATO as well.
Following that war, the American military and the industry that served it entered a period reassessment on the one hand and economic driven reorganization and consolidation on the other. Fortunately, as the decade came to an end, a post-Vietnam generation of leaders began to exercise authority and vision in the services. An all volunteer force introduced a level of professionalism only dreamed of in previous decades (and somewhat contrary to American faith in its citizen army). That quiet revolution was quickly allied with an equally visionary new administration determined to fully reconstitute a post Vietnam American military.
For all too brief a period, during the Reagan administration, we had a President, with a very capable set of advisors who understood the value an unassailable deterrent meant to the general welfare of the United States and its allies. Reagan did the sort of modernization of the American armed forces that Donald Trump largely talked about. The left continued to undermine that effort where possible, but unlike today, defense initiatives gained the support of moderate democrats as well as the Republican party.
Sometimes we forget that modernization wasn't simply a series of defense appropriations, but was the work of the hundreds of thousands of dedicated citizen patriots who, working with the services, developed that war winning materiel. The Army was in particularly bad shape. New programs such as the M1 Abrams, the M2 Bradley, the AH 64 Apache, and the UH 60 Blackhawk still form the backbone of the force four decades later. A discussion for later.
Thankfully, that military establishment never had to demonstrate its capabilities against the Red Army. Though during the First Gulf War, which was in large measure the last hurrah of that Cold War military structure, it showed its technical and professional overmatch of the Russian equipped and trained Iraqi Army.
The ensuing search for a post-Soviet "peace dividend" saw a significant slashing or lengthening of many programs. A classic example of the effect this can have on price was Northrop's B2 bomber. Originally. conceived against a 200+ fleet requirement, only 20 were built during the nearly two decades it took for Northrop to get a final production configuration from the Air Force. Needless to say technology exploded over that period causing continuous changes to the eventual aircraft and dramatic increases in the scope of the contract - both resulted in further extensions and delays. Yes, it is a nearly two billion dollar bomber when purchased 10 years later than planed with one tenth the number of aircraft. Interestingly, Northrop Grumman and the Air Force rolled out the first prototype of its successor, the B-21 Raider yesterday after a relatively short development begun with contract award in 2015. There will be a hundred - it is undetectable and can penetrate any airspace on the planet - with or without a crew.
Dozens of other programs went through similar cost growth and requirement creep and subsequent delays in or cancelation of actual production or acquisition.
Unlike the mythical monolithic warmongering beast feared by the left, the defense corporations are, like every other publicly traded company, owned by the shareholders. Rather than worrying about starting wars, business leaders were worried about quarterly earnings, acquisitions (contract awards), program performance, and backlog. Preserving programs - awarded contracts - became a critical function in a world of shrinking (in real terms) defense dollars.
As the post-Reagan and Soviet era dawned, domestic initiatives of every type demanded their share of the peace dividend. Protection of existing programs and the few new modernization efforts on the horizon became a key component of every defense company's strategy. Many failed and consolidation of the sector followed. The surviving corporations invested in congressional engagement teams. Those specialists briefed staffers and members on programs, offered assessments of acquisition plans, and contributed legally to the campaigns of both parties - No one walked the halls of Congress with bags of cash or advocated for war. Rather, the industry behaved exactly like every other large publicly owned production sector in the country.
This era of survival ended abruptly with 9-11, though the two decades it ushered in were also very different from the Cold War. The planning and leadership of the Al Qaeda terrorist network was located in Afghanistan. The Clinton administration had made a desultory strike at its infrastructure with cruise missiles in August of 1998. True destruction of the network and training bases following the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon would necessitate a physical incursion by US ground forces. There was little debate with the regard of the necessity of that operation on either side of the aisle.
However, a curious new force had emerged with the new century, and gained tremendous traction within the Bush administration. Now termed Neo-Cons, this new group of domestic conservatives but international activists seemed to embrace all the wrong lessons from Vietnam. The notion of nation building and the lure of preemptive war seemed apparently irresistible. The invasion of Iraq, which very few in the military understood, was initiated for dubious reasons at best and nothing to do with 9-11. Both it and Afghanistan became quagmires as military objectives were abandoned for ever more nebulous political goals.
Interestingly, for the Defense industry as a whole, it became a period of great uncertainty. Yes, ammunition manufacturers like ATK did well, and General Dynamics and BAE had steady business repairing and modifying tanks and armored fighting vehicles. But much of the budget was used operationally for huge quick fix acquisitions like MRAP vehicles to protect against IEDs and for non-standard light armored vehicles provided to both countries. Except for the Air Force / Navy fighter programs (F-22 and F-35) and the new Virginia class submarine, major new programs languished. As I noted earlier, the Army is still operating 40 year old platforms. The average AH-64 is older than the Lieutenant Colonel commanding the unit, much less the young warrant officers piloting most of them. The point being, it was hardly an environment that the major defense companies would have wished for even if they had the power envisioned by Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, or their long-haired FM loving acolytes.
As they had under Clinton, the major industry players used their Congressional outreach efforts to try to protect programs, particularly as defense oversight shifted to the Obama administration. Major players like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman shifted more and more of their efforts to space - military, intel, and NASA.
The emergence of the Trump movement, brought a new political force to the table that had been largely quiescent since 1941. The "America First" movement, originally perceived as simply having the laudable goal of pursuing national interests, gradually morphed into a isolationist movement that seems to find no national interests anywhere beyond the nation's shores. Interestingly, this was not a foreign policy which Trump actually followed, but has emerged subsequent to his administration. It is also somewhat humorous that the isolationists, representing the farther right edges of the conservative movement, have now taken up the mantel of opposition to the perceived evils of American military and defense corporate leadership - replacing their alter egos in the radical left.
Fortunately for the country, both the American military and the defense industry that supports it continue to soldier on, producing the most lethal and effective armaments of any nation on the planet. The success of both continue to fuel the arguments against their need. Like the title character in Kipling's poem "Tommy" both tend to be despised or criticized by all too many until they are needed.
A last comment about the defense industry hiring people out of the military - the supposedly evil revolving door. Software, hardware, and systems engineers are easy to find. So are accountants, business managers, and HR mavens. But the products the defense industry builds require specialized knowledge as well. The latest communications idea, fighting vehicle, helmet, or death ray is useless unless it is created with a full understanding how it will be used in the field. The cockpit design for an attack helicopter or fighter is somewhat different than a commercial airliner. Experienced, former soldiers, airmen, and naval personal are a key component to insure the quality of those designs.
Additionally, former NCOs and officers have tremendous leadership and to use a civilian term, managerial, skills and experience. They understand schedule and budget, and they can execute to a mission statement. Placed in a competitive corporate environment, many prosper and competently take the reins of various businesses in the larger corporate organization. This is a win for the company, for its shareholders and the customer.
Still other senior retirees become consultants. Well duh. If I am a business leader preparing a five volume highly competitive proposal valued at $350-500 million, then I would be not merely foolish but failing in my responsibilities to my shareholders not to avail myself of whatever expertise is available to put my proposal in the best light. This is not some evil collusion, but rather perfectly legal business 101 and is exercised in every other form of competitive corporate competition.
I would suggest that the defense industry and the customers it serves will be around for as long as we are a world power. For all its waste, most politically rather than performance driven, it is providing the American military with finest combat tools on the planet. We have barely lifted the corner of the blanket in Ukraine. The people who work for that industry have a strong belief in the value of their efforts, the quality of their products, and a love for the country for which those products are produced. Their loudest critics are inevitably those who seem to know the least about them or their businesses.
Also, the thrust was the defense industry and not a broader analysis of the competing Cold War doctrines.
