The House Armed Services Committee voted yesterday to
continue production of the F-22 fighter jet by a razor thin margin of
31-30.
The amendment to save the F-22, a supplement to the 2010
Defense budget, was introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah). Rep. Saxby
Chambliss (R-Georgia), whose constituents help build the jet, was amongst the
amendment’s ardent supporters. But both the chairman of the committee, Rep. Ike
Skelton (D-Missouri) and the chairman of the air land forces subcommittee, Neil
Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) were opposed. The $369 million appropriation must be
approved by both the House and the Senate before the additional 12 fighters are
built.
However, supporters of the F-22, also known as the Raptor (how 1990s!), are
facing strong headwinds. Not only do the jets cost
about $200 million each, but some very powerful people count themselves
amongst the F-22s opponents. And not just the heads of Congressional committees
either.
Is offense the best defense?
The current number of F-22s – 187 – was seen as sufficient
by Defense
Secretary Robert Gates, who ordered further production on the jetfighter to
be ceased in a bid to move away from what he felt was a Cold War mentality. The
cessation was supported by the White House, whose current focus is on Iraq and
Afghanistan. The F-22 – whose strength is air-to-air combat – has not yet been
used in combat in those countries.
Supporters of the F-22, however, fear that stopping the
program is a “high
risk” for America in the event of a war with a more capable adversary than
Saddam Hussein or Mullah Omar. China and Russia are often cited as examples of
potential enemies.
However, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to
suggest that building more Raptors has little, if anything, to do with defense
in the truest sense of the word. As the biggest spender in the world, the
United States already splurges enough on arms, accounting
for roughly 45% of the entire world’s military spending. Furthermore, the
U.S. spends more on armed forces than the
next 45 countries do combined.
Potential enemies pale in comparison: China accounts for 8% of the
world’s military spending; Russia accounts for 5% - a number eclipsed by
France’s military expenditures.
France? That’s right, France. A country seen by many hawks
as cowardly is spending more on arms than Russia; a country supposedly
frightening us into buying jets that cost as much a school. Let’s just hope
that the F-22 is equipped to neutralize flying chairs.
Daddy More Bucks
With the largest air force in the world already, it is
unlikely that America’s national security concerns require that more F-22s be
built. But weapons manufacturing is a fruitful industry, and Lockheed
Martin and Boeing have spent millions of dollars lobbying members of House
and Senate Armed Service and Appropriation Committees to save the Raptor. The
contractors have cleverly sprinkled the subcontracts for these jets across so
many states and Congressional districts that you’d be hard pressed to find
members of Congress truly trigger-happy to shoot down the Raptor.
And it isn’t just industrialists and incumbents who benefit
from militarism, either. Rep. Bishop cited job worries as one of the main
reasons that building more F-22s benefits the United States; a sentiment echoed
by 2,000 Lockheed
Martin workers in Chambliss’ district.
Although this money could be spent creating jobs elsewhere,
in a double whammy for hippies, the proposed F-22 spending was supposed to have
been for cleaning
up hazardous waste at army bases.
But despite the controversy over the F-22, it appears that
those opposed to its proliferation, including Rep. Abercrombie, are ready to
make a compromise. The Congressman from Hawaii said that he expects Congress to
authorize
the building of 20 more jets before Raptor production is finally shut
down.
Also Interesting:
Get our Newsletter!Click here to sign up and stay informed