Mark Thompson
This
week in The Bunker: DOD's emphasis on style over substance; intruders invade an
atomic US base; and more
A pair of stories with
contrasting narratives
It was the best of times (“We
blew Iran’s nuclear-weapons complex to smithereens!”), it was the worst of
times (“Psst — we’re submitting a proposed defense budget for next year even
smaller than this year’s”). That’s why last Thursday there was an 8 a.m.
all-hands-on-deck for a rare press conference (only the second in five months)
by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. And a mere peep later in the day about his
proposed 2026 budget.
This is performance politics
worthy of the Wallendas. President Donald Trump can declare that the U.S.
“completely and totally obliterated” Tehran’s atomic enterprise to bits even
before the B-2 bombers that carried it out had returned to their home base in
Missouri. Unfortunately, skeptical Pentagon intelligence analysts cast doubts
on that certitude. That’s their job. Predictably, Trump came down on the
Pentagon reporters who relayed the views of the Defense Intelligence Agency
like a petulant kindergarten bully. He predictably commanded that his sidekick
— that would be the SECDEF — denounce the doubters.
Which he did with a relish that
is decidedly unappetizing: “You cheer against Trump so hard, it’s like in your
DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump because you want him not to be
successful so bad, you have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes.”
Let’s be clear — neither side’s
assessment was rock-solid. It’s simply too early to tell. Trump shouldn’t have
issued his “completely” claim so soon. And reporters should have treated more
gingerly that initial DIA bomb-damage assessment, which apparently turned out
to be a “low confidence” worst-case projection.
Just because Trump jumped the gun
is no reason for reporters to follow suit.
The same day, the Pentagon rolled
out its 2026 budget request seeking $848 billion. That’s actually lower than
this year’s $831 billion, when taking inflation into account. Trump’s pledge to
spend $1 trillion on defense next year will only happen if Congress approves a
$113 billion add-on now under debate. Toting up all administration-wished-for
2026 national-security spending, including that one-time bonus, plus that spent
on nuclear weapons by the Energy Department, the total rises — surprise! — to
$1.01 trillion. But where such future annual $100 billion plus-ups will come
from remains unknown, and unknowable.
Unlike publicly pummeling the
press, the Defense Department’s budget unveiling was a decidedly low-key
affair. “The announcement was a stark departure from past budget roll-outs,
which have traditionally included an overview briefing by the Pentagon’s comptroller,
and sometimes the deputy defense secretary and vice chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, followed by separate briefings by each military department,”
Meghann Myers pointed out at Defense One. That’s probably because the Pentagon
finds itself too embarrassed to confess to the budgetary sleight-of-math
required to reach Trump’s trillion-dollar target.
War of the words
Trump has been ruminating again
about returning the Department of Defense to its original name: the Department
of War. The Bunker, dedicated to ending decades of defense opacity (“obscurity
of sense”) and obfuscation (“to be evasive, unclear, or confusing”), is all for
the change.
The U.S. long had a War
Department (largely the Army and, later, its fledgling air force) and a Navy
Department. But as the threat posed by the Soviet Union grew, Congress combined
them and created the National Military Establishment in 1947, along with the
Air Force. There was just one problem. The U.S. military loves its acronyms,
and the new “NME” acronym sounded too much like “enemy.” So, in 1949, the
Department of Defense was born.
The name change has arguably led
to an expansive and flabby understanding of the role of the nation’s military.
The Lycra-like label has been stretched to cover humanitarian ops, mission
creep, nation-building, and forever-rising budgets. In contrast, a cabinet
agency laser-focused on waging war could lead to a leaner, cheaper force. And
that might not be the only change. The Bunker’s home, here at the Center for
Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight, would also face a
tough choice. “Does CDI,” POGO pooh-bah Scott Amey ponders, “become the Center
for War Information?”
Varmints pester Air Force base
North Dakota’s Minot Air Force
Base, home to nuclear-capable B-52 bombers, is being invaded by growing
burrowing brigades of what the locals call dakrats (short for Dakota rat), a
type of ground squirrel. “A team of Air Force subject matter experts and representatives
from Minot AFB Homes are meeting regularly to coordinate a more active
response,” the base posted on its Facebook page June 23. Residents “can
continue to use traps in their backyard,” but reinforcements are on the way.
The base plans to roll out “a more comprehensive trapping plan” soon, and
pledges “increased resourcing for fall and spring mitigation efforts to
significantly decrease the on-base [dakrat] population.”
This is not a new problem. “Since
the removal of their natural predators on base,” a 2019 Air Force story noted,
“their population has significantly increased in numbers, causing damages to
mission-essential infrastructure and homes across the base.” The base’s
estimated 10,000+ dakrats were “degrading runways, platforms, foundations, and
housing.” Deploying gas, other poisons, flooding, and trapping plainly didn’t
lead to their complete and total obliteration.
Commenters responding to the
base’s post on the latest vermin surge had their own suggestions on how to get
rid of the critters. They ranged from bubble gum (Bazooka Joe brand, The Bunker
presumes), to “bad donut dough,” to A-10 attack planes, to B-2 bombers. “Trap a
few and microchip them to track to the colony,” one recommended, “then use a
bunker-buster.”
A Saturday-morning cartoon for
the 21st century.
Here’s what has caught The
Bunker’s eye recently
Congress wants the Pentagon to
build an ammunition plant in the Philippines to deal with the threat posted by
China, USNI News’ Aaron Matthew Lariosa reported June 24.
The Pentagon has changed the name
of the USNS Harvey Milk, named for the assassinated gay-rights activist, to the
USNS Oscar V. Peterson, a sailor posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for
saving his stricken vessel during World War II, Riley Ceder reported June 27 in
Navy Times.
The Air Force is diverting money
from its new and troubled $141 billion Sentinel ICBM program to refurbish that
Qatari 747 that President Trump plans to use as Air Force One, Rachel S. Cohen
reported June 27 in Air & Space Forces Magazine.
No comments:
Post a Comment