Obama ignorant of future threats

Refusing to acknowledge the world had changed, the Polish military in the 1920s and 1930s stubbornly clung to tactics, strategy and weaponry used in the Polish-Soviet War of 1919. In what is now considered something of a cruel punch line in the chronicles of history, Polish cavalry units and a few obsolete tanks had the misfortune of being the first military to face Hitler’s newly unleashed “blitzkrieg” concept. Polish horses and ponies proved to be little more than speed bumps on the way to Warsaw for the Nazi’s fast-moving Panzer tank divisions and Luftwaffe aircraft. Within two short weeks Warsaw was surrounded.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is beginning to adopt Polish-like defense strategies based on present-day warfare instead of adapting for the future. Our national defense policy must not be confined to planning for today’s wars — we must make investments for the global threats of tomorrow. It is incredibly dangerous and shortsighted for the administration and Congress to turn a blind eye to the emerging threats that will face our nation in the future. As Ronald Reagan famously said, “We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.”

Just across the Pacific Ocean, North Korea is scrambling to develop a three-stage missile capable of hitting the United States. Despite this publicly known threat, the Obama administration has called for billions of dollars in cuts to our Airborne Laser (ABL) defense program. Funding the ABL program is crucial if we are to maintain our technological edge and national security capabilities to destroy ballistic missiles from North Korea or any other rogue nation. It defies common sense why we would want to forgo ABL aircraft that could protect American citizens in a moment’s notice.

The national defense funding cuts do not stop here. The Obama administration has decided to slash procurement budgets along with research and development of almost a dozen advanced weaponry systems our nation will likely need in the future. These cuts include the F-22, the Future Combat Systems, the Next-Generation Bomber, the Transformational Satellite Communications (TSAT) System, the C-17, the Navy’s CG(X) next-generation cruiser, CSAR-X, the Multiple Kill Vehicle, and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI).

In 1985, military modernization was around 45 percent of the defense budget. This year the modernization budget is set to represent only 31 percent of the budget request. It appears another defense procurement holiday is on the horizon.

Because development and procurement cycles take decades to achieve a finished product, we must make investments today to have advanced capabilities in the future. For example, the request for proposal for the F-22 was issued in 1986, yet this aircraft was not available until 2005, nearly 20 years after the RFP was issued. Another example includes the Next-Generation aerial refueling tanker that we have been trying to procure since the beginning of this decade. And if we want a Next-Generation bomber by 2016 as originally requested, we probably should have started the acquisition process 10 years ago. Delaying critical investments needed in the future does not serve our national security interests.

Defense investments we made decades ago are producing unquestionable results today. Satellites, stealth fighters, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), laser-guided and GPS missiles, and advanced bombers (just to name a few) had their origins years and decades before their applications on the battleground. Our military successes are due, in part, to our foresight in maintaining budgets for future systems. We have to ask ourselves what investments we are making today that will fulfill the challenges of tomorrow.

The administration is foolishly arguing that these military advanced capabilities are unnecessary because there is no imminent threat. While capabilities may be slow to develop, international intent can change overnight. The stark reality is that Russia, China and Europe are continuing to develop high-technology weapons that will pose significant challenges to our children and future generations. In an age of instantaneous information and rampant technology transfers, weapon proliferation is bound to accelerate. We know that Russia, China and Europe all sell advanced weapons to nations whose regimes are often hostile and unpredictable. What the future holds for these countries is a mystery, but we must be prepared for them to have access to advanced weapons. With so much uncertainty, it is critical that the Department of Defense plan for hostile capabilities, not just current intentions.

The time to prepare for tomorrow’s threats is now. With development and procurement cycles taking decades, investing in future weapons is an insurance policy for a safe homeland. Let’s abandon failed Polish-era logic, put the horses back in the barn and prepare for the next war.

Tiahrt is a member of the House Appropriations Committee.