The Republican Statecraft article at bottom was posted to this similarity group as target audience here a few days ago. In the interest of the "Full Truth," as opposed to misleading information, let me add context to that.
I've been a critic of this writer, Dan Grazier, in the past, as I am of all right-wing, so-called "military reformers." But not because I don't agree with him on the narrow issue he writes on here, but for his inability to put issues in the larger context of which they're a part, and always favoring the "Right," if only by "omission," assuming he's writing in good faith. Unfortunately, that's not a valid presumption of anyone on the Right, to include this Koch-funded website.
First question to ask: "Is he a libertarian?" In asking that, I'm admitting I fell for a spoof by a libertarian recently. BTW, thanks Warren, for cluing me in on that. But to explain my gullibility on that count, it had nothing to do with medication, but similar to Diogenes, but only for his "search," up until then, I actually retained hope of finding "one honest libertarian," who would admit that their economic theory had caused irreparable harm to the world, and the U.S.: FUBAR as a predictable result. A totally vain hope I should have realized amongst libertarians peddling their cultish Plutocratic Enrichment economic theory on behalf of their Idols, like Charles Koch, and Elon Musk, whom Grazier praises below:
"Elon Musk has turned his attention to the F-35 program, and he isn’t impressed. The world’s richest man – who owns SpaceX, the sole provider of reliable American space launches – threw shade at the most expensive weapon program in history in a post on X on November 25. “The F-35 design was broken at the requirements level, because it was required to be too many things to too many people. This made it an expensive & complex jack of all trades, master of none. Success was never in the set of possible outcomes,” Musk posted on X."
So, typical of the "Right," especially the "New Right" of the Quincy Institute, however, Grazier omitted that Musk concluded that tweet with this: "And manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones anyway. Will just get pilots killed." Why would Musk say that when Israel has used them in military operations and loves them, as does Musk's co-President, Trump? So to add context to Grazier's article, though not to promote the F-35, Trump's fascist coalition partners certainly love the F-35, as does Trump himself, as can be seen here: Quote: US air force says fighter jet test is 'coincidence' after Trump's Iran threat "Fleet of 52 new F-35A jets tested in first mass exercise in Utah, following president’s vow to hit 52 Iranian targets "However, the air force insisted it was a coincidence that the number of aircraft used echoed Donald Trump’s threat to hit 52 Iranian targets, including cultural sites. . . .
"The president has repeatedly expressed a fascination with the aircraft, once telling an audience that the F-35A was “almost like an invisible fighter”. "The F-35A is not invisible, though it is unusually small and designed to be less visible to radar than conventional aircraft. "Trump first startled reporters with talk of an invisible plane in 2017, when he discussed the F-35 at a military briefing in hurricane-hit Puerto Rico. “Amazing job,” Trump said. “So amazing we are ordering hundreds of millions of dollars of new airplanes for the air force, especially the F-35. You like the F-35? ... You can’t see it. You literally can’t see it. It’s hard to fight a plane you can’t see.” And Israel validated Trump's faith in the F-35 just recently:
"It appeared to mark the first confirmation from a Western government that Israel had used its fifth-generation aircraft in the operation, which came in response to a massive Iranian missile attack at the start of the month. It was reported at the time that Israel flew its F-35s and fired air-launched ballistic missiles. . . . "Radakin's praise of the fifth-generation platform came after Elon Musk criticized the F-35 , which is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program but widely considered a cornerstone of US airpower. The SpaceX CEO and advisor to President-elect Donald Trump took to social media last month to rag on the aircraft over its design and brush off its stealth capabilities. Airpower experts quickly pushed back on some of his remarks."
So why would Musk contradict Trump's fascist coalition partners? Perhaps this is a clue? "Palantir Technologies (PLTR) and startup Anduril Industries are talking with many other tech companies, including OpenAI and Elon Musk's SpaceX, to form a consortium to jointly bid on U.S. government contracts, The Financial Times reported Sunday. "The aim is to take on traditional defense giants such as Lockheed Martin (LMT), Northrop Grumman (NOC), Boeing (BA) and RTX (RTX), most likely with artificial intelligence-enabled autonomous technology. . . . "Musk, as co-leader of President-elect Donald Trump's government efficiency drive, has signaled he will target Pentagon spending. He has specifically criticized the F-35 fighter jet as wasteful. Lockheed Martin makes the F-35, with Northrop Grumman a major subcontractor. Boeing is a would-be competitor to SpaceX in private space flight." https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2024/11/26/elon-musk-calls-f-35-builders-idiots-favors-drone-swarms/ “I will provide record funding for our military,” Trump stated in in a video on his campaign website, so even if there are cuts to big programs like the F-35, overall spending may increase. That would mean major investments in new programs, presumably ones with the sort of high-tech pizzazz favored by the DOGE. "As the original Tweet indicated, Musk is a big fan of drones and lots of them, having previously Tweeted that “Drone swarm battles are coming that will boggle the mind.” "At the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council Summit in LondonMusk said that “any future wars between advanced countries, or at least countries with drone capability, will be very much the drone wars.” "This seems like good news for companies like Anduril and Shield AI and Palantir which are involved in supplying AI-powered systems to the Pentagon, and already have AI-enabled small drones and even drone swarms ready to go. Unlike existing drones, swarms can operate as large co-operative groups with minimal human oversight. These companies are Musk’s spiritual kin, Silicon Valley startups rather than traditional industrial players, seeking to bring new tech to the military sector. And they may find that the wind is shifting their way. "To what extent large numbers of small, low-cost drones can augment, replace or supersede traditional airpower remains an open question. And whether they will still be as affordable when made by American contractors is equally important. But the evidence from Ukraine suggests drones will play an increasingly dominate role in future wars. (To declare an interest, as author of a book on how small drones will conquer the world I do have a certain bias here)."
Grazier wrote: "There are far better ways to boost the economy with taxpayer dollars than wasteful defense spending. Imagine the effect on the overall economy if just a fraction of the money spent on the F-35 was spent on the country’s transportation network. . . . "The incoming Trump administration will have to take drastic steps to rein in the excesses of the past 25 years." Which some might say, is a masterpiece of duplicity, as the information I posted above is revealing that only the most ignorant people could yet believe that Trump/Musk have any intent whatsoever to "rein in the excesses of the past 25 years," instead of “I will provide record funding for our military,” Trump stated . . . and I don't think Grazier is ignorant. In sharing this criticism of Grazier and this webpage, I'm only applying the same criticism to Grazier and RS, as they apply to their rival ""Military Industrial Complex," as Grazier wrote here: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/military-industrial-complex-2668809022/, "The Pentagon, Congress, the defense industry, think tanks, lobbyists, and industry-sponsored media outlets are all very real. When combined, they make up what is better termed the “National Security Establishment,” which Americans see in action all the time."
The Prospect article quotes William Hartung of the Quincy Institute, and the "non-New Right" side of Quincy has criticized the Thiel MIC on occasion. That comes off as if it is to maintain their tax status as a non-partisan, non-profit, it might seem when weighed against all the promotion they do of New Right politicians affiliated with Peter Thiel, and his Military Industrial Complex, in my opinion. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/f-35/
'Flop': Proponents of the F-35 can't tell you that it worksWhen they've resorted to arguing 'it's a job creator,' you know there isn't much military useElon Musk has turned his attention to the F-35 program, and he isn’t impressed. The world’s richest man – who owns SpaceX, the sole provider of reliable American space launches – threw shade at the most expensive weapon program in history in a post on X on November 25. “The F-35 design was broken at the requirements level, because it was required to be too many things to too many people. This made it an expensive & complex jack of all trades, master of none. Success was never in the set of possible outcomes,” Musk posted on X. Elon Musk is absolutely right…and not just because I have been saying the exact same thing for a decade! The American people need to come to grips with the fact that the F-35 program is a complete flop. Most leaders of the national security establishment are unlikely to say so in such blunt terms, but some of them are now tacitly admitting the truth probably without realizing they are. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, effectively the hometown newspaper for the F-35 program, recently published an article loaded with quotes from lawmakers, defense officials, and university professors. They all made an economic argument to defend the program. That should send shivers down the spine of every Lockheed Martin executive. When the best argument that can be made for a weapon program is its economic impact, it is clear the program has limited military value. For a program in development for more than 23 years, at the expense of nearly $300 billion so far, the American people have received little in return. New F-35s coming off the Fort Worth assembly line have only limited combat capabilities. It will reportedly take years for engineers to complete the hardware and software necessary for new F-35s to achieve full combat capability. The jets already in service have demonstrated an appalling lack of reliability. During all of 2023, the F-35 fleet only managed a 30% full mission capable rate. The F-35 has proven to be a deeply flawed aircraft that is far from meeting the needs of the services and therefore jeopardizes national security. Focusing attention on the program’s economic impact is simply a desperate attempt to prevent Congress from cutting funding. Such a strategy has been used by industry before, but it usually just delays the inevitable. National security establishment leaders attempted to save the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship with similar arguments in the last decade. The LCS program was initially praised by its supporters as a revolutionary surface ship capable of affordably filling multiple roles. As more of the ships were built and entered active service, it became increasingly clear the program failed to live up to expectations and Navy leaders wanted to cut their losses. But lawmakers kept the program sputtering along for a few years longer because of its economic impact. Providing for the common defense is enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution. The American people tolerate, however grudgingly in many cases, the government spending their tax dollars to build weapons for the military. The expectation is that Congress will spend wisely to buy things that work and that fill capability gaps. Lawmakers shouldn’t buy weapons simply to stimulate the economy. There are far better ways to boost the economy with taxpayer dollars than wasteful defense spending. Imagine the effect on the overall economy if just a fraction of the money spent on the F-35 was spent on the country’s transportation network. The military value of a weapon program is the only valid justification for its expense. If someone does feel the need to defend a program, the argument should be based on the weapon’s demonstrated effectiveness and its centrality to the nation’s defense. If a weapon doesn’t work or can’t be purchased in the numbers the services need, then what is the point? The American people today spend far more on defense than they did just a generation ago. Pentagon spending levels are nearly 50% higher than they were in the year 2000. That extra money has been sunk into numerous acquisition failures. The Littoral Combat Ship, the Army’s Future Combat System, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, the KC-46 aerial tanker, and the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle are just a few significant disappointments from the past 25 years. The system is clearly broken. The incoming Trump administration will have to take drastic steps to rein in the excesses of the past 25 years. With influential people now at least unwittingly admitting the F-35’s failures, it could be a good starting point. Cancelling the program outright would be very difficult because of all the foreign entanglements that were baked into it from the beginning. But limiting production until engineers complete the F-35’s design may send the proper signal to the defense industry that the status quo is intolerable.
|