<mediadc-video-embed data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1656101554799,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"0000017a-8cb2-d416-ad7a-beb7278f0000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1656101554799,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"0000017a-8cb2-d416-ad7a-beb7278f0000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"rawHtml":"
var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_53329215", "obj": {"id":"27789","width":"16","height":"9","video":"1018001"} }); ","_id":"00000181-9758-df44-ad8b-d77a43600000","_type":"2f5a8339-a89a-3738-9cd2-3ddf0c8da574"}”>Video EmbedOn Friday, the head of U.S. military forces in the Indo-Pacific (responsible for theater preparation and command for U.S. military forces in any war with China), indirectly rebuked congressional armed services committees for misappropriating precious dollars on things the military doesn’t need.
Adm. John Aquilino did not directly criticize Congress, but he made abundantly clear that his Indo-Pacific Command needs more of the exact opposite of what Congress this week moved to give him. Aquilino’s comments came during an interview by Bradley Bowman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Underlying the urgency of now and the need to make every dollar count in an era of budget pressures and very urgent Chinese threats, Bowman asked Aquilino what he would do with an extra $5 billion beyond his expected budget.
Aquilino highlighted “the critical capabilities of being able to operate in contested space, the persistent battlespace awareness, real time … and the ability to close the kill chain with the correct weapons from any location.” The four-star admiral added, “I think funds in the near term focused on those areas would provide immediate increased advantage for the United States and deliver the integrated deterrence that the Secretary of Defense has tasked us with.”
The three points, then, are survivability (“operate in contested space”), intelligence and targeting (“battlespace awareness”), and strike power (“close the kill chain”).
None of these critical needs is served by the latest defense appropriations out of the congressional armed service committees.
Rather than giving Aquilino the submarines, drones, and air defense destroyers/cruisers that can survive inside saturated Chinese missile, air, and navy deployment bubbles (survivability) or the multiple redundant electronic warfare systems and sensors (targeting) or the massed stockpiles of long-range drones and missiles (strike power), Congress is giving Aquilino de facto junk. I say junk because when it comes to a prospective war with China, that’s the value of the additional helicopters, carrier-based radar aircraft, and littoral combat ships that the House and Senate committees are now forcing on the military.
As I noted on Thursday, this misuse of resources represents a striking failure of leadership from members of Congress from both parties. Their number includes Reps. Rob Wittman, Jared Golden, John Rutherford, Elaine Luria, and Kay Granger. Indeed, the excuses these politicians make in defense of their pork-centric approach to national security often border on ludicrous.
Take Rep. Betty McCollum’s argument against scrapping the truly junktastic littoral combat ships. The Minnesota Democrat stated that “the first round of discussions I had with the Navy were very unsatisfactory. And they’re coming around to see the seriousness of us making sure that the taxpayers’ dollars that have been invested are at a minimum repurposed in a way that helps with our national security.”
Translation: The Navy outrageously told me that it needed to use finite dollars on things that can contest the People’s Liberation Army rather than fight Somali pirates. When I used my position on the appropriations committee to threaten the Navy, it agreed to give ground in fear of losing more of what it needs to fight China. Please applaud me for strengthening China’s means of defeating America in war.
This political malaise is not to excuse the Navy from responsibility.
The admiralty’s continuing fetish with aircraft carriers ignores the exigent China-fight needs of persistent strike power and survivability (The Navy could learn from the Marine Corps on the urgency of revolutionary adaptation) — nor is it to excuse military leaders more generally. There should, for example, be an immediate and permanent redeployment of tactical air and naval combat forces from Europe to the Indo-Pacific. Russia remains a major threat, but European nations must step up to provide more tactical combat power, refueling, and airlift assets for NATO, even as U.S. forces in Europe retain a strategic forces component. President Joe Biden’s unwillingness to lead dramatic change alongside revenue generation and boosts to the missile manufacturing base is also inexcusable.
Regardless, Aquilino’s words deserve urgent attention. The current failure of leadership represents gross incompetence at best and a betrayal of patriotic duty at worst. Young American sailors, airmen, Marines, and soldiers who volunteer to fight in the nation’s defense deserve more than sacrifice at the trough of congressional pork.
Congress should listen to Aquilino. Failing to do so, we must remember that failure when war with China arrives.
