In the days of Ancient Greece, women were deprived of the right to vote for a completely objective reason. It was not the problems of housing and communal services that were discussed at popular meetings; on the agenda were the conditions for entering the next internecine war. It would be very strange if those who do not go to the battlefield made decisions about the beginning of hostilities. And the Greeks understood this situation much better than our contemporaries.
In no case do I want to offend the fair sex - the modern world has completely changed, and if the presence of women in high positions in the armies of Western countries does not surprise anyone, even more amazing things are happening in the East: in 2007, Yuriko Koike became the Minister of Defense of Japan. … Just think about it! In the country of the samurai, where the ancient traditions and code of Bushido are still honored, at the beginning of the 21st century, a fragile Japanese woman took command of the Armed Forces. And she coped with "excellent"!
But leaving the debate about women's rights to military service to feminist organizations, today I would like to touch upon a much more important issue: the competence of civilian officials responsible for making important military decisions in the interests of the state. As an illustrative example, we will try to analyze the results of the work of the US Congress as one of the key bodies regulating processes in the American military-industrial complex and making decisions on the entry of the US Armed Forces into military conflicts.
The US Congress is a legislative body, one of the three highest federal government bodies. Consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Sitting on Capitol Hill in Washington DC. The number of senators is exactly 100 people, elected for a six-year term. But few of them manage to work out the entire term allotted by law - every two years, about a third of the Senate is completely renewed. The House of Representatives consists of 435 "deputies" who are elected for a two-year term. All representatives and senators have a bloated apparatus of assistants, which further complicates the American political system, turning even simple decisions into death knots of bureaucracy.
The US Congress, along with the Department of Defense, is an important element of the US national security system. Congress has complete supremacy over the Pentagon, which consists in the unquestioning observance by the latter of the requirements and instructions of civil lawmakers. The life of the American military is turning into hell: the need for any event, for example, adopting a new type of technology, has to be proved in the face of 535 congressmen who are absolutely incompetent in military affairs (according to statistics, more than half of senators have legal education; in the House of Representatives, the picture is completely similar) … This state of affairs unambiguously weakens the structure of the army, even if we do not take into account the usual human weaknesses and vices.
First, the stormy public discussion of the new products of the military-industrial complex makes it impossible to maintain any secrecy. On the contrary, the development and military teams are trying to make bright presentations to win public opinion on their side. New projects become known long before they are put into service, which gives the enemy tremendous time to develop preventive measures, surprises are unlikely. For example, work on the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program began thirty years ago; In the 90s, both rival companies Boeing and Lokheed Martin held many public presentations of their designs, eagerly discussing with the public any features of the future F-22 "Raptor".
Secondly, congressmen ignorant of the nuances of military affairs, in their judgments, are guided not by the specific needs of the army, but by loud statements and advertising booklets of manufacturing companies that promise completely unrealistic opportunities. Why does America need the S-400? 400 km is the last century. We will create a naval missile system that hits targets in low Earth orbit!
On February 21, 2008, a rocket and satellite extravaganza took place over the Pacific Ocean - a Standard-3 rocket launched from the Aegis cruiser Lake Erie overtook its target at an altitude of 247 kilometers. The American reconnaissance satellite USA-193 was moving at this moment at a speed of 27 thousand km / h. It doesn't matter that the satellite was moving along a previously known trajectory, and the entire operation cost the American taxpayers $ 112 million.
Do you need a missile defense system? Senators nod their heads in agreement and open their wallet, write out funds for the creation of a "third positional region" in the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania. Everything is correct on the flat map - the interceptor missiles are located at the very border of the "potential enemy". Indeed, what's the difference: the flight paths of Russian ballistic missiles lie across the North Pole - American interceptors will have to shoot in pursuit, which has no military sense. Achilles and the tortoise is a famous paradox from Ancient Greece.
And here's a great example: in the 60s, the American public learned from the pages of newspapers that nuclear cruisers are what the US Navy lacks. Strength, beauty, and unlimited possibilities are a symbol of America's technological might. Despite the protests of sailors, Congress ordered the construction of the nuclear cruiser "Trakstan" - the congressmen did not care that the ship's autonomy was determined not only by the fuel reserves. "Trakstan" turned out to be an expensive, difficult and dangerous cruiser to operate, while it did not have any real advantages over non-nuclear projects.
Or the basically unfeasible Star Wars (SDI) program - a figment of Ronald Reagan's acting imagination - has found the most burning support in Congress. Hundreds of scientific teams set to work, testing of incredible missile defense systems and interceptor satellites began … and what was the result? At the beginning of the 21st century, American astronauts fly into low-earth orbit in Russian Soyuz. Well, to our delight, the US Congress has completely ruined many useful projects, instead of completely unnecessary and useless "wunderwales".
If earlier the Americans managed to create successful models of technology (the F-15 fighter has been flying in the skies around the world for 40 years), now Congress and the Pentagon are inspired by completely inadequate ideas - this is most clearly evidenced by the incredible story of the creation of the F-35. The cost of this program almost equaled the cost of the Raptor development program ($ 56 billion F-35 versus $ 66 billion F-22). At the same time, the F-35 was originally planned as a mass type of the 5th generation fighter with limited, compared to the F-22, characteristics and a much more modest price! A year ago, a scandal erupted - due to design errors, the newest super-fighter could not land on the deck of an aircraft carrier at all. For such a deception of public expectations, Congress, for sure, should have initiated an investigation and taken harsh measures against the perpetrators? But the congressmen made a number of statements to the reporters' cameras and regularly continue to fund the program. The possible reason for their strange behavior will be mentioned below.
Soldiers don't want to die
Among other "outstanding" achievements of the Congress - involvement in the involvement of the United States in conflicts in Southeast Asia. Paradoxically, it was the civilian leadership that made the decision on the US invasion of Vietnam: President Lyndon Johnson, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and was fully approved in Congress. At the same time, the Pentagon from the very beginning, without enthusiasm, accepted the decision to involve the armed forces in resolving conflicts in the countries of Southeast Asia. Former US Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, who was a young officer during the Vietnam War, recalled: "Our military was afraid to tell the civilian leadership that this method of war would lead to a guaranteed loss." According to the conclusion of a major American analyst Michael Desch, unconditional obedience of the military to civilian authorities leads, firstly, to the loss of their authority, and secondly, it unties the hands of official Washington for further adventures similar to the Vietnamese one.
Bill Clinton's foreign policy, which was characterized by "humanitarian interventions" with unrestricted use of force, eventually met with open resistance from the military. General Powell openly published an article in which, as a military professional, he convincingly refuted the doctrine of "humanitarian intervention", suggesting instead the metered use of the US Armed Forces only to ensure the protection of critical facilities in the enemy's civil war, as well as to intimidate the opposition. General Powell's moderate position as chairman of the Chiefs of Staff prevented the US Army from launching a ground operation in Bosnia (1995) and Yugoslavia (1999).
In February 2003, during a special session of Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (civilian), in a harsh form, demanded that the military implement the ambitious plans of the Washington leadership to occupy Iraq with minimal forces and as soon as possible. General Eric Shinseki reasonably noted that it would not be difficult to defeat the Iraqi army, but subsequent bloody operations aimed at stabilizing the situation would require tens of times more effort and time than the civilian strategists had planned. Time has shown who was right in that heated debate.
The whisper of reason drowned out only the rustle of bills
Returning again to the issues of supply and rearmament of the army, this time it is worth considering the situation in the context of today's reality. The incompetence of congressmen is not the biggest problem in the relationship between Congress and the Pentagon. Officers periodically organize technical literacy seminars to introduce civilians to the nuances of military science.
Much more serious is another fact: the Pentagon needs hundreds of thousands of contracts annually for billions of dollars with military-industrial complex corporations, research institutes, analytical organizations and numerous small firms.
Since congressional approval is required to approve orders, a vicious triangle of interests emerges: Pentagon - Business - Congress. It is within this triangle that the most complex relations are developing, involving civil and military officials of various levels with all possible consequences, of a corrupt nature.
After all, it is no coincidence that a fairly significant part of high-ranking officers involved in the execution of public procurement, after their resignation, go into business, occupying high positions in private firms associated with the production and supply of weapons and military equipment.
On the other hand, the establishment of warm relations with the heads of the relevant committees and commissions of the Congress guarantees excellent political prospects for senior officers following the upcoming resignation. From the recent past, the famous American generals Colin Powell and Wesley Clark, who became one of the leading figures in the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, are usually cited as examples.
It doesn't matter who drips on whom, as long as nothing comes out of it
Of the positive aspects of the American control system of the Armed Forces, the following should be noted: civilian congressmen are closely monitoring the Pentagon, monitoring the implementation by the Ministry of Defense of all its requirements and instructions. A huge body of analysts on various issues and broad powers allow Congress to subject to a deep and comprehensive analysis of the activities of the military department, to such an extent that the Pentagon employees developed a "fortress besieged syndrome", forcing the generals to find the most sophisticated excuses and original ways to reflect the harsh criticism constantly pouring on their heads from Capitol Hill. At the same time, not forgetting that the best defense is offense. With the backing of influential figures in the presidential administration, the Pentagon has occasionally lashed out at lawmakers. The generals' claims remain unchanged - insufficient attention to the military and cynical criticism that defames the US Army.
It is almost impossible for the American military to hide their mistakes and miscalculations from the general public: any disaster becomes a reason for a comprehensive investigation. A special commission of civilian observers is being created in Congress; they know little about the technical aspects of the problem, but a well-developed staff of analysts and consultants, including from the former military, allows you to quickly get to the bottom of the causes of what happened.
