The Bunker: Department of Rhetoric

The Bunker, delivered to our subscribers Wednesdays at 7 a.m., is a newsletter from the desk of National Security Analyst Mark Thompson. Sign up here to receive it first thing, or check back Wednesday afternoon for the online version.

This week in The Bunker: Trump unilaterally tries to change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War because it sounds cooler to him; nonetheless, war contractors push for more spending on defense; the F-35’s bogus bonuses; and more.

THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR

…for Venezuela and the streets of U.S. cities…

President Trump kinda sorta changed the name of the Department of Defense back to the Department of War (its name from 1789 to 1947) on September 5. It’s tentative because officially, only Congress can officially change the Pentagon’s official name. But its shakiness is fitting for a commander-in-chief who is blasting suspected drug smugglers out of the water citing only “trust us” evidence, threatening an invasion of rinky-dink Venezuela, deploying troops to U.S. borders and increasingly peaceful U.S. cities, and whose administration is emphasizing such close-to-home missions over threats posed by China and Russia.

“I think the ‘Department of War’ sends a signal,” Trump said. But it is only an “additional secondary title” absent congressional approval, he conceded in the executive order detailing the change. If such lexicographic legerdemain sharpens the military’s focus on its true mission — no more forever, undeclared wars, and let the State Department handle nation-building — the action could be a name-game-changer and save billions. It could lead to a holstered U.S. foreign policy and turn the blunderbuss U.S. military into a scalpel

But don’t hold your breath. This rechristening is political theater, equal parts tragedy and farce. The Bunker was hoping for a more measured approach. That would have included enlisting Congress in the effort, instead of Trump taking action unilaterally. Such a change — both as momentous, and miniscule, as it is — needs to be earned, not bestowed.

Then again, presidents have been waging war unilaterally since Congress last declared war in 1942. “If we return to a ‘War Department,’ then we should also return to the constitutional requirement that any military activity engaged in by that department short of defending against an imminent attack on the U.S. requires a congressional declaration of war,” Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman and self-described constitutionalist said. “That was the practice followed when it was called the War Department and we should return to it.”

That would save billions, if not trillions. But it also would require a Congress with guts and moxie. Given the current congressional crop, it should come as no surprise that our craven lawmakers were AWOL as President T.N.T. Barnum single-handedly tried to rebrand the nation’s war-making machine.

THE ARCTIC THREAT

Cold, hard cash needed for snow job

Speaking of changing the U.S. military’s moniker from the Department of Defense to the Department of War, it’s interesting to note that President Trump’s biggest military initiative is his Golden Dome for America aerial shield of dreams. That’s a defensive shield, and no wordplay is going to change that. Pound for pound, offense is cheaper than defense: The attacker gets to choose when, where, and how to attack, playing to its own strengths (box cutters, anyone?). But defenders have to be ready 24/7 to grapple with as many threats as the Military-Industrial Complex can conjure up (PDF), and that’s a full-time job for thousands.

Defense contractors — oops, war contractors — understand that Golden Dome is going to be their next groaning board of bucks (Trump’s $175 billion estimate is a low-balled joke). That’s why the day before Trump announced the name change, a prime pusher of defense spending — oops, war spending — declared that the following “urgent” steps must be taken to defend (OK, in this context) the U.S. against attacks coming in over the North Pole (please excuse the Pentagon gobbledegook):

• Accelerate the fusion of all-source data to enhance Arctic domain awareness.
• Configure Sky Range UAVs for dual-use homeland defense aerial surveillance.
• Lead international commitment to E-7 Wedgetail acquisition.

• Accelerate fielding of space-based Arctic domain awareness capabilities.

• Create a new Assistant Secretary of Defense responsible for “Arctic Security.”
• Foster NATO’s Arctic focus and direct partnership with NORAD.

The report, Homeland Sanctuary Lost: Urgent Actions to Secure the Arctic Flank (PDF), is from the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. That’s the educational arm of the non-profit Air and Space Forces Association, whose mission is to urge that more money be spent on — duh — air and space forces.

Of course, that bottom line — just how much this armed aurora borealis might cost — was MIA. But apparently, with the right elixir of exaggeration and doom, even the sky is not the limit.

BOGUS BONUSES

The latest in F-35 news

The Government Accountability Office put out yet another report on the Pentagon’s troubled F-35 program (it’s at least the 46th) on September 3. We won’t bore you with the all-too-familiar tales of Lockheed’s $2 trillion fighter program that’s years behind schedule and billions over budget, beyond this nugget:

“The F-35 program office compensated Lockheed Martin with hundreds of millions of dollars of performance incentive fees while the percentage of aircraft delivered late and the average days late grew.” Bonus nugget about the bonuses, buried in a GAO footnote: “Details related to incentive fee available, incentive fee earned, and incentive fee structure are confidential commercial and financial information and exempt from disclosure.”

Bottom line: You’re being ripped off, but only the Pentagon and its contractor know how badly.

The Bunker humbly suggests that the GAO change its name, at least as far as the F-35 is concerned, to the Gripe Always Organization. That’s because no matter how many critical F-35 reports it publishes, nothing ever changes. It seems like the GAO keeps knocking at the Department of War’s front door and declaring that its hottest fighter is a hangar queen with halitosis, but no one is listening.

Well, actually, that’s not quite right. While past administrations have grudgingly acknowledged the merit of some GAO recommendations, the Trump team prefers to cover its ears. “We’re not big fans of GAO,” Russell Vought, the powerful director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, told the National Conservatism Conference September 3. “They are a quasi-legislative independent entity and something that shouldn’t exist.”

Apparently, a stealth fighter deserves stealth oversight.

WHAT WE’RE READING

Here’s what has caught The Bunker’s eye recently

→ Figures…

Good News: Steve Trimble of Aviation Week wrote September 5 about the cheap and quickly developed missile the U.S. is providing Ukraine. Bad news (for Lockheed and Raytheon): it’s being built by two defense contractors you never heard of.

→ Long-distance voyager

The Air Force is readying for war with China by testing drones capable of carrying supplies in the vast Pacific theater, Lauren C. Williams at Defense One reported September 6.

→ Yesterday’s war, tomorrow

The Pentagon has begun flight tests of its next generation of “doomsday planes” — airborne command posts for waging nuclear war — Stephen Losey of Defense News reported September 4.

Thanks for climbing into The Bunker’s fallout shelter this week (don’t forget to close the hatch!). Forward this on to kith and kin so they can subscribe here.