Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Pentagon: Frugal to a fault
Two countries in the entire world fly F-14 Tomcats, the United States and Iran. Iran's aren't all that reliable because we haven't been willing to sell them any spare parts for cash money since they took our diplomats and Marines hostage in 1979. So we shut down our Tomcat program and shipped all the spare parts to the office in the Pentagon charged with squeezing every penny out of surplus stuff, whereupon we auctioned them off to front companies which resold the stuff to, er, Iran. As if there were any other buyer for surplus F-14 parts.
Somebody over there is dumber than a bag of hammers (which, by the way, ought to be worth more than old F-14 parts to everybody other than Iran).
24 Comments:
By 
Jeremiah, at
Tue Jan 16, 08:30:00 AM:
I think it's a great idea to sell spare parts for obsolete technology to our apparent enemy. Let's keep as many of those targets in the air as possible. I wouldn't want to see them shift their "airpower" over to something more modern and lethal, and why shouldn't we take their money and run? Someone has to solve the balance of payments problems! I just hope the merchants who sold the parts are the same guys who get $300 per toilet seat from the Pentagon!
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jan 16, 09:33:00 AM:
"...the same guys who get $300 per toilet seat from the Pentagon"
Those $300 toilet seats, $800 hammers, and $1,000 ashtrays in Pentagon procurement records are almost always fiction. Each year the Defense Department buries about $30 billion worth of tax money for CIA and other spy programs in the Defense Department's routine purchases. The money for $800 hammers probably was spent on a secret spy project in Afghanistan or some other country. Congressmen and journalists who attack those fake Pentagon purchases as examples of government waste are ignorant about Defense Department budgets.
In reality, the Defense Department usually pays about half of what an American corporation pays for the same item.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Jan 16, 09:54:00 AM:
Hawk and his loyal readership,
Russia has been arming Iran for several years now with air defenses, missiles, and the like. Why is it that when Iran has a few guys in Iraq, it's casus belli, but when Russia arms the country all y'all are calling for war against it's... what?
I'm genuinely curious. The Russia/Iran arms alliance is truly problematic if we anticipate war with Iran. Like the above commenter notes, if Iran is toting only 1970s technology, then any military intervention would be another Iraq-style cakewalk (with, in my opinion, all of the Iraq style instability, civil war, etc.). But if they're packing the latest Russian defenses, then things get dramatically more difficult on the front end.
I'm against any military intervention in Iran, especially while the Can't-Shoot-Straight Gang is in the White House, but what are your thoughts on Russia's arms sales to Iran?
LINK to today's missiles-to-Iran story from FOX.
LINK to a December, 2000 story on the state of the Russia/Iran arms trade back then.
LINK to story about air defense missiles delivered to Tehran.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jan 16, 10:54:00 AM:
Screwy - Russia's competition with the US for influence with Iran and in the Middle East is of course at the heart of the US challenge in Iran. Current day Russia and its historical antecedents have always sought to influence and control Iran. During the Shah's reign, US influence was preeminent. In the current moment, Russian influence exceeds ours -- but in my opinion, this is unnatural and will not be longlasting. Iran has a natural fear and loathing of the proximate Russians which far exceeds their natural distaste for the US. It is only the current theocracy which seems to tilt toward Russia for entirely practical reasons -- nuclear technology and arms. They also share a certain comfort with autocracy which we despise.
Can we overwhelm Iran militarily? Yes, of course. Iraq was similarly armed by the USSR (when the USSR was far closer to military parity with the US than it is today); was the fourth largest army in the world; and we nonetheless overwhelmed Iraq. The capability gap is today far wider than even then.
Having said that, just because you can doesn't mean you should. At the moment, the US is sending important messages to Iran about credibility and toughness, ideally which would cause Iran to adapt and avoid war. Freezing banking capabilities and aggressively deterring Iranian interference in Iraq is helpful. Israel's aggressive response to Hezbollah last summer was another message about crossing lines.
The Iranians are quite sophisticated in their challenges to American power and influence. They are testing US mettle. But they do have a memory about the costs of the Iran Iraq War and the undeclared naval war with the US 20 years ago.
Net net, I don't think the Iranians are interested in war with the US. They are interested in maximizing their power in the Middle East. They are interested in maximizing the value of their oil and gas assets. And this goal, by the way, they share with Russia -- though they also compete wiht Russia to sell their wares.
The US, meanwhile, seems to be acting as an honest broker in the Iraqi microcosm in the tension between shiites and sunnis. If Iraq can become a more stable place
and its freely elected government fairly balance the interests of each sect, this might be a powerfull step forward for the entire middle east, its freedom and modernization. In that event, the US will have far more friends in the region than the Russians. Remember, those Russian arms sold to Iranians are more credible threats to Arab nations and Israel than they are to us. By so aggressively dealing with the Iranians, the Russians are ceding everybody else's friendship to the US.
By 
, at
Tue Jan 16, 10:58:00 AM:
Mr. Hoolie's comments reminded me of this little limerick, which, appropriate to this website, involves a tiger:
There was a young lady from Niger,
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger.
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside,
And the smile on the face of the tiger
The question is, who is the tiger and who is the lady, with respect to Russia and Iran? Time will tell, no doubt.
PS: There are no tigers in Niger, but plenty of yellowcake, if you were interested.
-David
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jan 16, 11:08:00 AM:
Aviation industry gossip: When the French or the Americans supply jet fighters or other highly sophisticated weapons systems to potentially unpredictable countries today, the sellers allegedly sometimes include well-hidden self-destruct codes in the software. One satellite signal supposedly can render the equipment useless.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the Russians and the Chinese do the same thing.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Jan 16, 12:31:00 PM:
My view of the Russia/Iran relationship is based on my understanding to the US role in the early years of WW1.
Wilson wished to stay out of the war and yet much of the US economy benefited from it. We sold munitions and food to the allies and complained about german U boat attacks.
When the war reached stalemate it became an issue of attrition. The central power economies vs that of the allies. Of course the allies managed to finagle the Wilson Treasury department into "lending" rather than "selling" to the allies and that in part forced Germany's hand. Realizing that they were now fighting not only the french and the tommies in the trenches , but were also fighting the American factories and farms, the Germans resorted to full on U boat warfare. While the Americans protested their "neutrality" such neutrality was the subject of much discussion.
so the question becomes: what is Iran's relationship with the Russians? clearly arms and oil are the only things russia can offer that anyone will buy. but based on the foregoing, are the Iranians "buying" from the Russians or are the Russians simply supporting an ally?
finally I note that the Russians have treated muslims with absolute brutality. Between the Soviet invasion of A stan and the confrontations in chechnaya I believe the Russians have killed upward of 25,000 Muslims.
so my question is why, with that record, the Islamic Republic of Iran would do business with the russians at all?
By knighterrant, at
Tue Jan 16, 12:50:00 PM:
The phrase "war profiteering" comes to mind.
By , at
Tue Jan 16, 01:22:00 PM:
Skip,
I think you are low by a couple of magnitudes on that Muslim thing.
And going back to the days of Imperial Russia, they were doing a lot of the same brutal shenanigans in Chechnya then, as now. Tolstoy actually served there as a young man and wrote about it at the end of his life; the name of the book eludes me at this moment, though.
Like I indicated above, I think one will swallow the other. If I were a bettin' man, I would wager on.....
-David
By , at
Tue Jan 16, 02:51:00 PM:
DEC, "aviation industry gossip".
Is that part of the reason for the EU vs US tussle regarding GPS, and the EU Galileo Project, or is there more?
By , at
Tue Jan 16, 02:53:00 PM:
I see more screwing with the Sats, rather than individual planes/missiles, etc
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jan 16, 02:54:00 PM:
Skip - Stalin millions of Muslims. It was oppressive bruality of an impressive nature. The amswer is that the Iranians don't trust the Russians. But they will do business with them.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Jan 16, 03:04:00 PM:
I have a different theory. I believe that the Muslims recognize that the tools they are using against us won't work against the russians.
Putin & Co won't be affected by emotional blackmail. They have no reason to be nice nor to care what the "international community" thinks of their actions. So they respond to brutality with brutality.
since the Mullah's goal is world wide Islam, they are using russia to beat America and once that is done, they will then turn on Russia.
they are, in essence, picking off the weakest enemy first. I'm embarrassed to admit that we're the weakest right now, but in terms of response to agression, we certainly don't match the Russians.
I can't take credit for this thought though. I read this theory on VDH's private papers website and I've yet to read a cogent counter argument to it.
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Jan 16, 03:34:00 PM:
Better the devil you know than the devil you may get. Since it happened TWICE, one must suspect the hidden hand of an alphabet soup agency here.
the sellers allegedly sometimes include well-hidden self-destruct codes in the software.
Like a certain sophisticated gas pipeline control system of ours the Soviets thought they had "stolen" back during the Reagan era. The explosion was spectacular ;->
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jan 16, 03:46:00 PM:
To blogger. Re: Galileo project
I know nothing more about the project than what is in Dr. North's paper.
By , at
Tue Jan 16, 03:58:00 PM:
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Jan 16, 05:16:00 PM:
Thanks for your responses.
"in terms of response to agression, we certainly don't match the Russians." - skip
I don't think holding Russia up as a role model is terribly intelligent. They leveled Chechnya, and they're still dealing with terrorists. Funny - but wide open war doesn't seem to end the terrorist threat. There's a lesson here somewhere...
It's funny to me that you're talking about the Russians equipping the gear with self-destruct technology. Let's not pretend the Russians are our allies. They are our colleagues in terms of nukes, oil, wheat, and geopolitical chess, but we don't have a lot in common ideologically with Mr. Putin and his oligarchical cronies. Structurally, yes. Ideologically, nyet.
The Russians want a bigger share of the arms market, so they're selling to anyone who'll pony up. This is why the global arms market needs to be addressed in some serious way.
No one I've heard speak is willing to mention it at all. Not regarding nuclear proliferation or with any other arms. It seems that the free-marketeers are entirely in control of the arms trade. I'd love to see some saner heads begin to pay attention to how the arms trade lends itself to increased violence.
Some would posit that, since Iran is a declared enemy of the U.S. and Russia is arming them, Russia is aiding and abetting a declared enemy of the U.S.
This sort of meddling has been crowed about when others do it. But Russia is held to a different standard... funny.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Jan 16, 06:03:00 PM:
Subj: Arms Trade
I export military aviation products.
To most international suppliers of sophisticated defense products, wars are bad for business.
Wars tend to wipe out customers and business contacts. Wars destroy equipment, reducing opportunities to sell highly profitable spare parts and upgrade programs. During times of war, the U.S. government frequently gives away supplies and equipment to allies, eliminating export opportunities for American companies.
Political tension is good for business. Political tension prompts governments to buy the latest equipment and to keep existing weapon systems in tip-top shape. In addition, political tension prompts governments to spend a great deal of time on training, creating a large demand for consumable military supplies.
As a profit-seeking businessman, I prefer the tension of the Cold War to the violence of a hot war.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Jan 16, 06:46:00 PM:
I'm hardly holding up Russia as a model Screwy. I was simply noting the behavior of the Iranians.
nor did I contend that the Russian's approach has ended terror (although we don't hear much about this). My point is simply that in terms of satanic behavior the Russians have been killers while we've acted to support Muslims on a few occassions. I'm seeking to understand why Iran is facing off against us and not the Russians.
I believe I was clear about that.
Again, my response to your original question is focused on the definition of neutrality. The lesson I drew from my readings into our WW1 history is that our neutrality was legitimately questioned once the allies cash dried up. As soon as we began extending credit, we were in fact investing in an Allied victory, since an allied defeat meant we would not collect.
that's how the Germans saw it then and I believe that's a useful tool now. If the Iranians are buying, with cash, material and technical support from the russians, the Russian can be viewed as "neutral".
Would I prefer that the Russians didn't sell to Iran? Of course. No doubt the Kaiser would have prefered that we not sell to Britain as well.
As for the world wide arms trade, I think you're asking for trouble. On the one hand I hear a lot about national sovereignty. If the state of Iran wishes to do X, who are we to say no? On the other hand you wish to control the ability to buy material deemed necessary by that state to defend itself. The two seem at odds screwy.
As for the contrast with Iran, I wonder what the dividing line actually is. If the Iranians are supplying men and material to the people of Iraq and there is no compensation for this, they are supporting an ally, if the Shi ites are buying the stuff from Iran (which I doubt) they are just making money from war.
if we were to strike at Iran, as a hypothetical. When would the russian technical advisers violate the precepts of neutrality? If they leave immediately no harm no foul, if the stay and help the Iranians point and shoot, that's hardly the act of a neutral.
Does this get to your question?
By , at
Tue Jan 16, 11:06:00 PM:
skipsailing,
"they are, in essence, picking off the weakest enemy first."
This is the one bit that I don't follow. Wouldn't you go against the STRONGEST enemy first, while you have your other enemies as allies, and then deal with the weaker enemy when you are one on one?
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Jan 16, 11:06:00 PM:
Russia is aiding and abetting a declared enemy of the U.S.
Well, so were the French when they kept selling Saddam arms right up until 2003.
If you suggested attacking France, I might go along ;->
By , at
Tue Jan 16, 11:35:00 PM:
Look how long they used the B-52 i mean its one of the longists used bombers everAND DONT CROWD ME MAVRICK OR I,LL TELL JESTER
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Jan 17, 11:19:00 AM:
If Iranian technicians can use these 25 year old parts to bring their 25+ year old aircraft into operation, I would be amazed. And our Air Force will have targets that they have 20+ years of dogfighting experience against.
So basically we’re selling Iran target drones for our Air Force.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jan 17, 07:18:00 PM:
"So basically we’re selling Iran target drones for our Air Force."
I concur. The F-14 has been retired from service; the Navy obviously considers it obsolete. Better that they're armed with old equipment that we know inside and out than some new MIG. We should sell them Pershings and Shermans too. Hah.
