The End
of Infamy
"The Pentagon did not take an active role in trying to influence
the portrayal of Japanese forces [in the controversial Disney movie "Pearl
Harbor"], but we noted from the outset that the film did not intend
to demonize the Japanese military. We simply took note of that, and it
certainly wasn't troubling to us. I think we would have been troubled
if they had tried to demonize them."
-Philip Strub, DOD's chief film reviewer and advisor, in the May
24 Washington Times.
Peace and Co-Prosperity
"WOULD A MILITARIZED JAPAN BENEFIT ASIA?"
-Headline from July 1 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser.
The Hated "H" Word
"Over the past several weeks, you've heard a lot about ... how
we're going to handle our defense challenges. And, generally, the solutions
involve two alternatives: either adjust the strategy to meet what we
have available to execute it with, or you adjust the resources to meet
the strategy. There's another way, and that is to look at these [aerospace
combat] capabilities and use them to increase and basically enhance our
joint concept of operations. [We should] investigate and explore how
we can accomplish-with precision engagement-the halt of enemy aggression,
the halt of enemy activity early on, and expand our different capabilities
in a variety of ways. ... There's huge institutional resistance to change
inside the Department of Defense. Wouldn't you all like to have the capability
to halt aggression? Well, there are some forces out there that view the
four-letter word 'halt' as a four-letter word."
-Maj. Gen. (sel.) David Deptula, head of USAF's national defense
review office, in June 27 remarks in Washington.
Try West Virginia
"If we were to station a handful of interceptors in Alaska in 2004,
there is no guarantee-none, no guarantee-that they would provide any
useful [missile] defense at all. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
has downplayed this problem, saying that an early system does not have
to be 100 percent effective. ... I do not support the deployment of a
multibillion dollar scarecrow that will not be an effective defense if
a missile is actually launched at the United States."
-Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) in June 25 Senate floor speech.
Perle of Wisdom
"If the Europeans asked us not to defend ourselves, while asking
us to defend them, [that] simply is unsustainable. We are going to proceed
with the missile defense, and either they can join us in that endeavor
or they can sit on the sidelines and complain about it."
-Pentagon advisor Richard Perle, June 5 Financial Times of London.
DOD's New Best Friend
"I want to briefly highlight one very important priority that this
tax bill threatens-a strong national defense. Like many of my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle, ... I am very concerned that the Bush tax
plan makes it extremely difficult to give our men and women in uniform
the support they deserve. Many of the men and women who protect this
nation are underpaid and underequipped right now. ... [T]he surplus will
be largely squandered, and I'm afraid America's troops will find themselves
squeezed out."
-Rep. Martin Frost, liberal Texas Democrat and chairman of House
Democratic Caucus, in June 7 statement.
Jovial Fellow
"[USAF officials] don't really have a solution to ... the problem
of aging software in the avionics. One of the things that's surprising
in some ways, and disappointing, is that the B-2, which is one of the
newest aircraft we have, has an avionics suite that is written in Jovial.
I programmed in Jovial when I was in the Navy in 1969, and it was kind
of a dead language then. It's almost the equivalent of speaking ancient
Greek today. It's going to be an industrial base issue, a personnel issue.
... Even the commercial stuff that's on our aircraft was commercial 15,
20 years ago, and it's no longer actually being maintained."
-F. Whitten Peters, former Air Force Secretary, quoted by reporter
Adam J. Hebert in June 1 issue of Inside the Air Force.
Back to Bombers
"Geographically, current planning scenarios are limited to littoral
regions such as Iraq and North Korea, where most or all of the potential
targets are within range of fighter attack forces operating at sea and
from nearby allied territory. But these are not the most stressing threats
that we may face. It would be far more prudent to optimize our forces
to deal with the potential adversaries that truly threaten vital US interests:
a resurgent Russian threat to Europe, an expansionist Chinese threat
to its Asian neighbors, and an aggressive Iranian threat to the sustained
and affordable flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. This is not to say
that these are the only threats we should prepare to face, but they are
the ones that should dictate the size and shape of our military forces
two decades hence. For air forces, ... the common challenge posed by
all these threats is strategic depth. ... These are not threats that
our current or planned forces are optimized to deter or defeat. But a
bomber-centric attack force has much more relevance in all of these scenarios.
... Despite these changes in the threat, we continue to pursue a force
structure that is an enhanced version of the one that fought Desert Storm."
-Gen. Richard E. Hawley, retired commander of USAF's Air Combat Command,
writing in Spring 2001 issue of Strategic Review.
Copyright Air Force Association. All rights reserved.
|