Victory on the C-17, but concerns remain

Senate Appropriates Committee conferees, who today secured funding for 10 additional C-17 airlifters, are to be commended for recognizing the inadvisability of terminating the production line of the Nation’s only highly capable, heavy-lift transport aircraft. At this stage of the global War for the Free World, to do otherwise would have been exceedingly costly.

Similarly, Senator Jim Talent – whose position on the Armed Services Committee afforded him significant influence on this issue – is to be applauded for his leadership in ensuring the extension of the C-17’s production line. As Sen. Talent explained, "There are few systems more important to our armed forces than this aircraft. The C-17 is the transport of choice, able to carry troops, vehicles and supplies to any point on the globe making its reliability and versatility unmatched." This view matches that expressed recently in a Washington Times column by Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., who cautioned against shutting down production of the C-17, observing that "this plane is an indispensable part of America’s ability to project power."

Despite today’s victory, the Center for Security Policy remains concerned about the inadequate attention being paid by many in Washington to the necessity of providing for a robust defense industrial base and hot production lines operated by reliable suppliers to meet America ‘s present and prospective war material needs. A failure to redress this shortsightedness invites potential calamitous shortfalls in the equipment capabilities upon which both our men and women in uniform and our Nation as a whole depend for the future. The obvious, and probably growing, need for the kind of power projection made possible by C-17 airlifters should compel a careful reassessment of the defense industrial base’s capacity to meet such needs over the long haul.

Unfortunately, evidence of the gravity of the problem continues to mount, as planners, policymakers and corporate boardrooms alike continue to demonstrate a preference for short-term profits over long-term security in the face of this growing challenge. Dangerous and historically ignorant are apt descriptions of policies that fail to invest in the U.S. military in peacetime. But failing to invest sufficiently in our defense capabilities in time of war is reckless in the extreme. At some point, such behavior breeds not just defeatism. It assures defeat.