DEFENSE
Trump is blasting the military-industrial
complex. But he's one of its biggest boosters.
Trump has made the purchase, public display and
foreign sales of military hardware a major priority of his administration.
By
JACQUELINE FELDSCHER
09/08/2020
08:25 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/08/trump-military-defense-industry-booster-410396
Since
becoming president, Donald Trump has overseen historic increases in defense
budgets, fawned over military equipment, installed a number of defense industry
insiders in top Pentagon positions and made a major push to sell weapons
overseas.
But on
Monday, Trump said leaders at the Pentagon “want to do nothing but fight wars
so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the
planes and make everything else stay happy.”
Trump's
backers compared his comments to those made by former President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, who closed out his time in office by warning of a permanent
national security apparatus that guaranteed money would keep flowing toward
arms manufacturers.
Yet Trump's
record tells a different story. All three of his hand-picked defense
secretaries had ties to the defense industry: Jim Mattis was a member of the
General Dynamics board of directors, Pat Shanahan was an executive with Boeing,
and Mark Esper was Raytheon's top lobbyist. Mattis also returned to his board
position shortly after leaving the Pentagon, showing the revolving door between
industry and the Defense Department.
Nearly half
of senior Defense Department officials are connected to military contractors,
according to an analysis by the Project on Government Oversight.
But beyond
personnel choices, Trump has made the purchase, public display and foreign
sales of military hardware a major priority of his administration.
He has
championed two defense budgets that blew past $700 billion, and is preparing to
sign a third. The bill that Trump signed in 2018 locked in the largest budget
the Pentagon had ever seen, only to top it the following year.
He also
approved more than $55.6 billion in foreign weapons sales in fiscal 2018, his
first complete fiscal year in office, compared to $33.6 billion in foreign
military sales in fiscal 2016, the last year of the Obama administration.
The idea
that Trump is taking on the defense industrial base is “pure fantasy,” National
Security Action, a liberal advocacy group composed of former Obama
administration staffers, said on Tuesday. "Trump has consistently
prioritized the financial interests of America’s defense contractors — and, in
doing so, turned our values and long-term interests into collateral
damage."
Trump's
Monday comments create a “false narrative,” said Byron Callan, an analyst with
Capital Alpha Partners. He pointed to not only the amount of defense spending
in Trump's administration, but also his repeated attempts to showcase military
equipment during national celebrations.
“It’s
bizarrely inconsistent,” Callan said, pointing to Trump's affinity for military
parades and flyovers.
In a new
book by former family friend Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, Trump is said to have
wanted his inauguration to look more like Pyongyang than Washington.
“I want
tanks and choppers. Make it look like North Korea," he said, according to
the author.
Beyond the
parades, Trump also regularly speaks in front of military equipment, using
fighter planes, ships and ground vehicles as backdrops. The F-35 is a standard
part of his rally speeches. He routinely touts weapons sales when meeting with
foreign leaders. He even brought up military spending hikes during the White
House Easter Egg Roll last year.
And
industry insiders who spoke to POLITICO say they don't expect any of that to
change, even after Trump's comments on Monday.
In his
farewell address on Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned: “In
the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist.”
“He has a
really long history of really pushing the defense industry forward and bragging
about large defense budgets and talking about F-35s and rockets and things like
that, so I just don’t think anyone thinks there’s a lot of reality behind what
he’s saying,” one industry official told POLITICO, speaking on background to
discuss a sensitive topic.
Investors
also seemed to place no faith in the president’s latest comments. “I haven’t
gotten a call on it from anyone who is like, ‘Oh my god, Byron, should I sell
all my defense stocks?” Callan said. “I found it a bizarre statement. It makes
no sense, but I could see him flip 180 degrees in a week.”
One top
general on Tuesday pushed back against the president’s remarks, albeit
indirectly. Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville, while declining to
directly respond to Trump's comments, defended military leaders, saying those
in uniform are not thinking about defense contractors’ earnings when deciding
to send troops to war.
“Many of
these leaders have sons and daughters who have gone to combat or may be in
combat right now. So I can assure the American people that senior leaders would
only recommend sending troops to combat when it's required in national
security, or as a last resort," McConville said during an event held
Tuesday by Defense One. "I feel very strong about it."
The
pushback from McConville was just the latest sign of tensions between Trump and
the military, coming days after the Atlantic quoted anonymous sources claiming
the president has referred to wounded and dead troops as "suckers"
and "losers." The administration denies Trump said anything of the
sort; other news outlets have confirmed elements of the story.
The White
House doubled down on Trump’s view of military spending on Tuesday, though
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said Trump was not attacking a
particular general or civilian secretary.
“This
president is consistent about one thing: If we're going to send our sons and
daughters abroad to fight on our behalf, he's not going to let some lobbyist
here in Washington, D.C., just because they want a new defense contract,
suggest that they need to stay abroad one minute longer than they should,”
Meadows told reporters outside the White House.
Trump has
also made an aggressive push to sell weapons overseas. In 2017, he took credit
for a deal to sell arms worth $110 billion to the Saudis, although many of the
deals were negotiated under Obama. Trump touted the jobs created by the deal,
which will specifically benefit major primes such as Lockheed Martin and
Raytheon, former White House spokesperson Sean Spicer said in a 2017 briefing.
Trump
allowed arms sales to continue to Saudi Arabia even after the murder of
Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. In an interview at the
time, Trump said if the U.S. didn't sell to Riyadh, the Saudis would buy their
arms from China and Russia.
Trump
doesn't pass up opportunities to tout military equipment, and in the past has
brought up the topic at odd times. He praised the “invisible” F-35 during a
2017 Thanksgiving speech to members of the Coast Guard, a service that does not
operate the fighter jet. In a 2017 visit to Boeing’s South Carolina facility
for the unveiling of the 787 Dreamliner aircraft, he closed his remarks by
saying “God bless Boeing.”
Early in
his presidency, Trump did take on some major programs that he felt were bad deals
for the Defense Department, including claiming savings due to his personal
involvement in negotiations on the F-35 and Air Force One. Tom Spoehr, an
analyst with the Heritage Foundation, pointed to these actions as evidence that
Trump is unafraid to challenge the industrial base and cut costs for the
nation. He added that the president has a “hot and cold relationship” with
industry, where he pushes back on some programs while maintaining seemingly
close ties to some defense CEOs.
Mandy
Smithberger, the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project
on Government Oversight, commended Trump for being critical of over-budget
programs such as the F-35 and the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, or for
questioning whether the U.S. should be involved in decades-long wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. But she hasn't seen him take action to reduce the level of
spending or to tone down his rhetoric on weapons.
“He’s
raising important criticisms, but I haven’t seen a lot of follow through,” she
said.
Lara
Seligman and Bryan Bender contributed to this report.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário