The profits of doom

When Jimmy Carter first campaigned for president he made the solemn pledge to a nation-wide television audience that the United States would end its role as the world's top arms merchant. His promise appealed to a good many American voters who were sick and tired of seeing their tax dollars squandered on the manufacture of lethal toys intended for delivery to trigger-happy tinhorn dictators.Like many of the former president's other electoral vows, Carter's pledge to bid a farewell to arms-peddling too had a ninepin-like quality to it. During his administration the foreign military sales soared.Today, five years later, the Reagan Administration has lurched forward on supply-side defence and foreign policy that even the country's closest NATO allies, particularly West Germany, fear will create new world tensions and an arms race. And the American-built F-16 fighter-bomber has become the symbol of the Reagan Administration's apparently mindless decision to hurl other nations into economically enervating dogfights.The Arabs dread the F-16 in the hands of the Israelis, particularly after its use by Israel against Iraq's atomic reactor. The Israelis fear it winding up in the hands of the Saudis. The Chinese and the Taiwanese are awaiting with trepidation the day the warplane alights in one or the other's arsenals. The Mexicans and other Latin American states are unhappy over the proposed sale of the plane to Guatemala. And the Indians are jittery that Islamabad's acquisition of the fighter-bomber will encourage the generalissimo across the border to do some sabre-rattling.Affliction: But the F-16 is also a symbol of a deeper malaise, an economic one, that seems to compel the US to make decisions that are illogical and irrational, leading to the militarisation of its economy. This affliction - the drainage of brains and capital from the civilian economy into the military-oriented command economy - grips the planned and socialist economies as well.The F-16: An absolutely deadly menaceWhen President Eisenhower startled his old military cronies, more than two decades ago, by warning against the growth of what he called the 'Military Industrial Complex' it is doubtful that even he foresaw the extent to which the behemoth would straddle this nation. Defence expenditures are expected to top the trillion-dollar mark within the next five years.The social cost of the military budget is not readily apparent if the cost is viewed only as a percentage of the gross national product (GNP). As Dr Seymour Melman of Columbia University points out: "It is imperative to compare the military budget to fixed capital formation, a category that measures the money value of new construction and new machinery.By 1975, for example, US military expenditures were 6.1 per cent of the GNP, but 32.6 per cent of gross fixed capital formation of that same year." The military industry controls the largest single block of industrial resources of the economy. In the US, the fresh resources made available to the Defence Department each year since 1951 have exceeded the net profits (after taxes) left to the managers of all private corporations.The result is that the US Government and American society are locked into a military economy and into public policies based upon the brandishing of armed forces. This, according to Melman "translates into a political commitment to the arms race and to its supporting technical and production activity."The malinvestment of resources in the Pentagon not only deprives the civilian economy of venture capital but is also compounded by the nature of the defence lobby. More than half of all Department of Defence contracts go to companies that employ or were formed by former Defence Department officials. The old boy system has farmed out jobs to private consultants that the Defence Department should itself be doing. These profit-motivated contractors are identifying, defining and dictating the very programmes the Pentagon hires them to do.Incredible Waste: The system delivers a double blow to the economy. First the Pentagon becomes a private fiefdom for fast buck operators and a monument to incredible waste and corruption. The Washington-based Committee on National Security estimates that there are at least $32 billion (Rs 25,600 crore) of existing fat-sweetheart deals, unneeded programmes and weapons systems, fraud and faulty accounting - within Pentagon programmes.The second shock to the economy is a more fundamental one. The resources drained out of the civilian economy cause America to be less competitive in world markets. Three vital American industries - automobiles, steel, rubber - are declining and losing ground in world markets. But rather than make these industries more competitive through a reallocation of resources, the US Government does just the opposite.The Pentagon (foreground): Playground for cute little war gamesIt chooses, instead, to compete in world markets in armaments by building bigger and bigger bombs and faster and faster airplanes. The more competitive the international arms market becomes the more the resources allocated to the Pentagon. It's a vicious circle.Essential capital, entrepreneurial and engineering skills, economic inventiveness - the stuff of which solid economies are made - are sucked out of the market-place where they belong and poured into the vortex of the command economy of cost-plus military production, make-work jobs, and subsidy maximisation.The F-I6 is the inevitable product of this economic disequilibrium. But, once produced, it must be sold. And a need must be created. The creation of that need, then, becomes foreign policy. A geopolitical scenario - "The Russians Are Coming, The Cubans Are Coming" - becomes no more than an advertising gimmick or a sales pitch designed to sell a weapons system.Sales Pitch: Sure, the Russians did come. To Afghanistan. And they are still sitting there. But their brutish stupidity in venturing into Afghanistan drove American moderates out of power, set back all hopes of disarmament, and gave credibility to those Americans who say that the Soviets will next take over Pakistan.The Soviets provided America with the perfect international sales pitch it needed to enable it to sell the most sophisticated produce of its military-industrial complex to Pakistan. The man on the street - because the sales slogan has been repeated so often in the mass media by the Pentagon and the State Department - believes that the armament of Pakistan and the sale of F-16 is designed to "help that country deter Soviet aggression".Never mind that it is inconceivable that Pakistan would use F-16 against the Soviets. Pakistan is so frightened to death of the Soviets that it keeps one whole division, out of a total of 23, stationed in the north. Never mind that the Francis Fukuyama study, which influenced the Administration's decision to rear Pakistan, stated clearly that Pakistan needs arms primarily to fight India.And never mind that even the New York Times' conservative military correspondent, Drew Middleton, quoted western analysts as saying "No matter how many F-16s were included in the deal, the resulting Pakistani military structure would not provide an effective answer to a Soviet drive from Afghanistan into Pakistan."Mrs Gandhi (left) and Zia: Arming for another round?Logic has no place in a geopolitical construct aimed primarily at justifying the peddling of sophisticated military hardware to a developing country. But the cute little war games that are played out in the lavish offices of the Pentagon assume an ominous reality in the cubby-holes of South Block. Mrs Gandhi's blunt statements about the F-16 were hardly an over-reaction. The airplane is an absolutely deadly menace.As Israel demonstrated, the F-16's laser-guided bombs are accurate enough to hit the core of a nuclear reactor. Its electronic countermeasure devices can jam Indian radar, and neutralise ground-to-air defences. As one diplomat said: "They will be able to strike the hell out of any target in India within 600 miles of the border."According to reliable sources here, Mrs Gandhi is more seriously worried about the Pakistani acquisition of the F-16s than she has been willing to show in public. Her intelligence sources have informed her that there is now in Pakistan the incentive to seek revenge for the humiliation it suffered in the 1971 war.These sources have warned the Indian Government at the highest level that General Zia might use the Kashmir dispute for launching a series of pre-emptive air strikes against selected targets in India. Such targets, according to intelligence reports, "are likely to be nuclear power stations and oil fields rather than the military airfields attacked in 1965 and 1971".Small as the country is, Pakistan's armed forces and defence budget are nearly half of India's. Add to this the US arms package and the aid Pakistan expects from other Islamic states and Pakistan's defence expenditure shoots up to 75 per cent of India's. Defence analysts say that in quality and potential, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has at present far greater striking power than the Indian Air Force (IAF) at ranges beyond 150 km.Top this with the F-16 and you know what has worried Mrs Gandhi. Here's a quote from a briefing document on the subject: "The F-16 is a top-of-the-line fighter-bomber specially developed to meet current operational requirements of NATO and US air forces. It uses the latest technology in its design, avionics and electronic countermeasures. It is capable of operating in all weather by both day and night in both air and air-ground roles. It has an advanced multi-mode radar, and a computer system that enables the pilot to safely and effectively exploit all activities from the cockpit, managing everything from navigation and threat assessment to target selection and acquisition, and automatic weapon delivery."Significantly Superior: It can out-perform any Indian airplane in the IAF. Its thrustweight ratio of about 1.3:1 in air combat gives it an advantage in acceleration, and manoeuvreability over both the MiG-23 (about 0.85:1) and the Jaguar(about 0.7:1).For attacking ground targets, it can deliver a much greater payload at a greater range than either the Jaguar or the MiG-23. The F-16 is significantly superior in technology and performance to any other combat aircraft in the South Asian region. And it even demonstrated its superiority in the European theatre during recent NATO exercises.The Aerospace Daily re-reported: "Competing with F-111s and Royal Air Force (RAF) Jaguars and Buccaneers, the F-16s scored 7,831 of a possible 8,000 points and beat the second place team by 1,074 points. Penetrating air and ground defences to strike simulated targets, flight crews were scored on bombing accuracy and countering interceptor threats. The F-16s were the only aircraft in the competition to hit all targets in two days of bombing runs against a convoy of vehicles. "The air-to-air threats - RAF F-4s and Lightnings - put constant pressure on the competing aircraft from five minutes after they took off until they landed. During the 16 competition sorties, the F-16 team achieved a total of 88 kills - while suffering no losses - in engaging the interceptor aircraft. The other teams received a total of 42 losses and collectively made only one kill. The F-16s demonstrated superior survivability against surface-to-air Rapier missile threats, and averages a 10.5 minute turnaround time on the ground."There is little doubt that the Reagan Administration's F-16 decision has jettisoned chances for closer Indo-US ties and bombed out Mrs Gandhi's hopes for the 'new beginning'. The Administration's agreement to sell this monstrous mechanical marvel of the air to Pakistan poses not just the problem of an arms race that India can ill afford but also a foreign policy dilemma. There is little doubt that the Reagan Administration's F-16 decision has jettisoned chances for closer Indo-US ties and bombed out Mrs Gandhi's hopes for the "new beginning".It is also a decided shift in American policy in the region which, under Jimmy Carter, supported a regional Pax Indiana. The Indians used to be continually reassured that the US considered them to be the pre-eminent power in the region. Not so any longer.The "pre-eminent power" has instead received a kick in the fanny from Uncle Sam who did not even go through the motions of trying to reassure India - as was always the case - that the F-16s would not be used against India. It was, of course, impossible to guarantee this, but it was a necessity, an essential diplomatic courtesy.Catching Up: The international consequences of the internal dynamics of America's military economy have played havoc with a location of economic resources on the subcontinent. The grim catch-as-catch-can game began with arms to Pakistan under Seato and Cento. Pakistan got the F-86 Sabre, a first-class plane. India had to buy three just to match it - the Hunter, the Mystere and the Gnat. In the 1965 war the F-86 devastated the Indian Vampire over Chhamb. And during the first days of the war American firepower - F-86s escorted by F-104s - was extensively and effectively used against Indian forward bases in Pathankot, Halwara and Srinagar.Between the two wars, Pakistan purchased the Mirage 3 and 5, installed sophisticated detector devices that made the Indian Canberra vulnerable and acquired the Chinese F-6, a good low-level interceptor and striker. India countered by acquiring the Soviet SU-7 for ground support, and increasing its MiG-21 fleet. But Pakistan still had the deep penetration capacity of its Mirages.The 1971 war showed the SU-7 to be a bummer. It had a high casualty rate and had to be junked. But the MiG-21 devastated the F-104 in the air. Since 1971 the MiG - the workhorse of the IAF - was improved in India to give it more manoeuvreability and speed.Pakistan purchased more Mirages from France. It was in order to neutralise the threat of the Mirages that India negotiated the Jaguar deal. But sources in Washington say that the Jaguar is a poor performer, the Indians know it and will weasel out of the contract after buying 50 of them.Now came Pakistan's turn. The Pakistanis asked the Carter Administration for the A-7 attack aircraft but were instead offered the F-5, a purchase the Indians decided they could live with. Pakistan's original request for the F-16 was turned down and it was only after Brzezinski's visit to Pakistan the promise of the F-16 was held out to Pakistan.The only aircraft that is capable of competing with the F-16 is the Mirage 2000. But fully equipped, each Mirage costs about $25 million (Rs 20 crore) a pretty piece of change for a poor country like India. So her options are to buy the Mirage, or to wait and see if Pakistan starts another war, or to do some heavy diplomatic bitching.A little of the latter has been occurring. And it has not gone unnoticed. But the American reaction is tough. As one American official put it: "Why do the Indians gripe about our arms sales to Pakistan? Instead of complaining about the other person they should go out and buy more arms. Or ask us for the same arms." The attitude is fairly common. It is also the perfect portrait of the American diplomat as salesman for the military industrial complex.Published By: AtMigration Published On: Nov 15, 2013 08:10 IST--- ENDS ---

Download App

Get 37% off on an annual Print +Digital subscription of India Today Magazine

The profits of doom

When Jimmy Carter first campaigned for president he made the solemn pledge to a nation-wide television audience that the United States would end its role as the world's top arms merchant.

PUBLICATIONS

TELEVISION

EVENTS

RADIO

GAMING

USEFUL LINKS

PRINTING

WELFARE

DISTRIBUTION

SYNDICATIONS

WEBSITES

EDUCATION