This undated file photo provided by the General Dynamics Land System shows the production of an Abrams tank in Lima, Ohio. Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams, which the Army refers to with a moniker that befits their heft: the M1A2SEPv2. The upgraded tanks cost about $7.5 million each, according to the Army, and service officials say they have plenty of them. (The Associated Press)
Tanks have a very specific job in wartime. In the big battles across Europe in World War II, tanks were an indispensable part of the field arsenal. They were essential to confront Germany’s and Italy’s bunkers and tank battalions. During the first Iraq war, the Army needed a lot of heavy firepower on the ground because the United States knew that Saddam Hussein had amassed most of his own tank battalions either in Kuwait or on the border. In the second Iraq war and in Afghanistan, tanks have been great for displaying muscle and impressive firepower, but there really hasn’t been a lot of strategic use for them.
The nature of war has changed. The tank is still useful in some contexts, but in an age where drones and rapid-response forces are being shifted to do the bulk of the fighting, there’s not as much of a use for a piece of heavy equipment that doesn’t transport or deploy easily and is only useful in very tightly defined circumstances.
The Army says it has more Abrams main battle tanks than it needs. It really, really doesn’t need any more. And in these budget-conscious times, the Army really, really, really doesn’t want to keep spending more of its precious dollars on hardware that it already has an oversupply of. But Congress doesn’t see it that way. Especially the two hard-charging, austerity-minded Republican members of Congress from the state where the Abrams is manufactured. It seems that when it comes down to cost-consciousness, Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman see things exactly the way Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown sees it: Job creation trumps austerity.
All three want to force the Army to keep spending money — $436 million, to be exact — on a 70-ton tank that the Army doesn’t want or need. They say they know best what the Army’s hardware needs should be. But what it really boils down to is the political need to keep people working in Ohio.
The Democrat’s position on this is hardly surprising because the party lines up with President Obama in arguing that in times of marketplace stagnation, job creation and spending are what reinvigorate the economy. Republicans argue that we’re already way over budget and that, for the long-term fiscal health of our country, we’ve got to stop spending money we don’t have. And definitely stop wasting money, the GOP says.
Except, of course, when common-sense budget cutting — for an expensive item the military says it does not need — would force a major Ohio employer to retool. Portman and Jordan need to come clean. Either admit that you’re doing this for the jobs, or stand on principle and be willing to take the heat at home. You can’t have it both ways, though.