Defense Department Hedges on Life-Saving Technology - Politics As Usual?
I don’t usually watch television news, but I caught tonight’s NBC report about a defense technology called “Trophy,” developed by an Israeli firm. From what I can tell, it’s a countermeasure-type defense technology designed to protect armored vehicles from rocket-propelled grenade attacks. The Army refuses to deploy the technology, giving a string of excuses, which the Israeli Army and the technology’s manufacturer quickly debunk – that the device may not be safe, does not provide 360 degree coverage, and does not have an auto-reload mechanism. Also, they state that the IDF, or Israeli Defense Force, has not started to implement the technology in their armed forces, which NBC demonstrates is patently untrue.
So what are the politics involved? The NBC report only hints at this, but a contract with defense contractor Raytheon to develop its own version of a similar technology may have played a large role in the Pentagon’s hemming, hawing and stalling on the technology. Raytheon has always been a large campaign contributor to both parties, but has been trending towards supporting Republican candidates. Raytheon’s technology is not expected to be combat ready until 2011. Is the Pentagon taking a pass on a crucial defense technology that could save American lives in the field right now and instead awarding the contract to an American defense company, whose technology won’t likely be ready for another four years?
In politics, it’s unavoidable that contracts will be awarded unfairly and based on favor, and past campaign contributions. Or, the Pentagon instinct to give the contract to an American firm may simply be out of patriotic interest. However, when it comes to the safety of troops fighting on the ground in an ever-dangerous quagmire, a reasonably safe technology like Trophy should not be subject to the traditional cronyistic Military-Industrial Complex shell game of awarding contracts. The American people must ask important questions - is the Pentagon playing games with American lives? And was this contract awarded for political reasons and was the pass on trophy a ploy simply to give Raytheon the project?
So what are the politics involved? The NBC report only hints at this, but a contract with defense contractor Raytheon to develop its own version of a similar technology may have played a large role in the Pentagon’s hemming, hawing and stalling on the technology. Raytheon has always been a large campaign contributor to both parties, but has been trending towards supporting Republican candidates. Raytheon’s technology is not expected to be combat ready until 2011. Is the Pentagon taking a pass on a crucial defense technology that could save American lives in the field right now and instead awarding the contract to an American defense company, whose technology won’t likely be ready for another four years?
In politics, it’s unavoidable that contracts will be awarded unfairly and based on favor, and past campaign contributions. Or, the Pentagon instinct to give the contract to an American firm may simply be out of patriotic interest. However, when it comes to the safety of troops fighting on the ground in an ever-dangerous quagmire, a reasonably safe technology like Trophy should not be subject to the traditional cronyistic Military-Industrial Complex shell game of awarding contracts. The American people must ask important questions - is the Pentagon playing games with American lives? And was this contract awarded for political reasons and was the pass on trophy a ploy simply to give Raytheon the project?
