Mainstream newspapers need real military columnists

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker wrote a column on military procurement titled "Behind the battle over the F-35 fighter engine." My comment:

The Washington Post needs at least one columnist who isn't a political partisan AND who has a technical background that includes military science.

This column makes that need obvious, because Ms. Parker doesn't know what she's talking about, and applying what she does have expertise in--Beltway shenanigans--is not sufficient to paper over her lack of understanding of the underlying facts.

Congressmen vote for unneeded military projects because big government contractors make sure to subcontract subsytems in every state, and every congressional district if they can.

So their support for a project only tells us that a subsystem is/will be built in their district.

There is a strong argument for supporting multiple military suppliers of things like jet engines, but not to have multiple engines for one aircraft for one purpose.

Our military needs a variety of aircraft. So spread the enginemaking across several manufacturers. Don't, as another savvy commentor said, create chaos in the parts supply train with different subsystems for the same use in one project.

As for the F-35 itself--as another commentor said, we barely need the thing. Maybe someday China or someone else will truly challenge us in nation-to-nation war, and we should maintain our technological edge for such a circumstance.

But for the foreseeable futures--decades--what the military needs more than anything else is:

1. Highly trained troops with the ability to speak a little of at least one in-theater language and know a bit about the local culture.

2. A new rifle with the accuracy of an M-16 and the reliability of an AK-47.

3. UAVs, UAVs, UAVs, and pilots and mechanics and everything else for them--big ones that can carry bunker busters, smaller ones with machine guns, strategic reconnaissance ones, little hand-launchable recon ones, and ones in between, and more.

The Air Force slow walked UAVs because the generals are ex-flyboys. Time to catch up.

4. Navy UAV carriers with matching UAVs that have the reinforced landing gear and folding wings needed. A couple of these could put an end to Somali piracy, and do so cost-effectively.

And in general we need technology and human resources that help us fight insurgents who main weapons are roadside bombs and terrorizing locals.

All of these come far, far before a second F-35 engine. But Boeing, Northrop et al don't manufacture highly trained soldiers, so no one's lobbying for what our military really needs--or turning congressmen into their shills.