Los Angeles Times: Arms Issue May Sink Army Chief

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-050302white.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dtodays%2Dtimes

Arms Issue May Sink Army Chief
Military: Move to save endangered Crusader system angers Rumsfeld. Secretary
White's job appears to be at risk.
By GREG MILLER and JOHN HENDREN
Times Staff Writers

May 3 2002

WASHINGTON -- Army Secretary Thomas E. White's tenuous grip on his job appeared
to slip further Thursday after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld scolded Army
leadership for going behind his back to Congress to save an endangered weapon
program.

Rumsfeld said the Pentagon is looking into reports that Army leaders lobbied
lawmakers in recent days to salvage an arms system that the Defense secretary
and his top deputy are poised to scrap.

In characteristic language, Rumsfeld said he would have "a minimum of high
regard" for such behavior, a swipe aimed at least in part at White, who is
fighting to save the Crusader artillery system from budget cuts.

And even as top lawmakers vowed to work with leaders in the Pentagon to save the
$11-billion program, Rumsfeld made it clear he expects Army leaders to fall in
line. A Defense secretary ought to "be able to expect that the leadership and
overwhelming majority [of the Army] will in fact be supportive," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld's comments cast further doubt on the job security of White, already in
some peril because of questions about ties to his former employer, Enron Corp.,
and his recent use of military aircraft for personal business.

As recently as last week, White was taking credit for having persuaded Rumsfeld
to spare the Crusader system from cuts--a seeming success that many interpreted
as a sign that White's standing in the Pentagon remained solid.

White, a retired general, was unavailable for comment. An Army spokesperson
would say only that the secretary "is still firmly committed to serving the
Army."

Several officials in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill said the flare-up could
bring White's troubles to the tipping point. "The scuttlebutt has been for a
long time that they are looking for a way to get rid of White," said a
congressional source familiar with defense issues.

Rumsfeld has shown little patience for subordinates who voice dissent on Capitol
Hill. An assistant Army secretary, Mike Parker, was fired in March after
criticizing another budget proposal.

-- continued --

But others suggested that the Crusader fight could boost White's position by
aligning him with influential members of Congress.

"I think [White's job] is in less jeopardy because the support the Crusader has
had on the Hill in the last 24 hours would seem to support Secretary White's
position, not diminish it," said one senior Pentagon official who asked not to
be identified.

Among the key backers of the Crusader are Sen. Don Nickles and Rep. J.C. Watts,
both members of the GOP leadership and both from Oklahoma, where Crusaders would
be assembled and based at Ft. Sill. Sen. James M. Inhofe, another Oklahoma
Republican, is also fighting to save the program.

The latest tussle centers on a high-powered, self-propelled howitzer that is
slated to cost $475.2 million in the coming fiscal year.

Critics say that it is an outdated weapons platform and that the money would be
better spent on unmanned aircraft and other next-generation systems. But backers
say it provides three times the firepower of current artillery and can't be
replaced by air power.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz directed White to begin drafting
other spending plans "that would assume that Crusader was canceled," Rumsfeld
said.

Caught off guard, members of Congress desperate to save the program and,
apparently, officials from the Army's legislative affairs office, rallied to
resist Rumsfeld's plans. Lawmakers reportedly received faxed "talking points"
from the Army saying that cutting the Crusader would put soldiers at risk. And
the House Armed Services Committee late Wednesday included in a pending defense
authorization bill nonbinding language that calls for the continuation of the
Crusader.

There have also been contacts between White and key lawmakers. A spokesman for
Watts said the congressman has had at least two conversations with White in
recent weeks, but he would not elaborate. A spokesman for Inhofe said the
senator had also spoken to White but that it's "not true" White has lobbied
members.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to
www.lats.com/rights.

There really doesnt seem to be anything wrong with Crusader as far as doing its job goes. The major problem with it is its weight. It weighs as much as a M1 does, pushing hard on 70 tons. How do you get it to a place like Afghanistan?

It would be wonderful for fighting in the flat desert in Middle East, but not much use anywhere else.

Maybe it is not the cost of the weapon itself, but the money required to develop the next generation of transport planes to move the thing around. But in the context of stealth fighters and bombers, this weapon would be of limited use, from what I can see. Of course I am not an expert at warfare, the generals must have some battlefield application that is not obvious to me.

From a professional prospective, it is a mistake to cancel the crusader.  Right now the US is engaged in a limited war, in which use of fires is of limited value.  But with the assumption that we will eventually get into a all out war, than you need these types of fire support systems.  The current state of US tube artillery is everyone has better than us today.  And we shouldn't get too reliant on air as the sole source of fires, you just have to look at the recent CALL making its way around the military.  There is a discussion on why we specifically should not rely too heavily on air even in a permissive environment. In operation Anaconda, at the insertion of the 10th Mountain, the one the US took the most causatives at, an aerial prep was planned, however when the CH-47 showed up the prep was still 5 mins out, and the Army was asked to circle for 5-10 minutes. The CO decided to forgo the prep and land because of the danger of circling around the target area for 10 mins.