Is the Abrams Battle Tank a Sacred Cow That Can't Be Cut?

Democrats and Republicans continue to wrangle over the looming budget sequestration that would cut over $100 billion dollars of spending on January 1, 2012. We've discussed this so-called "fiscal cliff" and its automatic defense spending cuts before on Real News, but now we are looking at a specific piece of that fiscal fight: Abrams battle tank refurbishment.

Readers of the Blaze are no doubt very familiar with the Abrams tank variants (M1, M1A1, M1A2). I would venture that some of you have even driven one, and certainly others fought in close proximity to them overseas. They're no doubt fearsome weapons, and in a tank-on-tank fight, there is probably no better tracked vehicle on earth.

But military preparedness is also about conserving and wisely deploying your resources in preparation for the next fight. And it seems some military spending cuts may be unavoidable given the current fiscal and political climate. So here's what is on the table, according to NBC News:

The Pentagon could save "as much as $3 billion by freezing refurbishment of the M1 from 2014 to 2017, so it can redesign the hulking, clanking vehicle from top to bottom."

I know there could be some grinding teeth right now among Blaze readers. By DOD standards, $3 billion dollars sounds like what is costs to upholster the seats on a few F-22 fighters (no cup-holders). But we need to take a real look at this debate, because conservatives need to establish that any non-essential public spending is in fact expendable, including very specific defense cuts.

First, I would offer the statements earlier this year of General Raymond Odierno. Odierno, formerly the top military commander in Iraq and widely regarded as a General's General, said in a February defense hearing that America may be stuck with "280 tanks that with simply do not need" under the pre-sequestration plan for refurbishment.

Watch Buck discuss the Abrams tank on TheBlaze TV/GBTV:

There are also strategic issues at play. Some military analysts have been tolling the bell for tanks going back years. Yes, mobile armor was a major innovation in the First World War, and a decisive battlefield component in the WWII and many following conflicts. But for the recent "small wars" of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations, a huge hunk of steel that vibrates windows a few city blocks away isn't always the best tool for the job, and they are vulnerable to IED's and urban ambush.

In fact, the U.S. ended up leaving many tanks-- and other pieces of heavy weaponry-- behind in Iraq. According to some estimates, 2.4 million pieces of military equipment, including over a hundred tanks, were left in Iraq when the U.S. pulled out its forces this past December. The U.S. was paid for some of it, but clearly at a steep markdown.

So the tank may soon be playing a more secondary role on the modern battlefield. That's up for debate, but it's only one part of this discussion.

There is also the issue of cold, hard Pentagon budgets, and how they can be influenced from the outside. There are indications that defense lobbyists continue to weigh into the Abrams dispute at critical junctures and have been very generous to certain Congressmen. Defense spending policy should be driven by military need, not re-election cycles. NBC News described the timing of political contributions from General Dynamics, the maker of the Abrams tank, here:

"Sharp spikes in the company’s donations – including a two-week period in 2011 when its employees and political action committee sent the lawmakers checks for their campaigns totaling nearly $50,000 – roughly coincided with five legislative milestones for the Abrams, including committee hearings and votes and the defense bill’s final passage last year."

Meanwhile, spokespersons for General Dynamics have suggested that the contributions coincide with Congressional fundraisers-- which just happen to coincide with key Congressional authorization milestones for the Abrams. Everybody seems to point fingers at the other guy.

This is problematic for a number of reasons. If Republicans want to keep the Abrams tank refurbishment program-- instead of focusing on a complete redesign, as some are proposing-- then that should be based solely on what best serves our war fighters. If pet Pentagon programs are allowed to thrive because of connected contractors, it will be easier for Democrats to muddy the political waters and make the case that mission-critical programs should also be on the chopping block.

Most conservatives have an initial gut reaction against military cuts, and this is understandable. National defense is one of the clear -- and undisputed -- enumerated powers granted the Federal government in the Constitution. And when we see $500 million of taxpayer dollars flushed down the drain over boondoggles like Solyndra, it's hard not to start counting how many Abrams tanks that would have bought (or funding for veterans programs, training, you name it).

But our political and strategic national defense realities are not static, and our mounting deficit alone is a national security concern. Democrats will threaten to chop at defense spending with an ax unless Republicans show a willingness to use a scalpel, when appropriate. And we need to recognize that in a $680 billion dollar annual budget, there is bound to be some wasteful spending. Senator Rand Paul has been making this point now for months.

If conservatives are serious about getting our national fiscal house in order, that means a willingness to look at all spending. Unlike green energy subsidies or pork-barrel earmarks, defense spending is easy to explain to the American people, who will overwhelmingly support it as critical to our national interest.

But we cannot let Democrats hold other defense spending hostage because some Republicans are reactionary. If there are cuts to be made, let's evaluate that, and make the necessary adjustments. Otherwise, the DNC tax-and-spenders will use GOP intransigence to take us all closer to fiscal insolvency.

I hope that Blaze readers and Real News watchers will weigh in with comments so we can really hash this out.