Harvard at the Pentagon

Last week, President Obama nominated Ashton B. Carter, the Ford Foundation Professor of Science and International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government, to become the new director of weapons procurement at the Pentagon. Carter, who has been an outspoken critic of wasteful and excessive defense spending, brings an already-impressive resume to the position, having served as assistant secretary of defense for international security during the Clinton administration. We applaud Obama’s wise selection and hope that Carter’s nomination signals a major change in the Defense Department’s procurement policy.

The selection of Dr. Carter is especially wise given the acute economic crisis. In January, President Obama inherited an inefficient national-security apparatus that has become accustomed to bloated budgets and continual cost overruns; last year, the Pentagon spent $104.3 billion on weapons procurement alone. This staggering sum, however, represented less than one-fifth of the Defense Department’s total budget of more than $515 billion. Since President Obama has made cutting the massive federal deficit a major priority of his administration, a modest reduction in defense spending is an attractive and intelligent choice.

In particular, we look forward to seeing Carter take on several pressing challenges from the defense industry, which has become alarmingly powerful through its indirect control over procurement policy. The Bush administration’s tenure in office was marked by the rapid proliferation of no-bid contracts between the Pentagon and numerous defense contractors; the result was an ugly mess of a procurement program that failed to achieve any noteworthy successes. The Rumsfeldian fracas over up-armored Humvees—which failed to appear in any appreciable quantity in the Iraqi theater of operations until more than four years after the beginning of combat operations—is just one example of how poor management and lenient oversight at the Pentagon have cost the American military millions of dollars and thousands of unnecessary casualties.

Carter’s appointment also represents an opportunity for policymakers to update our procurement priorities for the conflicts of the 21st century. Despite the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed nearly two decades ago, the Pentagon has continued to pour billions of dollars into Cold War-era projects while ignoring relatively inexpensive but very effective solutions to real military problems on the ground. Last year, the Pentagon spent more than $8 billion on unproven and untested missile defense systems but neglected to address the simple fact that the M16 and M4 rifles we issue our soldiers do not function well in the sandy or dusty conditions of Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, we call upon Carter and his colleagues to re-assess the strategic situation at hand and adjust our weapons procurement policy to the reality of the present day.

Finally, we are also appreciative of the fact that Carter’s appointment to the top spot at the Pentagon’s procurement division breaks a long-standing tradition of appointing former defense industry executives and lobbyists to the Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics branch. This is an essential component of breaking the “revolving door” mentality that has characterized weapons procurement policy in recent years, especially in high-technology, high-cost programs like the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. To that end, we hope that Carter can change the culture of excessive spending and bring common sense to American weapons procurement.