F-22s and the Alliance Defense Contractors Couldn't Beat

Just minutes before Tuesday's Senate vote on continued production of the F-22 jet fighter, John McCain called it "probably the most impactful amendment that I have seen in this body on almost any issue, much less the issue of defense." Barack Obama's legislative lobbyists, watching the Senate debate on television from Majority Leader Harry Reid's office, were in full agreement with the 2008 GOP presidential nominee.

The alliance between the White House and McCain to strip funding for the F-22 from the Pentagon budget was as much about symbolism as it was about cost, since the $1.75 billion at stake is only about one-thousandth of the projected deficit. As McCain, who recoils at Pentagon waste with the passion of a vegan at a stockyard, put it, "What is before us now is whether we will continue the business as usual of once a weapons system gets into full production, it never dies."

The 58-to-40 Senate vote to limit F-22 production to the currently authorized 187 planes was not quite the stake-through-the-heart demise of the Cold War fighter, since the House has approved buying parts for 12 more jets. But it did serve as a reminder that Obama, who repeatedly threatened to veto the defense bill over F-22 funding, retains the political muscle to limit Democratic defections. John Kerry, for example, switched sides to oppose building more F-22s after Defense Secretary Robert Gates assured him Monday that no Massachusetts jobs were at risk.

The Senate roll call on the F-22 was far closer in spirit to Tip O'Neill ("all politics is local") than to partisan bloggers, who see the world through ideological lenses. Fourteen Democrats, almost all from states with major F-22 production facilities, broke with the White House on Tuesday's vote. But McCain – joined by right-wing foes of government waste, including Oklahoma's Tom Coburn and soon-to-retire Sens. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and George Voinovich of Ohio – mustered 15 GOP votes against funding the fighter.

The result was what a top Democratic Senate staffer called "the coalition of the awkward." Unicorns are seen grazing in front of Senate office buildings about as often as South Carolina conservative Jim DeMint sides with the Obama White House, while Connecticut liberal Chris Dodd helps lead the opposition. (For those still unsure of how the world really works in Washington: The F-22's engines are built by Pratt & Whitney in Middletown, Conn.). In the final moments before the Senate vote, Dodd warned that ending production of the F-22 would be a "great danger for our nation, not to mention the jobs that are critically important to our nation in the future."

Even though the Pentagon budget theoretically is supposed to reflect the nation's military needs rather than serving as a national security stimulus package, there is at least a coherent worldview in a senator's arguments in favor of preserving jobs back home.

But when the F-22 debate turned to geopolitical considerations, things took a retro turn. The decades seemed magically to melt away when Utah Republican Orrin Hatch pointed to the threats from the Russian and Chinese air forces. Washington Democrat Patty Murray (guess in what state Boeing makes the F-22's fuselage?) stressed that America does not know "what our challenges will be 10 or 20 or 30 years from now." If in 2039 the Air Force is still depending on 1980s weaponry like the F-22, then America will be facing far graver problems than even Murray envisions.

Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, Obama ridiculed the F-22 as an "inexcusable waste of money" and suggested that the Senate vote was part of fulfilling his campaign pledge of "changing the way we do business in Washington."

Parsing the political implications of the F-22 decision is a little trickier than the president's rhetorical flourishes. An Obama defeat in the Senate on the fighter would have been a stinging defeat during a week in which the future of health care reform is on the line. (In a reflection of Washington's single-minded focus, the F-22 was barely mentioned during press secretary Robert Gibbs' White House briefing less than two hours after the vote.)

If Obama could count on 15 Senate Republican votes (or even, say, eight) on every issue, then the White House would not be constantly worried about GOP filibusters. Also, Obama's decision to retain Gates (a George W. Bush selection) at the Pentagon makes it hard for conservatives to argue credibly that the president was jeopardizing the national defense with his opposition to the F-22. Needless to say, Obama will not have McCain (or even Gates) as his wingmen during the health care debate.

During the Senate debate, McCain invoked Dwight Eisenhower's warning nearly half a century ago about the danger of "the military-industrial complex." These days, McCain said, it would be more accurate to describe it as the "military-industrial-congressional complex."

Whatever you call it, it is a rare day when a major defense contractor like Lockheed Martin (the lead company on the F-22) gets rolled over continuing an outmoded weapons system. On the Senate floor, Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss called the fighter "the most sophisticated weapons system ever designed by mankind." (Surprise: The F-22 is assembled in Marietta, Ga.). That may be true, but part of Lockheed Martin's sophistication was in spreading the fighter's production over enough states seemingly to guarantee permanent congressional majorities. This jobs gambit would have continued to have kept the F-22 aloft – except that Lockheed Martin faced both 2008 presidential nominees united in the cause of military reform.