The Pentagon and Taxpayers Don’t Need MEADS

Before debunking the faulty arguments about why it’s supposedly necessary to continue funding the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), let’s take a look at the facts.  And while doing so ask the question about why $400 million in taxpayer dollars should be used to fund this defunct program.

Here are the facts. For starters, as John C. Hulsman pointed out in a recent opinion piece for the Christian Science Monitor, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) said itself that this air-defense program “will never be operational.”  Hulsman goes on to explain that “An original selling point for MEADS is its aspiration to have a 360-degree surveillance capability, as opposed to the Patriot or any previous missile-defense system. But if the Patriot system were equipped with three ‘multi-functional’ radar, it too, would have 360-degree coverage. In other words, MEADS in and of itself offers no new capability.” (Emphasis added).

In a blog earlier this summer, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance further explained the shortcomings of MEADS.  “MEADS has rightly earned the moniker the ‘Missile to Nowhere.’ Because of the prohibitive cost ($2 billion over budget), schedule delays (10 years behind schedule) and the system’s poor performance, the U.S. Army has said it doesn’t want MEADS and that it would never use the missiles.”

The facts above and others are precisely why the DoD “gave up on it [MEADS] in 2011, announcing that it would not field MEADS because it cannot afford it.”  At least one government agency understands that money doesn’t grow on trees.  Furthermore, money that doesn’t exist shouldn’t be spent.  Despite these facts and reality, some in Congress and the White House are still insisting that funding for MEADS continue.

Their argument, albeit flawed, is a simple one.  Defense Secretary Panetta has asserted that if the U.S. were to eliminate funding for the useless MEADS program, Germany and Italy would look at the U.S. as “reneging on our promises.”  Not quite.  It’s true that as Hulsman pointed out, German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière warned that ending the MEADS program would have ‘“unintended consequences’ regarding the validity and reliability of agreements with the US.”  What sort of unintended consequences remains to be seen, but if such were to ever come to fruition, they’d likely, if at all, be short-term consequences; mere blips in the grand scheme of our relationship.  The U.S. has made and followed through on plenty of other commitments we’ve generously made to Germany over the years.

Setting this aside for a moment, it’s worth noting that our nation’s leaders should make policy decisions with the primary consideration of what’s in the best interest of our people and nation. However, since we’re having a conversation about making decisions based upon how other countries may perceive our decisions, then we should ask: Are either Italy or Germany really in a position to criticize a decision to cut funding for a program as wasteful and defunct as MEADS?  And along those lines, perhaps Secretary Panetta and others should consider what Germany and Italy would think of the U.S. and our spending habits if we don’t end this program and instead stubbornly insist on continuing to throw away $400 million?

It’s certainly not a stretch to say that Germany especially wouldn’t find issue with such actions.  In fact, its leaders could very well appreciate the U.S.’s decision and commitment to use our limited resources wisely by eliminating funding for MEADS and other wasteful programs.  After all if Greece would have made cuts like the ones our government should be making, Germany wouldn’t be its current precarious position of keeping Europe’s economy afloat. Cutting MEADS would also benefit the U.S. abroad because this action would send a strong signal that we too recognize that our rate and costs of spending is unsustainable.

If the administration is really intent on throwing $400 million more away by continuing to fund the MEADS program, it should at least come up with a better excuse than the one it currently employs.  When Washington refuses to make difficult decisions like those required to rein in its proclivity to spend, as taxpayers, we should keep diligent and hold these officials accountable by reminding them that one of their primary responsibilities is to protect Americans by being good financial stewards.