Wash. Times didn't disclose subcontractor ties of McInerney, purported spokesman for "the Air Force fighter community"
SUMMARY: Reporting on Robert Gates' decision to end production of F-22 fighter jets, The Washington Times quoted Tom McInerney's claim that Gates "has decimated the Air Force for the future" without noting that McInerney has reportedly served as a consultant to Northrop Grumman, a major subcontractor on the F-22.
In a May 11 Washington Times article, reporter Rowan Scarborough asserted that "the Air Force fighter community" believes Defense Secretary Robert Gates "is sacrificing air superiority" and that "[t]he Air Force had wanted more than 300 F-22s but would have settled for 240." Scarborough then quoted Fox News military analyst and retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney saying that Gates "has decimated the Air Force for the future" and that Gates is "the most dangerous secretary of defense we've ever had." However, Scarborough did not disclose that McInerney has reportedly served as a consultant for the Northrop Grumman Corp., which is a major subcontractor on the F-22. Scarborough named no other members of "the Air Force fighter community" who criticized Gates' decision to end production of the F-22, which Gates has said was "not a close call" based on "the military advice that I got," including from the Air Force.
As Media Matters for America has documented, McInerney's HumanEvents.com bio -- he has written several articles for the magazine -- states that he "consults for Northrop Grumman on the KC 45 program." On the March 10, 2008, edition of Fox News' Special Report, correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported that "McInerney consults for Northrop Grumman." Also, an August 1, 2008, C4ISR Journal op-ed by McInerney identified him as "a consultant to Northrop Grumman."
McInerney has also recently consulted for defense contractor Cobham plc, which in March 2006 announced that its subsidiary Sargent Fletcher Inc. had been awarded contracts from Lockheed Martin Corp. "worth more than US$8m for its 600 gallon external fuel tanks for the F-22 Raptor jet aircraft." According to Sargent Fletcher's website, the company is "currently under contract to Lockheed Martin for the Low-Rate Initial Production of a new 600-gallon external fuel tank for the F/A-22 fighter." In a June 4, 2008, press release, Cobham announced McInerney's nomination to the board of Cobham North America as one of "three senior 'Outside Directors,' " who, with the approval of the U.S. government, would "provide assurance on security matters and strategic guidance on defence and market trends." According to the press release, McInerney's nomination was a part of Cobham's purchase of another defense contractor, SPARTA Inc.
McInerney was featured in the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times exposé by David Barstow that detailed the connections between numerous media military analysts, the Pentagon, and the defense industry. In the article, Barstow reported that McInerney "sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks." The article also reported that the Pentagon helped McInerney and another Fox military analyst "write an opinion article for The Wall Street Journal defending [former Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld" and that, in an apparently separate case, McInerney "wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006," stating, "Good work. ... We will use it."
From the May 11 Washington Times article:
To the Air Force fighter community, Mr. Gates is sacrificing air superiority -- the military operation of capturing the sky from the enemy -- should there be a future war against China or Russia. The Air Force had wanted more than 300 F-22s but would have settled for 240.
"He has decimated the Air Force for the future," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who flew hundreds of combat missions in Vietnam. He calls Mr. Gates "the most dangerous secretary of defense we've ever had."
In addition to ending the F-22 production line, Mr. Gates canceled a next-generation long-range bomber and the Air Force's new combat search and rescue helicopter.
"He is focused on irregular warfare to a fault," said Gen. McInerney. "Not one of the six Joint Chiefs knows anything about air superiority or has had any combat experience in it. Yet the number one military requirement of military operations is air supremacy. You cannot conduct ops if you don't have it."
McInerney was featured in the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times exposé by David Barstow that detailed the connections between numerous media military analysts, the Pentagon, and the defense industry. In the article, Barstow reported that McInerney "sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks." The article also reported that the Pentagon helped McInerney and another Fox military analyst "write an opinion article for The Wall Street Journal defending [former Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld" and that, in an apparently separate case, McInerney "wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006," stating, "Good work. ... We will use it."
Naturally, people who are documented as being on the pork barrel feed trough cycle like Dodd and Frank in their contribution receipts versus their handouts are TOTALLY credible in terms of what they do in your estimation,right?. All we hear from the denizens on MMfA is defense of those people with both hands in your pockets.
At least get a level hand on your leftist doctrines and stop asking "how high"? when MMFA yells "JUMP!".
The inestimable McInerney doesn't get a pass because of his military service. If he's getting talking points from Republicans and doing commentary while taking money from Defense contractors, he's part of the problem Eisenhower warned us about.
You can't distinguish between truth and agenda obviously, or you'd be screaming over all the corrupt dems and libs in congress who are funded by their pet causes. If what you say is the case you have far more to look at on your side of the fence these days.
Mcinerney was incompetent and is severely compromised.
You obviously don't know the General, do you? Dodd and Frank are puddknockers compared to the 7-8 digit figures McInerny is pulling down these days.
He's been in the revolving door of military to contractor where he's cashed in big time. Do a bit of research on his consulting deals - and I'm not referring to his TV deals. Go further into the deals with his family members who have benefited from the crony capitalism so prevalent during the Bush years which are far away from his jet figher expertise.
Yeah, the man likes jet fighters. So do I. But UAVs are much more cost effective, as well as militarily effective, in our current wars and many of our most likely future wars.
I had a chat recently with the program director for the F-117, which I know is a single seat bomber, not a fighter. He predicted that manned fighters were an expensive anachronism due to stealth, range, loiter time, and potential speed of UAVs. Equally important UAVs don't come home in flag-draped coffins.
These aircraft still need pilots, but the right stuff pilot may look like a geeky pencil neck girl who flies from an Aeron chair and not a muscular General Tom ready to pull 9Gs.
Our militarism is paranoia.
The current situation does not call for a large number of first-line ASF. In unconventional warfare there are no enemy fighters in the air. The F-22 does not have a role in this warfare. It is required, but not in great numbers.
Similarly, a high-tech ground vehicle program is being cut because it does not meet current needs. It has a role in conventional warfare, but not in an environment of IEDs.
Defense Spending has NOT been cut. The budget has increased, it is just that some programs are being cut and replaced with ones which meet current needs.
Can you please look further than Iraq and the 'Stans?
The current doctrine is still based on the Hi/Low mix. Since i've posted this ad nauseam on this forum I'll let you do some homework (check the other dozen F22 posts).
The doctrine that you are describing is still 25-50 years away AT BEST.
What's the mission profile of F-22s? Are these intend to go up against Russia, China, North Korea, Iran or in Iraq and Afghanistan?
My concern is not with sexy jet fighters (and I am a pilot) my concern is that we spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military to the detriment of the rest of our society.
If Afghanistan and Iraq have proven anything it's that more expensive weapons systems do not bring victory, but they sure sucker us into magical thinking.
My moniker is National Insecurity because I've observed that no matter what weapon we have, we are still insecure.
Right now a range of advanced fighter designs are flying around the world -- for example, the newer Sukhoi Flankers, the Eurofighter, the Gripen and the Rafale -- that already fly as well or better than the finest contemporary American fighter, the non-stealthy F-15. Complementing these are a slew of advanced surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles that further erode the traditional qualitative advantage the United States has enjoyed over potential foes.
What you seem to be advocating is air superiority not air supremacy. We enjoyed supremacy in Kore, but settled for superiority over Vietnam. See the difference?
With procurement of new aircraft pushing upwards of 15 years + now it would be a huge disservice to let the rest of the world get ahead and we "settle" for air superiority.
Are you sure we're talking here about a single individual, retired Air Force Lt. General Thomas G. McInerney?
There's no chance that there's two such retired AF Lt. Generals with that same exact name is there?
Here's my confusion: the above item quotes a March 10 2008 Fox News Special Report as saying of Thomas G. McInerney "McInerney consults for Northrop Grumman"... that's March 10 2008. The item also has a journal op-ed stating of Thomas G. McInerney that he is "a consultant to Northrop Grumman"... that's August 1 2008. Also, it's stated above that in a June 4 2008 press release from DEFENSE CONTRACTOR Cobham PLC, that they announced that Thomas G. McInerney was being appointed as one of "three senior 'Outside Directors'" of that company... that's June 4 2008.
But wait.
On January 14 2009, the Department of Defense issued an Inspector General's report (IE-2009-204) about the allegation that certain 'military analysts' being aired on television, to sell the American People an invasion and occupation of IRAQ, those 'military analysts' were in truth DEFENSE CONTRACTORS and DEFENSE LOBBYISTS... and that January 14 2009 report specifically lists Thomas G. McInerney in its Appendix K, among...
Analysts Not Affiliated With DoD Contractors
And so again, I'm confused... the dates all cited seem to indicate for certain that Thomas G. McInerney is a DEFENSE LOBBYIST and CONTRACTOR himself, all the way back to last year and who knows how far back... but the DoD report last January says otherwise, and says that Thomas G. McInerney is "Not Affiliated With DoD Contractors."
Look, this is confusing... maybe there's two different Thomas G. McInerneys we're talking about here... and if not, then there's something wrong here, then someone's wrong here.
And if it turns out to be the DoD IG report of January 14 2009, and if that report is all wrong, and Thomas G. McInerney is in fact a 'military analyst' who is really a DEFENSE LOBBYIST and CONTRACTOR, then someone needs to withdraw that DoD IG report...
Withdraw that report now, pronto, not just today, but like yesterday...
Withdraw it like last week even.
Frank staffer goes to GS