Expect to see shit like this from elected officials from states that live off the military-industrial complex, like Oklahoma.

Something to watch for for: Dems in Congress who, worried about cuts to defense programs in their states in the proposed restructuring of the Pentagon budget, cross over into questioning Obama’s commitment to national security. We now have our first candidate: Blue Dog Dem Dan Boren of Oklahoma. Oklahoma is home to a major defense contract that the restructuring puts on the chopping block. GOP Senator James Inhofe made a big splash yesterday by saying Obama is endangering our troops and “disarming America.” Now Boren has added his voice to Inhofe’s chorus. “The administration’s announcement today of sweeping changes to key defense programs is a significant concern,” Boren said in a statement posted, tellingly, on Inhofe’s Web site. “Even in tough economic times, providing a strong national defense for the American people should remain a top priority of the federal government.”

The Oklahoma officials are less concerned with national security, than in protecting a defense cash-cow -- the Future Combat Systems, a network of aerial- and ground-based systems that allow hitting enemy armor without having line-of-sight. So our forces can hit enemy forces without exposing themselves.

While in true defense contractor fashion, the program is being developed in 41 different states (the better to protect funding in Congress), the Oklahoma portion is worth $500 million over three years. That makes sense, the FCS has a heavy artillery component, and the US Army's artillery operation is headquartered at Ft. Sill in Lawton, OK. I spent nearly a year of my life in that post learning to be a fire direction control specialist for MLRS missile systems.

Problem is, today's battlefield is less about massive Soviet tank armies, and more about counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. And existing weapon systems are still technically far superior to anything the Russians or Chinese would be able to field. It makes sense to shift funding from obsolete battleground systems to bolstering the capabilities we most need at this time. Last time anyone checked, Al Qaida or the Taliban aren't running around with T-90s or fielding any artillery heavier than mobile mortars.

And worse than that, an obsession with speed and agility means the vehicles are lightly armored, allowing them to move quicker and, with higher fuel efficiency, to move faster before needing resupply. (My job in the Army was mostly logistical, and getting fuel to deployed vehicles, especially in forward positions, is one of the toughest challenges facing any army). Yet if we've learned anything the last six years of war is that lightly-armed vehicles are insurgent magnets and one of the biggest causes of fatalities in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a reason that our troops had to learn to build hillbilly armor to protect themselves from ambush and IEDs.

Finally, as SoD Gates noted in his budget announcement, the FCS contract is too heavily tilted toward the contractors at the taxpayer's expense (and given that it's $87 billion on the hook, that's significant), and that the vehicle plan ignores the Army's move toward the MRAP armored vehicle, far more effective for the kind of combat we're currently waging.

But assholes like Boren and Inhoffe, unable to defend the Future Combat Systems on its merits, have to resort to claiming that Obama is weakening national security, even as he bolsters the already bloated defense budget beyond 2008 figures.

Rest assured, they care far less about America's security than their defense contractor buddies back home. Otherwise, they'd be fighting for a force configured to fight today's wars, and fighting to protect the investment American taxpayers make in their national security.