Vice presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) brings to the Democratic ticket a reputation on Capitol Hill for questioning foreign-military sales, advocating for arms control, and calling for caution in developing missile-defense systems.
While Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has fewer than four years of votes and speeches in the Senate for the defense industry to analyze, Biden has spent nearly 36 years dabbling in foreign affairs on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he now chairs.
Some observers say the Iraq War critic’s background doesn’t bode well for defense spending.
“Biden’s record on weapons-related issue is that of a doctrinarian, whether it’s arms control, or it’s missile defense, or it’s weapons transfer, he always comes down on the liberal side,” said defense analyst Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute. “So this is not good news for the defense industry.”
In committee Biden has taken a close look at foreign-military sales.
He questioned the 2002 sale of Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-16 fighter jets to Chile, and opposed transferring some of the associated technology to the South American nation, including the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Defense Daily, Feb. 16, 2001).
He called last year for reexamining large weapon systems in U.S. military aid to Pakistan, including Lockheed Martin’s P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft and F-16 jets, if then-President Pervez Musharraf didn’t “restore his nation to the democratic path,” according to a speech he gave last November during his fruitless run for president.
Defense analyst Jim McAleese of McAleese & Associates predicted a Vice President Biden would “look closely at which allies get what equipment.”
“And that really goes to issue of, do they get the high-end equipment, offensive assets like tactical aircraft, F-16s,” he said. Biden likely would not be concerned about sales of small ships, for example, but may be more involved with offensive capabilities like tactical aircraft, McAleese said.
It’s Biden’s advocacy for arms control and nonproliferation efforts that many defense watchers note.
On missile defense, Biden voted against funding President Bush’s unsuccessful Strategic Defense Initiative–to build a ground and space-based shield against nuclear missiles– in 1987. When he opposed the National Missile Defense Act in 1999, he dismissed the legislation as “a political document,” according to his floor testimony. He was a strong advocate for adhering to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, in place with Russia from 1972 to 2002. He then publicly criticized the Bush administration for withdrawing from the treaty six years ago, and predicted it would spur a new arms race.
The Delaware Democrat was particularly outspoken about the administration’s missile-defense plans early this decade, and has continued to resist such development. He is expected to now fall in line with Democrats’ proposed rejiggering of the Bush administration’s requested fiscal year 2009 missile defense funding. And he is likely to adhere to Obama’s call last year “to cut investments in unproven missile defense systems” and not “weaponize space” (Defense Daily, March 11).
Biden touts his role “leading the way on arms control,” saying on his web site he “has been a constant voice in favor of deeper reductions in nuclear arsenals, and of securing the stockpiles of dangerous weapons in the former Soviet Union,” and citing his support for the SALT II treaty in the 1970s, the ABM Treaty in the 1980s, and the convention banning chemical weapons.
Leonor Tomero, director of nuclear non-proliferation at Council for a Livable World, said Biden’s entry to the Democratic ticket, “strengthens Obama’s claim that he can lead on foreign policy, and particularly on these important issues of nuclear non-proliferation.”
Tomero noted Biden could help with securing Senate support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which Obama wants to resurrect.
“Sen. Biden was one of the leaders on pushing for ratification the last time it was considered, and he had, previous to being tapped to be vice president, indicated his strong intention to lead the Senate ratification fight on CTBT again,” she said. “I think certainly…having relationships that go far back, and having the personal relationships with the senators, is going to be very helpful.”
Some political observers caution against portraying Biden, an Iraq War supporter-turned-critic who has never served in the military, as poised to universally advocate for slashing defense spending. Many point to the senior senator’s outspoken advocacy last year for buying as many Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPs) as needed to protect troops in Iraq from improvised explosive devices and explosively formed penetrators. While current Pentagon plans call for buying approximately 15,000 of the hulking vehicles, Biden last year pushed for authorizing billions of dollars more for as many as 22,000 MRAPs, a vehicle total once floated (Defense Daily, July 11, 2007).
Biden also garnered headlines by criticizing the Pentagon’s response to an urgent request from theater for the vehicles. Sources say Biden’s MRAP advocacy, or course, could have political motivations, considering he was in the midst of his own ill-fated presidential bid.
With Dover Air Force Base in his state, Biden has advocated for strategic airlifters–Lockheed Martin C-5 Galaxy and Boeing‘s [BA] C-17 Globemaster III.
His Senate web site states: “Senator Biden understand that strategic airlift (C-5s and C-17s) is critical to America’s ability to get to the fight and stay in the fight. It is also critical to being able to help those in need. He has long fought to make sure the nation has enough modern airlift capability to meet its needs. He has also fought to make sure there is adequate infrastructure needed to support the airlift fleet, including at Dover Air Force Base.”
McAleese said this past advocacy of Biden’s could, if the senator became vice president, bode well for C-5s, C-17s, and could translate to support for Lockheed Martin’s intra- theater C-130J Hercules tactical transport aircraft.
Still, McAleese and observers acknowledge Biden has not been a senator to step in and vigorously advocate for a defense program tied to his district.
“Many members of the Senate take a position on weapons transactions that’s entirely driven by vote potential, Biden simply isn’t like that,” Thompson said. When it comes to weapon systems and transactions, he added, Biden “is not motivated by votes, he is motivated by principles, and those principles tend to be liberal and international.”
Wearing his foreign-relations hat, Biden has not shied at times from advocating for U.S. intervention, in spots including the Balkans in the 1990s and Afghanistan and Sudan’s Darfur region now. He also is an unabashed supporter of Israel. He voted in 1991 against authorization for the first Persian Gulf War, but cast a vote in 2002 in favor of authorizing the Iraq War. He, however, has become a critic of the Iraq conflict’s management, including last year’s “surge” in troops. He has been particularly vocal about his plan to divide Iraq into Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish governments. He supports sending at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, and backs plans to boost the size of the Army and Marine Corps.
Biden never served on the Senate Armed Services Committee or Senate Appropriations Committee, suggesting neither was a priority for him, McAleese noted. The senator’s support for spending money on the State Department and areas of diplomacy–as well as expensive domestic items like universal health care–could come at the cost of defense spending, McAleese said.
Thompson said the Democratic ticket is “bad news” for the defense industry, because Obama and Biden would “treat weapons spending as bill payers for their domestic agendas.”
Several Wall Street analysts have portrayed a November vote for presumptive GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as the clear vote to bolster defense stocks– because of McCain’s stronger support for keeping troops in Iraq and proclivity for military action than Obama–and predicted companies that make missile-defense systems and large weapons platforms would fare worse under Obama than McCain.
Yet some financial analysts also have cautioned against basing broad defense investment decisions on the election, and note both Obama and McCain both talk of growing the Army and Marine Corps and focusing on having equipment needed to fight non-traditional conflicts. A recent report by BernsteinResearch, for example, says factors beyond the outcome of the November election will “be much more important in determining the path of defense stocks over both the near term and long term,” with those factors including “geopolitical threats, the need to recapitalize air, sea, and land capabilities, and pressure from the deficit.”