England saved F-22……..

By BOB [email]COXrcox@star-telegram.com[/email]

After almost eight years of uninterrupted service during the Bush administration, Gordon England has returned home to Fort Worth.

But don’t expect to see him around town or at the country club much.

England, 71, has no intention of retiring after spending nearly four decades in industry, two tours as Navy secretary, one as deputy secretary of homeland security and nearly four years as deputy defense secretary.

The former head of the General Dynamics and Lockheed fighter-assembly plant in Fort Worth now has his sights set on starting an international business venture.

But before doing that, and before taking a promised two-week vacation in Hawaii with his wife, Dorothy, England sat down with the Star-Telegram for a wide-ranging interview.

Despite serving during a time of war and great political pressure, England said his time in government was rewarding.

“If life is about doing exciting and worthwhile things, then I had about the best eight years you could ever have in your life,” England said. “It was exciting, and it was worthwhile because it was important for the country, for the citizens of America and for other people around the world.”

As Navy secretary and, later, deputy defense secretary, England drew generally positive reviews for improving management.

In the latter role he earned the ire of the Air Force and its supporters in the military-industrial complex by insisting on plans to terminate production of Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor. But he’s also been a staunch advocate for the multination, multirole F-35 joint strike fighter that will be built in Fort Worth.

As Navy secretary, England worked with the service’s uniformed leaders to increase combat capabilities even while the number of ships and aircraft was shrinking.

England headed a review of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. As a result of the review, 38 prisoners were released.

England said he is happy to be out of Washington, D.C.

“I told my wife I wouldn’t trade the eight years for anything, but the only thing better than seeing Washington recede in my rearview mirror was seeing Fort Worth increasing in my windscreen.”

The following are edited excerpts from the interview:

What was it like working with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld? He’s come in for a lot of criticism for his tenure at the Pentagon.

Rumsfeld was very intense. He’s extraordinarily focused. He was absolutely brilliant. Hardest working. Assimilated more detail than probably any person I’ve known. Constantly questioning, particularly questioning assumptions. He was absolutely committed to the country.

When you came in as deputy secretary, was there an understanding you would play a different role than Paul Wolfowitz, that you would be more of a business manager?

When I came in, Rumsfeld and I took all the major activities of the Department of Defense and put them in buckets, or lists. He was responsible for one list. I was responsible for a list. Then we had a list we were both responsible for but each was the lead on different things.

I was largely autonomous for my list of things. Obviously Rumsfeld was responsible for major policy issues. He had all the interface overseas. I was responsible for the budget and personnel. I thought we operated very well.

It was said when you took over that for the first time in the administration, there was somebody managing the Pentagon on a day-to-day basis.

When Paul [Wolfowitz] was there, I think to a large extent that fell on Rumsfeld, because Paul was mainly policy. Rumsfeld had an extraordinary workload. He was extraordinarily busy. He was hard, but his job was to prosecute the war and protect the nation.

Rumsfeld was a very dynamic leader. He was smarter than most of the politicians and smarter than most of the people in the press. A lot of people didn’t like Rumsfeld. But leadership is not a popularity contest. Leadership is about doing what’s right.

How does Bob Gates’ leadership differ from Rumsfeld’s?

Gates was probably the other end of the spectrum, an entirely different person than Rumsfeld, but extraordinarily competent. Had a great demeanor about him. He got along well with everyone. Extraordinarily smart, wise, knows international policy very well because he worked at the White House and Congress. He knew how to work those levers of power.

Gates and I were very close. We met every day. I met with Rumsfeld whenever I needed or wanted to. Gates, when he came on board, we agreed we’d have 15 minutes together every day.

Both Gates and Rumsfeld sought my advice and I sought theirs. With both secretaries I had a wonderful relationship based on trust and confidence with each other.

In retrospect, was invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein the right thing to do?

I actually think it was the right thing to do. First of all, right now Iraq is a democratic country. It’s working well, functions well. I believe that will be a defining, historical occurrence. I think history will look back at the last eight years. as a turning point in the world. People will observe that Iraqi people now vote and elect its leaders.

I do believe it is a better world. While I was not part of that decision, I believe it was the right decision.

By implication you’re saying that as unpopular as President George W. Bush is today, he’ll be treated better by history?

I think history will treat him well. Look, there’s a lot of bias, there’s an awful lot of bias in the media, particularly in the national media. People distort things. I think there’s been a huge distortion of what’s happened these past eight years, but history tends to take a longer view.

Again, it’s not a popularity contest. Look at Lincoln. Lincoln wasn’t liked by anyone, the North or South. We tend to think presidents should be popular. That’s not how you evaluate leadership. You evaluate leadership by accomplishing what organizations need to do.

Do the U.S. armed forces have enough resources today to deal with the world we face.

I would say yes. I honestly do not believe we’re overreached and overstressed. My own judgment is unless something dramatically different happens in the world, we probably have the right size, plus or minus some percent. This is all a judgment call.

The 2010 budget proposal you developed called for about $580 billion base defense budget. President Barack Obama has proposed a much lower budget, about $534 billion, still a significant increase over 2009. Are you comfortable with that?

Again, the administration has to make those trade-offs. We elect them to make those trade-offs. You have to maintain a military, but you also have to maintain the economic viability of the country.

If you think about it, we defeated the Russians not militarily but economically. You can’t just to decide to have open-ended defense budgets. Budgets have grown a lot, and if there’s some decrease, I think that’s doable.

Some people within the Air Force and Lockheed Martin say you’re bound and determined to kill the F-22. Is that right?

First of all, I actually saved the F-22, because I put the multiyear [contract] in place. I continued the program because all the analysis at that time said the nation needed about 183 F-22s. I support F-22 to the extent we fill the nation’s requirement for the airplane.

I don’t support building F-22s just to build F-22s, because it detracts from other things you need to do. But that’s my personal view. It will be up to the next administration to make that determination. The defense budget is balanced between a whole lot of competing demands. What you want is to satisfy the needs but not go beyond that.

Why do you so strongly support the F-35? It’s a big, expensive program.

It is going to be the mainstay of all three services. We do need a follow-on to the F-16, F-15 and F-18. It is important we have a next-generation, fifth-generation airplane. Like the F-16, it’s international in scope, which is important for our friends and allies.

The problem we have in defense is we don’t buy in sufficient quantities. So we end up with low [production] rates, and when you buy at low rates, the cost is more.

What we wanted to do when we formed a budget was to increase the rates of F-35 production so the services would get the airplane sooner and so the airplanes would cost less. Now if you divert that money to other programs then what you do is you lower the rates, you increase costs and then typically what you do is you cut again. So you get into this death spiral.

That enters into the discussion for the F-22. If you’re going to divert money into the F-22 you’re going to hurt other programs. People need to make smart decisions about this. Everybody’s budget is going to come under pressure. The best thing they can do with the F-35 is to get the rate up, get the unit cost down, maintain the consortium and keep this program in production particularly through these harder economic times