Scheer failed to do any research except to read two newspaper articles. The vast majority of military aircraft are air refueled, fighters, bombers, cargo planes, and helocopters. Even though I have opposed the B-2s since it was on the drawing boards, the shakey logic and lack of reasonably researched facts hurts this article.

Mr. Scheer pointed out that (surprisingly) neither the WSJ or NYT business section indicated why new tankers are needed. That is somewhat open to discussion but the short answer is: the current fleet of KC-135s is over forty years old and the airframes are showing their age and Mr. Bush's war of choice in Iraq has caused these aircraft to be used more therefore aging them even faster. also in air refueling allows other aircraft to have longer range and and longer loiter time (refueling near the combat zone). Both of those things are useful in a number of scenarios.

The article questions the need for a large tanker fleet at all. Sheer looks at the surface of McCain's opposition to the original lease boondoggle, and gives him credit. He misses a chance to mention that the recent sales proposal would have had much of the Boeing plane build outside the country, contrary to the cry of saving American jobs. He only pays scant attention to the problem of the military industrial media complex, and how publicly financed elections might reduce the influence of big corporate contributions.