Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Just like the previous post on the GAOs report. Its not the mission thats the problem, its the politics. Each weapons platforms employs thousands of people all over the U.S. People do not like change - they like predictability, the way things are. Change disrupts, introduces uncertainty. Especially to all these defense contractors making billions for their upper management and shareholders. This is the whole military-industrial complex that Eisenhower talked about.

So the GAO blasts the budget - haven't they been doing that for every single budget, has anything changed? As long as the politicians are in the contractors pockets things are not going to change. Witness the Boeing-EADS scuffle over refueling aircraft.

The sad thing is that we all want it this way, because of the JOBS and the economic benefit. Also many of these gov employees eventually find their way to work in the private industry - case of Quid Pro Quo going on here??

"Taxes. On that subject, if we're not going to return to military conscription, more citizens have to contribute something to national defense—if not their blood, then more of their treasure."

Time is more important than treasure. I serve in the Civil AIr Patrol. We do work for lots of Fed agencies and train cadets for future service. I would support similar national service of some kind in lieu of taxation. This would be a great way to reduce the overall load and help build the future.

I'll have to leave it to the experts on all the items except raise taxes. I have something to say about that. It often makes me chuckle when the answer to all our problems is raise taxes. How about set priorities? How about remembering what the constitution says our federal government so do, like fund our defense. How about reducing other government programs first and then we'll discuss taxes.

Wow what dream world do I live in!!?

The major contention I have with this article is the initial argument about appropriate spending on new military weaponry. I can only speak from my experience with the navy, but the spending on new aircraft carriers and submarines being cited as wastes of money strikes me as a poor understanding of the intent of the new platforms. The newest ships and boats (submarines) in the navy are taking serious strides to become more compliant with COTS (commercial off the shelf) technologies. COTS aids in streamlining new technical innovations and serves to reduce the development and maintenance costs associated with highly technical and advanced machinery. Along these lines, one of the highest costs to the fleet we have is maintenance. Replacing these vessels with new designs, intended for much longer lifetimes, at lower operational costs and with greater operational capabilities is critical to the continued ability of the US military to function as the superpower it is.

While I agree that steps have to be taken to reduce the foolish spending in the military establishment, simply running old ships and planes until they become either dangerous to operate or incapable of continuing the advantage this country maintains in military technology and advantage is foolish. Continued research and advancement in engineering and science requires the laboratory achievements to be tested and refined in real world situations, situations only found in the demanding and harsh environments the military places its equipment.

The inability for give and take in military budgets is unfortunately a serious detriment to the ability of organizations, such as the Army, Navy and Marine Corps to resupply and retool in the wake of the long and taxing deployments they have faced.

Overall I think the article is very insightful, and useful to not only future presidents but also voters to understand the difficult situations faced in the military today.

Lots of good points. A serious bottom up review would be a welcome change, but congress holds the keys, and it would be difficult to get them to go along with losing all those expensive projects. Look at the teeth pulling over the F-22 and the refueling tankers.

The best way would be to use national public opinion by having a high profile bi-partisan committee review the budget. The findings of the 9/11 commission and Baker commission were relatively resilient due to the nature of the committees that found them. Perhaps using this same technique would allow for a comprehensive review of the budget that would allow us to truly refocus our military to the current conflicts and would greatly benefit the future SysAdmin Force.