|
James Fallows wrote a long piece on American attitudes toward its military in this month's Atlantic. Here's the opening paragraph, but you should read that article if you'd like to discuss it in this thread.quote:In mid-September, while President Obama was fending off complaints that he should have done more, done less, or done something different about the overlapping crises in Iraq and Syria, he traveled to Central Command headquarters, at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. There he addressed some of the men and women who would implement whatever the U.S. military strategy turned out to be. I was expecting the prescription at the end to be mandatory service, as it so often is, in order to bring Americans closer to the realities of military service. Fallows gets very close to this, but doesn't come out and say it in the article. In fact, the only prescriptions at the end are a few recommendations that the President appoint some study groups, which seemed to be too much of a lift for Obama to undertake anyway. I thought Mullen's idea of continuing to draw down troop levels to a point where any future Iraq-level adventure would require conscription was a more interesting idea, as well as the vaguely-stated recommendation at the end to "clarify the decision making process" around engagement. The Fallows article also gets into the F-35 / A-10 funding issue and there was an entertaining War Nerd article on that subject recently as well.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
Before we start this debate, can we please recognize that this is not a one dimensional problem? We have the greedy contractors, the idiot generals who want everything and the kitchen sink, we have the elected officials wanting to bring jobs to their constituents and we have employees wanting high paying jobs. If I see another "OMG GREEDY CORPORATIONS!" again, I think I'll puke. The problem with defense spending is not a cut and dried subject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
It was a brilliant article and it coupled with the War Nerd article got my blood boiling, but to me one aspect (out of many salient points made) of this issue is similar to the "too big to fail" problem: how do you punish what is essentially a group of people without punishing everyone in that group and related to that group? Essentially, how do you kill a politically-engineered program like the F-35 without losing all of those jobs in the process? And furthermore how do you do it in a way that doesn't get the political representatives kicked out the next election cycle to be replaced by representatives who will go back to the status quo? The only way I can think is to, at a federal level, mandate that these contracts have boundaries: You want an F-35? It has to all be made in the same factories by the same contract in the same state/local area. But that, like many possible solutions to other political issues, would have unforeseen consequences assuming it actually passed which it never would because you'd effectively be doing the same thing as if you indicted and bankrupted the contractors: thousands of jobs lost across the country, thousands of people without work who would be too old or otherwise unable to train in something else, thousands of upset voters who would kick your rear end out for a shot at going back to the good old days. I like Mullen's idea of drawing the force down but even then I'm not sure follow-up wars would require conscription of any sort - the gaps will be filled with robots and drones in a few decades at most. Once you automatize war, there's no way to bridge the gap between the military conflict abroad and the folks at home. And even if we were to take Mullen's idea and run with it, I don't see how that affects the flow of money and contracts that is also corrupting the system. To me, the money must be solved first, but that's just me. EDIT: To clarify, I think the money should be solved because I think that bridge between civilians and the military will continue to widen due to the aforementioned drones and robots. It's inevitable, in my opinion, and trying to reduce the military, while a good idea if for nothing else that we can use that money elsewhere, is ultimately futile in terms of bringing the American public back to "feeling war." The best we can do now, and the best we will likely ever be able to do, is to dramatize war and focus on its effects on our soldiers and the areas they destroy and try to rebuild. We're no longer M*A*S*H, we're now American Sniper, and it'll stay that way for good. EDIT2: I'd also be interested in hearing from some GiP folks and their thoughts on this piece and the overall current and future states of the US military. Amergin fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
The f-35 isn't just an American problem by the way, just mostly. There is a shitload of political pressure on the foreign governments who are signed up to it from the US to keep using it, even though most of the military leaders think it's garbage and want out. With the US Military - it's such a deep subject. I think to some extent it was inevitable after two long, hard wars that the forces would be somewhat broken and in need of a radical overhaul. This is particularly true since they were wars that the military itself was poorly adapted to fighting when they started, and asked a lot of the military (like nation building, which most armies know nothing about even now). Still, the US army in particular seems incredibly dysfunctional, and really to be limping along at this point despite its immense size, power and prestige. There are so many problems that feed in to this phenomenon, but it seems to me lots of it stems from the sort of personnel that are getting promoted up the chain. The Army has incredible problems with loss of talent at the captain level because so many officers at this point are (a) starting families (b) at a crossroads in their lives, having done their time and (c) starting a long wait to get further up the ladder. Added on top of this, the army starts to become, as I understand it, (i) extremely lovely about its general HR (like for no reason sending you to lovely posts you can't really refuse that are the opposite of the ones you apply for, almost as if to 'test' your loyalty, for literally no reason and (ii) extremely political. As a result, I think there is an incredible amount of poo poo rolling downhill. Really, I just think that the end of the two wars should be a springboard to radically overhauling the US military, because it's both the perfect moment for it and desperately needed.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
The only way the U.S. army is going to be dramatically overhauled is if it receives a massive blow to its prestige on the scale of Vietnam (Iraq didn't quite manage that hard enough), at this point in history no army or armed faction in the entire would can even scratch the U.S. military let alone actively fight and defeat it like soviets+hanoi did, there essentially is no ideological competitor either since both closest rivals (Russia and china) are surrounded by countries that are securely and forevermore strategic enemies of them and are guaranteed American allies, so how should you expect the strongest army in the world to not go after vanity projects and monster corruption when everyone else is hundreds of years behind in capabilities and sophistication? Because theres no active danger so even if the f 35 is a total flop America is still the biggest kid on the block by light years.
Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Amergin posted:EDIT2: I'd also be interested in hearing from some GiP folks and their thoughts on this piece and the overall current and future states of the US military. What, on how we've deified the US Military and the tools they use to 'defend us'? I mean, we've got the GOP and people like Mitt Romney saying we need MORE of a military, we've got the military in the middle trying to trim fat while still spending outrageous amounts on privatized solutions, and we've got the soldiers/veterans themselves who get the short end of the stick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Joementum posted:James Fallows wrote a long piece on American attitudes toward its military in this month's Atlantic. Here's the opening paragraph, but you should read that article if you'd like to discuss it in this thread. If you want conscription, you are at best idealistic, and at worst ignorant of history, and like a lot of posters here ~a secret liberal racist~ because rich (whites) can actually and trivially avoid conscription (like say Ted Nugent literally making GBS threads himself to avoid Vietnam), or going to college which is becoming more and more unavailable to minorities in America. So congratulations OP, you literally are the worst sort of racist, you want to deny an opportunity to let people volunteer for high pay (with low education requirements), to force a literal slavery style model of serving based on the whim of the white electorate (because when you look at midterm election, who else votes), and to be honest, as someone who isn't one of the typical persons here, I'm laughing at the OP for its ignorance, and utter lack of memory of history. I do not want to have to go back to the vietnam Era, so why do you OP?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The only way I can think is to, at a federal level, mandate that these contracts have boundaries: You want an F-35? It has to all be made in the same factories by the same contract in the same state/local area. what you want is for the entire american aerospace industry to rebuild itself in whichever state you think deserves to have the F-35 factory BECAUSE YOU WANT TO REDUCE PORK BARREL SPENDING 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:~a secret liberal racist~ This is off to a good start. But no, Conscription is an awful AWFUL idea. Especially given the state of our military as it is. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Yeah, conscription is a loving awful idea. Don't do it. Not if you have an army that is actually called upon to do things other than fill sandbags when floods happen. Also, it was abolished by right wingers as a form of servitude. Milton Friedman was the main advocate for its abolition on the panel, hilariously.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:ahhahahaha No, he does have a point there. Scope creep is a considerable cause of the cost overruns in defense spending. Better controls and boundaries could help. The F35 is the poster child for scope creep.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:If you want conscription, you are at best idealistic, and at worst ignorant of history, and like a lot of posters here ~a secret liberal racist~ because rich (whites) can actually and trivially avoid conscription (like say Ted Nugent literally making GBS threads himself to avoid Vietnam), or going to college which is becoming more and more unavailable to minorities in America. So congratulations OP, you literally are the worst sort of racist, you want to deny an opportunity to let people volunteer for high pay (with low education requirements), to force a literal slavery style model of serving based on the whim of the white electorate (because when you look at midterm election, who else votes), and to be honest, as someone who isn't one of the typical persons here, I'm laughing at the OP for its ignorance, and utter lack of memory of history. I do not want to have to go back to the vietnam Era, so why do you OP? I do not want conscription. I was surprised to see the author of the article not explicitly endorse it as it's a common idea and the article spends a lot of time bumping up against it without saying it outright.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
I don't know why the author thinks that the American people are so distanced from the military community that nobody can poke fun at them or do anything other than hold them in "awe". Is he not familiar with John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and other comedians? Has he not seen any shows like Generation Kill? I guess he just doesn't see it. Also, does he think people just disappear when they get out of the military? Most people may not have someone in their circle of contacts currently serving, but I'm pretty sure most people have a relative, co-worker, or contact who was in the military at some time. I was in the military under Clinton and saw the cuts (pretty drastic), and i was in the military during the early war years and saw the excess of spending (excess isn't even a good word for it. I can't express the amount of money we threw away). And now I find myself staring in amazement as we continue to bomb countries, support revolutions we don't even understand, and continue to NOT extricate ourselves from the conflicts we elected people to get us out of. The economy portion is crazy to think about. There is so much money involved. There are entire cities that absolutely depend, now more than ever (more than a decade of a defense money fire hose), on defense dollars. Any change to any of this is fought tooth and nail (check out BRAC). I guess we need a president with the guts to take a hatchet to the budget.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I was in the military under Clinton and saw the cuts (pretty drastic), and i was in the military during the early war years and saw the excess of spending (excess isn't even a good word for it. I can't express the amount of money we threw away). And now I find myself staring in amazement as we continue to bomb countries, support revolutions we don't even understand, and continue to NOT extricate ourselves from the conflicts we elected people to get us out of. Its kinda funny that we even managed to maintain the Cuba Embargo as long as we did considering our penchant for flip-flopping on foreign issues so often. There is no consistency at all in our foreign diplomacy. spacetoaster posted:The economy portion is crazy to think about. There is so much money involved. There are entire cities that absolutely depend, now more than ever (more than a decade of a defense money fire hose), on defense dollars. Any change to any of this is fought tooth and nail (check out BRAC). I guess we need a president with the guts to take a hatchet to the budget. Its also really creepy and sad, especially when you go near major US home bases. While the local economy is so attached to the base (say, like Warner Robins AFB, GA), the immediate vicinity is more similar to the bad side of town in any other city, emphasizing the poverty to be found within the DoD itself. As far as the budget, you have people like Mitt Romney who feed the Right's military ideals when throwing things like cutting Social Programs and pouring that spending into the DoD and buying more carriers. Its scary to imagine. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
What do you mean poverty within the DoD? I lived in a run down apartment in a bad neighborhood because it was super cheap (and I could pocket the 1100 dollars I got each month to pay rent) and it was right outside the base entrance. There are a lot of people who work on bases that don't live anywhere near them. It's quite common to have a 45 minute commute (or longer).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:ahhahahaha Keith Stone posted:No, he does have a point there. Scope creep is a considerable cause of the cost overruns in defense spending. Better controls and boundaries could help. The F35 is the poster child for scope creep. Right - the F-35-per-state was just an example. I don't think pork barrel spending is the problem, the problem is the spread of that pork barrel spending for one massively-expensive project across the entire House of Representative, making that project in effect "too big to fail." I can't even imagine a feasible set of boundaries which is why I later said it's almost a political impossible, not to mention the ramifications that would come from it that I can't even think through. My point was just somewhere, somehow, there need to be clear lines to keep a project "in scope" and prevent it from creeping, quite literally, over the entire US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
There are a lot of different issues at play here but it seems to me that one of the bigger ones is that as an advanced economy the United States requires an industrial strategy. But since the US uses market liberalism in the same hypocritical and propagandistic way that the USSR used socialism / communism, American policy makers need to find ways to disguise what they are doing. The result is that the military-industrial complex becomes a de facto way to create jobs, subsidize research and lend aid to strategic industries. The Pentagon is basically a really lovely and unnecessarily expensive version of Japan's old Ministry of International Trade and Industry. In the longer term this problem cannot be solved until people become more honest about how totally unworkable laissez-faire economics are in any advanced economy. As long as the American political system is based around a massive lie that the "free market" can create sustainable prosperity you're gonna end up with projects like the F-35. You need to demystify the actual role that Pentagon contracts are playing in the US economy so that those roles can be transferred to a civilian agency that is hopefully more competent and which could maybe redirect some of that money toward more useful projects with more immediate civilian applications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:What do you mean poverty within the DoD? But the immediate economy outside the base generally reeks of poverty. Amergin posted:Right - the F-35-per-state was just an example. I think the problem is allowing these companies to be able to skyrocket funding costs all while knowing they are likely to get that increase in cost in the end. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But the immediate economy outside the base generally reeks of poverty. Fast food, pawnshops, and tattoo parlors? Come on man, that's the good stuff. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think the problem is allowing these companies to be able to skyrocket funding costs all while knowing they are likely to get that increase in cost in the end. I agree, but inflating costs for a project done by a contracting company is a huge issue across the US government, from IT projects (*cough* Obamacare site) to foreign aid to the military - not to mention in the private sector. How do you look at a project with scope creep and determine "No, this project is getting too expensive" while explaining to your superiors that all the money you spent on the project already is spilled milk while your contractor is telling them "Just a little bit more and we'll be good!"? Unless you start talking "No contract/project can expand beyond 200%/X% of its original planned cost," but that can get really hairy really fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Fast food, pawnshops, and tattoo parlors? Come on man, that's the good stuff. Oh god, the predatory lending guys are EVERYWHERE. Damned E-1 - E-4s loving their credit faster than a cheap date. Amergin posted:I agree, but inflating costs for a project done by a contracting company is a huge issue across the US government, from IT projects (*cough* Obamacare site) to foreign aid to the military - not to mention in the private sector. How do you look at a project with scope creep and determine "No, this project is getting too expensive" while explaining to your superiors that all the money you spent on the project already is spilled milk while your contractor is telling them "Just a little bit more and we'll be good!"? True, but in rare cases where that sort of development is ground breaking enough that extra funding may be needed, it would be excusable. The problem we have now is so many of the larger DoD manufacturers like Lockheed and Boeing have so many on the defense committee approving their projects left and right that waste is almost entirely unavoidable. There needs to be some sort of civilian Science and Engineering review panel that can look into possible profitable or useful scientific developments that would warrant the sort of funding these guys get. The ironic thing being if you compared it to NASAs funding, and what NASA did, you can already see what you can do with the proper oversight. I mean, you have DARPA, sure, but so many of DARPAs projects never get the green light and die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:ahhahahaha Nobody has ever won Bingo by ticking every square before, so I guess the F-35 is good for something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
There was also a pretty interesting piece on the British military: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n24/james-meek/worse-than-a-defeat Concerning conscription, if you fight a major war you need it, period. Perhaps China or India have enough manpower to not, but I would doubt even that. Also, well trained and motivated conscripts work pretty well, if you have invested in a volunteer NCO corps that is actually good at running concripts, and fight wars that your nation actually cares about. Thing is, the US is not fighting major wars of huge importance for the average American, it is fighting "police actions" in far flung territories which many Americans can often not find on a map. Concricpts suck more at those, but frankly, the volunteer US military isnt that much better. Military is by definition destructive, Western/US decision makers have so fully bought into their own "we are the good guys" PR narrative that they try to use the military in a restructive/constructive role. It simply isnt supposed/suited to do that, and constructing/building nations is an almost any case an internal, organic process anyway. The "overawe of the military" is a thing though in the USA. I actually think that it can be quite deleterious because it makes people in the military try to meet impossible standarts and fail, and that failure has psychological consequences down the line. I also found the disconnect between how much "praise" Veterans in the USA get, and how much actual help they get to be very disconcerting. I mean, in Germany, we roll our eyes at veterans claiming to be heroes, and refer people that gloat about how many enemies they have slain to a psychatrist (at least), but guys with PTSD are treated, Veterans dont end up homeless (we have social security networks for that) and a lot of poo poo we hear about veteran treatment in the USA simply wouldnt fly here for a second. As a whole, I think Germany is in practical terms a considerably better country for Veterans then the USA (or Russia, which is like the USA but worse).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:The "overawe of the military" is a thing though in the USA. I actually think that it can be quite deleterious because it makes people in the military try to meet impossible standarts and fail, and that failure has psychological consequences down the line. Well, yeah. We have this glorified view of ACTIVE military members, but once you are out, its a lot of lip service and nothing more. Cutting military benefits and voting against VA reform is the new GOP standard go to. Praise em in public, chop off their support in private.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well, yeah. Sorta like conservative pro-lifers who care more about protecting a fetus than a baby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:The only way the U.S. army is going to be dramatically overhauled is if it receives a massive blow to its prestige on the scale of Vietnam (Iraq didn't quite manage that hard enough), at this point in history no army or armed faction in the entire would can even scratch the U.S. military let alone actively fight and defeat it like soviets+hanoi did, there essentially is no ideological competitor either since both closest rivals (Russia and china) are surrounded by countries that are securely and forevermore strategic enemies of them and are guaranteed American allies, so how should you expect the strongest army in the world to not go after vanity projects and monster corruption when everyone else is hundreds of years behind in capabilities and sophistication? Because theres no active danger so even if the f 35 is a total flop America is still the biggest kid on the block by light years. Vietnam and Iraq were damaging to US prestige, but not really to US military prestige. Especially in Iraq, the US military accomplished the mission of overthrowing the Ba'athist regime quicker than anyone anticipated. The subsequent fiasco was a political and policy failure by US leadership, not the fault of the military. Using military to accomplish a shifting, unclear mission of nation building is like trying to paint a still-life with a hammer, and blaming the hammer for the lovely results. As for the Fallows piece, today the US military is a work program for inner-city minorities and rural white poors. GOP hawks and policymakers are contemptuous of them, and the left (as much as it exists in the US) tend to scorn anything military-related. Most of us Internet warriors can be smug that we were born fortunate enough never to have to consider enlisting in the military, and look down our noses at the bloodthirsty, unenlightened savages that populate the ranks today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Sorta like conservative pro-lifers who care more about protecting a fetus than a baby. Yup. Once they stop serving your ideological agenda, throw em overboard and talk about them glowingly. These are the same people that think everything can be solved by prayer and dissolving the separations of Church and State. The scariest part is the amount of GOP supporters you find among the enlisted, at least among the units I've been stationed in. Anecdotal I know, but Fox News and GOP talking points are everywhere it seems like. TheImmigrant posted:Especially in Iraq, the US military accomplished the mission of overthrowing the Ba'athist regime quicker than anyone anticipated. The subsequent fiasco was a political and policy failure by US leadership, not the fault of the military. Using military to accomplish a shifting, unclear mission of nation building is like trying to paint a still-life with a hammer, and blaming the hammer for the lovely results. This is so incredibly true, the military did flawlessly at what it was required to do, but once it was done there was never a diplomatic plan laid out by Bush, so the military was forced to sit on its thumbs and use Iraq as a way to pull funding requests. The issue with the invasion Iraq is fully laid at the feet of the Politicians, not the military. Even the reasoning and poor intelligence excuse for the invasion was almost entirely a problem with Washington, not the Pentagon. The White House could have FULLY delayed the invasion to let intelligence assets pan out a bit more, but they were in full on cowboy mode after 9/11 and itching for a fight. And in a way, the public egged them on. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Vietnam and Iraq were damaging to US prestige, but not really to US military prestige. Especially in Iraq, the US military accomplished the mission of overthrowing the Ba'athist regime quicker than anyone anticipated. The subsequent fiasco was a political and policy failure by US leadership, not the fault of the military. Using military to accomplish a shifting, unclear mission of nation building is like trying to paint a still-life with a hammer, and blaming the hammer for the lovely results. My point proves itself, the racism, contempt for minorities like myself and utter hatred of anyone who isn't a 'social elite' is self evident. Honestly, why was this a necessary post?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Fast food, pawnshops, and tattoo parlors? Come on man, that's the good stuff. Don't forget the Korean food stores, or is that only at Ft. Hood? CommieGIR posted:Oh god, the predatory lending guys are EVERYWHERE. Damned E-1 - E-4s loving their credit faster than a cheap date. Owned by retired CSM's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:My point proves itself, the racism, contempt for minorities like myself and utter hatred of anyone who isn't a 'social elite' is self evident. Honestly, why was this a necessary post? Pretty sure the last part of that post is ironic. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
The data is definitely old now but I recall people posting data circa 2008 that showed that the largest group of military enlistees were middle class and not poor people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:My point proves itself, the racism, contempt for minorities like myself and utter hatred of anyone who isn't a 'social elite' is self evident. Honestly, why was this a necessary post? Ryand-Smith posted:~a secret liberal racist~ Dude, calm down. Sir Tonk posted:Owned by retired CSM's. How else are they supposed to make retirement fun? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:05
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The issue with the invasion Iraq is fully laid at the feet of the Politicians, not the military. Even the reasoning and poor intelligence excuse for the invasion was almost entirely a problem with Washington, not the Pentagon. The White House could have FULLY delayed the invasion to let intelligence assets pan out a bit more, but they were in full on cowboy mode after 9/11 and itching for a fight. And in a way, the public egged them on. It did a good job, but it was kind of pushing at an open door when it invaded Iraq. I think there were already signs of rot back then, they were just much less pronounced because the military apparatus wasn't under stress.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It did a good job, but it was kind of pushing at an open door when it invaded Iraq. I think there were already signs of rot back then, they were just much less pronounced because the military apparatus wasn't under stress. Yeah, Saddam was never really going to recover the strength of his military compared to prior to the First Gulf War. It was never a stable political structure to begin with, more of a gangland style mob. When you have an Army that has been training for a East vs West war that never came going to war against a military like the Iraqi Army that was barely third rate compared to Western militaries, its going to go fast. Hell, prior to the first Gulf War his military was never meant to fight something like the US Army.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:True, but in rare cases where that sort of development is ground breaking enough that extra funding may be needed, it would be excusable. The problem we have now is so many of the larger DoD manufacturers like Lockheed and Boeing have so many on the defense committee approving their projects left and right that waste is almost entirely unavoidable. Ah but see, once you grant one project the excuse, you open a door to a whole new set of "but this IS groundbreaking!" arguments. As much as I'd like to see a review panel I can only imagine it would be a matter of time before their pockets are lined or they're promised roles in think tanks or contractors (similar to highly ranked military officers today as mentioned in the Atlantic article) for a favorable review. I think a review board would help similar to NASA, but it would have to be in combination with other changes, even more changes than a project price increase cap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
I've only interacted very indirectly with a couple of their projects but why or why not would hugely increasing the size and scope of the Corps of Engineers not be a "solution" to the political engineering element, in that you'd still have political engineering but now the citizenry is getting something they all benefit from when Senator X pushes for something in their state? Northrup would lose but John Deere would seem to win on the inevitable contractor slap fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:31
|
|
Dreylad posted:The data is definitely old now but I recall people posting data circa 2008 that showed that the largest group of military enlistees were middle class and not poor people. The 2012 Demographics Report doesn't track social class, but enlisted are 93% high school or associate's degree, compared to the 82% of officers that have at least a bachelor's and 43% that have a graduate or professional degree. Interestingly, while the military is slightly blacker than the overall racial makeup (and the opposite for officers), it is much less Hispanic/Latino than America as a whole. Meanwhile one of the other issues, and the flipside of the F-35, is that so many other programs are canceled in favor of modernizing existing designs in the other branches.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Meanwhile one of the other issues, and the flipside of the F-35, is that so many other programs are canceled in favor of modernizing existing designs in the other branches. If you have any articles or anecdotes to expand on this a bit, I'd love to read it in comparison to all of the F-35 hate in the OP (through no fault of Joe's).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The subsequent fiasco was a political and policy failure by US leadership, not the fault of the military. Using military to accomplish a shifting, unclear mission of nation building is like trying to paint a still-life with a hammer, and blaming the hammer for the lovely results. CommieGIR posted:This is so incredibly true, the military did flawlessly at what it was required to do, but once it was done there was never a diplomatic plan laid out by Bush, so the military was forced to sit on its thumbs and use Iraq as a way to pull funding requests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:39
|
|
