Romney's Proposed Defense Budget ...

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Money is fungible and Romney can't make an argument that he's going to take the money from a non-borrowed pot rather than a borrowed pot. As long as the country is running a deficit, the Defense budget is part of that deficit.

Military preparedness has declined by virtue of two wars going on for a decade. We're done with one and will soon be done with the other. This budgetary increase isn't about preparedness, it's about buying expensive weapons systems we don't need (and the Pentagon doesn't even want).

Yep.

Preparedness for what? I see the potential for conflict on the horizon, but it shouldn't be anything we cannot handle at current levels.

Here's a question for you; Is the problem "equipment" or or policies that hinder our military from being more efficient and fully effective?

I vote for the second option.

Anyone who has witnessed the military procurement system in action knows precisely what I am talking about.

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Yep.

Preparedness for what? I see the potential for conflict on the horizon, but it shouldn't be anything we cannot handle at current levels.

Here's a question for you; Is the problem "equipment" or or policies that hinder our military from being more efficient and fully effective?

I vote for the second option.

Anyone who has witnessed the military procurement system in action knows precisely what I am talking about.

Dave

Their cosy cost-plus contracts are a big part of the problem and a penchant for unnecessary bleeding edge technology, sometimes against imaginary foes (B-2, F-22, F-35, Coast Guard Deepwater program, Marine Osprey aircraft, Star Wars ....) have led to a host of crazy expensive weapons systems too unreliable/dangerous for deployment. DoD pisses more money in minutes than the GAO did in the much bally-hoed Vegas conference.

Moreover, we go in so heavy (in terms of infrastructure & support) that troop deployments in places like Afghanistan cost us $1 million/soldier/year (Iraq was ~$750K/soldier/year). Put in several hundred thousand troops in each place for a decade, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. You piss away your resources like this and then bitch about "preparedness?"

Romney promising 4% per year GDP for Defense is nothing but a sloppy, wet kiss to ensure support from the MIC. DoD (and its willing contractors) are fully able of spending unlimited funds without breaking a sweat (and not delivering the goods, be it a "victory" (whatever that means) or a plane that reliably flies or can be used in the rain).

Here's a somewhat dated WSJ article (it's worse now) that reinforces and illuminates these points:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124787043032160493.html

How do you think the GOP to this degree of malfeasance at a government agency providing social services? None come even close, BTW.

[bobabode]

Some smart person once said that the use of the military as a tool of diplomacy was counter-productive besides being counter-intuitive.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Anyone who has witnessed the military procurement system in action knows precisely what I am talking about.

Dave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Greenhouse

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/2..._receives_970k