There's an alternative F-35 engine that the Secretary of Defense and the military want to cut out of the budget, congress won't let them. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/16/usa-budget-engine-idUSN169090520110216
There's a 747 mounted laser program that the Secretary of Defense and the military wants to get rid of but congress won't let them. http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110211_9505.php
Instead the Pentagon is forced to cut things that it wants to keep. Put more correctly, it's being forced to cut things that it has logically determined are necessary for it to accomplish it's missions as defined by the civilian government.http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/02/why_is_obama_cutting_the_penta.html
Of course we could change the mission to not include things like "protecting America's interests around the world" and nation-building. If the mission became simply "defend the United States and its territories" the Pentagon would logically determine what assets and programs should be reduced, and it would be a staggering amount of savings if the civilian government would simply go along with the Pentagon's recommendations.
Instead we have defense contractors wining and dining our congress, we have representatives and senators using defense contracts to buy votes and provide jobs in their districts. These same politicians scream bloody murder every time the Pentagon wants to cut something that employs people in their electorate, what's needed as determined by the people doing the job is a distant second in these people's minds.
Military spending in the rest of the western world would logically have to increase too, perhaps at the expense of certain social programs for which the USA endures criticism for not having.
It's pretty messed up.
There's a 747 mounted laser program that the Secretary of Defense and the military wants to get rid of but congress won't let them. http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110211_9505.php
Instead the Pentagon is forced to cut things that it wants to keep. Put more correctly, it's being forced to cut things that it has logically determined are necessary for it to accomplish it's missions as defined by the civilian government.http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/02/why_is_obama_cutting_the_penta.html
Of course we could change the mission to not include things like "protecting America's interests around the world" and nation-building. If the mission became simply "defend the United States and its territories" the Pentagon would logically determine what assets and programs should be reduced, and it would be a staggering amount of savings if the civilian government would simply go along with the Pentagon's recommendations.
Instead we have defense contractors wining and dining our congress, we have representatives and senators using defense contracts to buy votes and provide jobs in their districts. These same politicians scream bloody murder every time the Pentagon wants to cut something that employs people in their electorate, what's needed as determined by the people doing the job is a distant second in these people's minds.
Military spending in the rest of the western world would logically have to increase too, perhaps at the expense of certain social programs for which the USA endures criticism for not having.
It's pretty messed up.
