The Revolving Door

Retired general had no conflict of interest, Panetta says

Robertson had been the top officer at U.S. Transportation Command and Air Mobility Command before retiring in 2001. He went to work for Boeing, retiring as a vice president in 2010. He did not respond to a request for comment.

A USA TODAY investigation in 2009 found that 80% of 158 mentors, retired officers hired as advisers, had ties to the defense industry, including Roberson. Panetta assured McCain the Pentagon has taken "many steps" since then to "impose controls on senior mentors." Among them: They must disclose business ties and have had their pay capped, and they are subject to confict-of-interest rules. Those restrictions were not in place in 2008, when Robertson participated in the war game.

Counter-IED Research and Development to be cut?

Pentagon Program to Limit the Threat of Roadside Bombs Faces Budget Cut

This is one R&D project that should not be cut from the DoD budget.  The threats from IEDs are not going away... It is quite sad that R&D needed in today's operations is cut, but unproven and expensive R&D designed for warfare generations down the road is kept.

Lawmakers claim that "lack of coordination” with some activities undertaken by the individual services led to their discussion of program cuts.  In fact, the committee report said, “The Army and the Marine Corps have pursued their own separate efforts to develop counter-IED mine rollers.”  This is one more example of inter-service rivalry vying for military industrial complex dollars.  The first change that needs to be made is getting rid of bottom-up budget making.  The Secretary of Defense needs to be given a dollar amount by the President, like every other cabinet secretary, and then divy the money out to the services, rather than the services coming up with a budget on their own and submitting it to the Secretary.  In this instance, if the SECDEF had said "Counter-IED programs" get $X and the Marine Corps and Army will split the money and conduct research jointly, the current problem described would not be happening.

On Defense, Silver Linings, Golden Opportunities

RMA is back? This discussion should have never been backburnered... here is a quote from the article (commentary after):

Missing, so far, from the conversation that most of the American public has been exposed to is this question: What should the United States military be asked to accomplish in the first half of the 21st century, and is the awesome force slogging away in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, in more routine missions, across the planet properly organized, equipped, and trained to accomplish it? . . .


But the transformation that began during the late 1990s, aimed at pushing the military to evolve the Cold War-era divisions and air wings that dominated it at the time into a force more in tune with 21st century missions and (it was presumed at the time) lower appropriation levels, had real intellectual value. With cuts in the wind and ground wars like Iraq and Afghanistan unlikely to recur any time soon, that debate deserves to restart.


For good reason, this debate got backburnered as counterinsurgency, urban combat, and other tasks the military thought it had left behind in Vietnam demanded fresh attention. But some on the intellectual side of the armed forces kept the idea, known as the "Revolution in Military Affairs," alive, and while it remains on life support, the basic outlines exist of a “win-win” plan to maximize capabilities while reducing the bloated Pentagon budget.

It takes years to develop personnel and, therefore, I don't agree with the idea of cutting personnel as I have said repeatedly. Here are some ideas I found odd in the article:

1. The idea that the U.S. Army should "retain[]at most a single heavy armored brigade for contingencies . . ." is ludicrous. This is the equivalent of telling the USMC that operating in the littorals isn't their job anymore.

2. In addition, the USMC force structure review is wrong in calling for "a 13%reduction in ground combat forces, to include an 11% reduction in infantry, a 20% reduction in cannon artillery, and a 20% reduction in armor." If the U.S. Navy is having trouble cutting the budget already, these personnel reductions are going to do nothing - they will merely allow a few expensive U.S. Navy R&D and weapons program to survive.

Borrow a flak vest, Mr. Secretary...

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (pbuh) will give a speech to the Air Force Association on Wednesday going into the "lion's den" as Paul Bedard states in the article linked above.

Welcome to the Candy Shop

This is a good article on the military industrial complex and Congress. However, I disagree with the statement that "battling politicians’ parochial interests may be relatively easy compared to the far more formidable challenge of changing the memes that have ruled the Pentagon for decades." In my mind, Congress is the root of the problem and is the reason there is a military industrial complex.

The vast majority of representatives in Congress have never served a day in the military, which is a change from the pre-Cold War era. They are impressed with titles such as colonel, commander, general, and admiral. They are impressed with fast jets and lasers that work 60 percent of the time. They are impressed when defense companies, through a retired general or admiral who is pitching a certain system to them, say that a government contract with them will protect citizens and bring jobs to their district. In sum, given that there are no negative effects felt by congressmen and only some positives (e.g. jobs, seeming like they are strong on defense), they are like kids in a candy store spending the taxpayers money on "defense," not war of course - there is no longer a more accurately titled "War Department."

Over time, the candy stores Congress frequented prospered and expanded. These candy stores then developed their own culture of selling junk at a high price to the government through contracts.

"You want almonds with that candy bar, congressman?" asks retired Army Brigadier General F. Clarence Numbnuts III, an officer who never served in combat and shuffled papers as an adjutant general officer his whole career which spanned from 1971 to 2001. "Well then, we will first have to research what type of almonds work best with that chocolate and it will cost you another $50 million dollars each year. I can explain it in more detail... Would you like to come to my house in McLean for a drink? Perhaps a round of gold at the Army-Navy Club or Ft. Myer?"

More military officers retired and invited their officer friends to join one of the prospering candy companies at $100K per year; pretty good considering most are also receiving their retired O-5 and O-6 pay. The companies began to develop in a military fashion using many of operating procedures the new employees used in the military. Retired military officers no longer brought military experience, leadership, and innovation to American universities, Ford, GM, or Wall Street, like they did after World War II. Instead they worked for defense contractors thereby excerbating the divide between the American public and the military. The companies then began to hire retired flag officers to be the CEOs; afterall, congressmen are impressed with titles. The result is President Eisenhower's worst nightmare come true.

Congress is the root of the problem. Congress doesn't even vote to declare war anymore - they just authorize the use of force so they are never blamed for any of the blood and carnage that occurs from the use of the toys they bought with taxpayer money... they are like a toddler who's mouth is covered in candy and doesn't take the blame for not cleaning his playpen.