America's military is built to help defense contractors, not troops

[timosman]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brooks-beehner-military-procurement-20170524-story.html


May 24, 2017

The speaker was civilian, the audience military. Soldiers and marines leaned forward as the speaker described the hazards inherent to moving troops or supplies in developing countries. Those in uniform nodded. Many knew firsthand what happens to an ambushed truck convoy in a clogged Iraqi alley or on a narrow Afghan switchback. Many had lost friends on those alleys and roads. All were looking for solutions. And here it was: hover bikes! Through flashing slides of an artist's renderings, the civilian confidently boasted that the future of military transport was here.

"Great," grumbled one soldier after the presentation, "all the enemy has to do is string up a clothesline between two buildings." "Or just hide up on the second floor with a baseball bat," added a young Marine, "and hit us in the face as we pass." "Hey, you guys talking about the hover bikes?" a passing civilian contractor asked. "Cool stuff, huh?"

This scene exemplifies our deeply broken military procurement process. The system pads the pockets of big defense firms at the expense of our troops, delivering boondoggles instead of quality products that save lives.

Before he took office, Donald Trump suggested he would overhaul the procurement process. He said he’d slash the cost of the F-35 and even discussed scaling back the bling on Air Force One. Since taking office, he has reversed himself, promising to lavish the military with whatever it needs. But does the need come from the military or those who arm them?

Greed and incompetence have always infected the equipment of armies. The term "shoddy" comes from the flimsy, mass-produced shoes that "shod" our troops during the Civil War. When President Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex, he foresaw a new age of collusion between politicians, defense contractors and those who wear the stars. It was bad enough during the Cold War, but the dysfunction is even worse now. Consider that of the 63 largest Pentagon programs at the moment, 50 are over budget by $296 billion.

And that's just money. What about blood?

In the early days of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, when Americans were being killed by low-tech, jury-rigged improvised explosive devices, the Pentagon was spending billions on air-superiority fighter planes, anti-ballistic missile lasers, and uniforms so cheap they were said to tear like tissue paper in the field.

The military relies on a familiar clutch of defense contractors that face little public scrutiny or competition from outside firms, and so have little incentive to provide cost-effective technologies. Instead, they offer shiny objects. Consider the Future Combat Systems, a fleet of networked vehicles that was supposed to provide greater mobility and communications capabilities. How did it do? The multibillion dollar program was shelved in 2009.

Peeling back the onion of the military's procurement process reveals a broken yet intricate system that traverses congressional districts and crosses party lines. In his memoirs, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained at length about how big money, special interest groups, and politicians looking to create local jobs conspire to keep expensive yet iffy programs (like missile defense) up and running.

Without reform, not only will more American tax dollars vanish down the Pentagon's bottomless well, but more Americans may lose lives and limbs in tomorrow's wars.

The first step is to seek more input from the frontlines — the only way to find out what’s really needed. (We could look to Israel as an example; there, the military and the tech sector work hand-in-glove.) The second step is to restore true competition.


Right now, companies outside the so-called Iron Triangle almost never win bids. But if an outside company like, say, Airbus makes a better mousetrap (or Air Force tanker) than an established contractor, like Boeing, then they should be rewarded. Quality matters more than brand.

Reform, however, cannot succeed without greater oversight, and right now no one is minding the store. Yes, there are various agencies and committees, offices and officers, but there is no centralized power tasked with rooting out inefficiencies.

This needs to change, or rather, it needs to change back. A long time ago, when Eisenhower was a general and America was embroiled in World War II, a scrappy, sharp-elbowed senator headed a committee that oversaw all military corruption and waste. This senator took names, made sure that every dollar was well spent, not squandered, and that American weapons only killed America's enemies. That senator's name was Harry S. Truman.

What we need today is a new version of the Truman Committee, one given broad authority to truly drain the swamp. Will the military brass resent this kind of disruptive intrusion? Some might, at least those who have cushy consulting jobs lined up with contractors. But the majority of them care deeply about the men and women under their command, and would rather they had something more practical than hoverbikes.

Max Brooks is the author of “World War Z” and a nonresident fellow at West Point's Modern War Institute. Lionel Beehner is an assistant professor and director of research at the institute.

[enhanced_deficit]

Something is strange here, this paper gets no ads revenue from contractors/not afraid to lose such corporate ads money?
Why is this kind of information being made public.

[AZJoe]

Trump's appointment of John Rood, previously a Lockheed Martin Vice President, as Undersecretary of Policy for Defense Department (the Pentagon's No. 3 position) is confirmed by the Senate (https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/01/04/the-people-in-charge-of-the-us-military/).

Trump previously appointed a Director of General Dynamics to be Secretary of Defense, and a Raytheon lobbyist to be Secretary of the Army.

[johnwk]

America's military is built to help defense contractors, not troops

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brooks-beehner-military-procurement-20170524-story.html




That article is a clever hit piece designed to have the American People question and reject America modernizing and rebuilding her military so no nation would even dream about attacking her or her allies.

I see our Russian propagandists are alive and working in America, even at the LA Times.


JWK

[Slave Mentality]

That article is a clever hit piece designed to have the American People question and reject America modernizing and rebuilding her military so no nation would even dream about attacking her or her allies.

I see our Russian propagandists are alive and working in America, even at the LA Times.


JWK

Interesting statement from someone on here waxing Constitutional arguments quite often.

[timosman]

That article is a clever hit piece designed to have the American People question and reject America modernizing and rebuilding her military so no nation would even dream about attacking her or her allies.

I see our Russian propagandists are alive and working in America, even at the LA Times.


JWK

Satire?;)

[thoughtomator]

This is something I personally witnessed in DC.

Military contracting is full of retired Generals who spend their post-military career peddling influence on behalf of the contractors. It's all over, ubiquitous, shameless, and out in the open.

[johnwk]

Interesting statement from someone on here waxing Constitutional arguments quite often.

I'm happy my post interests you. Carry on with your distractions.

:rolleyes:

[AZJoe]

Satire?;)

Satire? No, it's true. Sure it may be a huge transfer of wealth from the taxpayers and the retirees and the wage earners and rest of the economy to the MIC, but for sure we need to throw billions to develop those hover-bikes for our boys and girls in uniform. So what, if the government is already $20 trillion in official debt and $130 trillion in actual debt per GAAP. Without those hover-bikes, we will be helpless to defend against the next Libya or Syria or Iraq or Donbass. Heck, without those hover-bikes, Iran would be storming our shores any day now and we would be totally helpless. For sure!

So what is the F35 turned out to be both a failure and one of the most expensive boondoggles in history? It was still a boondoggle for the troops! Every bit of waste and unnecessary expense and government boondoggle that transfers wealth from the working class to the MIC is still a waste and a boondoggle for the troops! So keep that money flowing to the MIC. Perpetual spiraling debt into skyrocketing oblivion is the key to our national security.

[pcosmar]

I see our Russian propagandists are alive and working in America, even at the LA Times.


JWK
I agree,, we NEED TO STOP, Bring our troops home,,and defund the military.
At the same time,, remove regulation and all gun laws,,and let the market arm the American people with the best that imaginations can come up with.
No one will attack.

[Raginfridus]

Remember when Kerry was the guy who was gonna get the troops their armor? He was all for Bush's dumbass wars, but they needed that armor by golly. The next gen of "anti-war" Dem will in likewise be for the wars, but our boys (and girls) better have their hover boards, or there's gonna be hell to pay.

[johnwk]

I agree,, we NEED TO STOP, Bring our troops home,,and defund the military.


No, we are not in agreement. We need to have a military so strong and powerful that our enemies will not even dream about attacking us. Grow up in the inner city like I did and you quickly learn might makes right.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[oyarde]

I want a hover board , is there a sign up list ?

[johnwk]

I want a hover board , is there a sign up list ?

They hand them out at the welfare office. Did you forget to pick one up?

[oyarde]

They hand them out at the welfare office. Did you forget to pick one up?

I have never seen a welfare office . Not sure what they would call them but pretty sure they do not serve drinks .

[pcosmar]

They hand them out at the welfare office. Did you forget to pick one up?

In the cities.
I avoid them.

[phill4paul]

No, we are not in agreement. We need to have a military so strong and powerful that our enemies will not even dream about attacking us. Grow up in the inner city like I did and you quickly learn might makes right.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.



Nukes and an armed population (i.e state militias) are all that is needed. Unfortunately, we only have one half of the equation.

[johnwk]

Nukes and an armed population (i.e state militias) are all that is needed. Unfortunately, we only have one half of the equation.

That kind of thinking was handily refuted under the Articles of Confederation when the States joined, under a new Constitution, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.


JWK

[kcchiefs6465]

That kind of thinking was handily refuted under the Articles of Confederation when the States joined, under a new Constitution, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.


JWK
Ahh. The good old welfare clause.

Your constitutional authority is impeccable.

[pcosmar]

That kind of thinking was handily refuted under the Articles of Confederation when the States joined, under a new Constitution, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.


JWK

Under the Constitution,, the Army was to be defunded after 2 years. Period.

It had provision for a Navy.. Which I believe should be confined to coastal waters.. unless and until there is a properly declared war.

[johnwk]

Ahh. The good old welfare clause.

Your constitutional authority is impeccable.

Actually, my understanding of the meaning of "general welfare" as it was understood by our Founders is "impeccable" because it reflects our founders own words and not those who pretend it means whatever they wish it to mean.

In Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution as understood by its framers and to gain ratification, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.

Hamilton writes:

"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."


This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates:

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:



"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."


Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]

Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.





JWK




Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[johnwk]

Under the Constitution,, the Army was to be defunded after 2 years. Period.



And that is why its funding is reauthorized every two years! PERIOD.

What is your point? Are you suggesting our Founder's did not intend to provide for a modern military to insure the general welfare of the United States and repel invasions?

JWK

[tod evans]

And that is why its funding is reauthorized every two years! PERIOD.

What is your point? Are you suggesting our Founder's did not intend to provide for a modern military to insure the general welfare of the United States and repel invasions?

JWK

How's that workin' out?

From here it looks like our military is causing a huge influx of "invaders" to seek refuge..........

[pcosmar]

And that is why its funding is reauthorized every two years! PERIOD.

What is your point? Are you suggesting our Founder's did not intend to provide for a modern military to insure the general welfare of the United States and repel invasions?

JWK

No. in fact they warned against doing so.
There are multiple warnings against a standing army,, and provision for an armed population (militia) to repel invasion.
And for the "calling up" of the militia to form an army as NEEDED.

It has not been needed for some time. (like ever)

(although the Spanish American War, and early WW1 were in fact volunteers.)

[pcosmar]

How's that workin' out?

From here it looks like our military is causing a huge influx of "invaders" to seek refuge..........

Well yes it does,, from every part of the world that we have invaded.

[johnwk]

How's that workin' out?

From here it looks like our military is causing a huge influx of "invaders" to seek refuge..........

It's not working out very well. But it's not because of the terms and conditions set forth in our constitution. The fault is not in our Constitution. It is found in abuses of power by those who are elected.


JWK

[Brian4Liberty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

[johnwk]

And that is why its funding is reauthorized every two years! PERIOD.

What is your point? Are you suggesting our Founder's did not intend to provide for a modern military to insure the general welfare of the United States and repel invasions?

JWK


No. in fact they warned against doing so.

What our founders did to protect against a standing army was the requirement that ". . . no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". This required House Members [all bills to raise a revenue are to originate in the House] to return to their constituents and seek their approval. The problem is not in our Constitution. The problem is corrupted politicians and the voters who elect, and re-elect these corrupted politicians.


JWK

[johnwk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Apparently, voters are happy with the military industrial complex. What is the point of your post? Countless people have warned against the military industrial complex.


JWK

[pcosmar]

What our founders did to protect against a standing army was the requirement that ".

Failed. It was not enforced,, and not forbidden strongly enough.

much like,,the 2nd amendment. the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment.

The "Will of the People" was to stay out of Europe's War.
But that was ignored too, and eventually people had to be drafted (enslaved) to fight to fight a war that was none of our business.

[tod evans]

The problem is corrupted politicians and the voters who elect, and re-elect these corrupted politicians.


Give the common man leave to dispense of corrupt politicians free from sanction and poof they're gone....

Every elected position must carry the threat of death without retribution in order for the "will of the people" to be followed...

[johnwk]

What our founders did to protect against a standing army was the requirement that ". . . no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". This required House Members [all bills to raise a revenue are to originate in the House] to return to their constituents and seek their approval. The problem is not in our Constitution. The problem is corrupted politicians and the voters who elect, and re-elect these corrupted politicians.


JWK





Failed.

The fault is not in our Constitution. The failure you mention is found in the American People's unwillingness to support and defend their Constitution and its legislative intent, and severely punish elected officials who knowingly and willingly work to subvert the very constitution they took an oath to support and defend.


JWK

[pcosmar]

The fault is not in our Constitution.


JWK

and there is no good reason to continue the foolishness that has gotten us here.

Amend the Constitution,,

My preference would be stricter limitations and sharp teeth to prevent exceeding those limits.
and replace tax with voluntary anonymous contribution.

Run out of a tip jar and stay out of the way, as government should be.

[kcchiefs6465]

Actually, my understanding of the meaning of "general welfare" as it was understood by our Founders is "impeccable" because it reflects our founders own words and not those who pretend it means whatever they wish it to mean.

In Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution as understood by its framers and to gain ratification, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.

Hamilton writes:

"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."


This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates:

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:



"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."


Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]

Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.





JWK




Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

It is your understanding of the Constitution that it was the intent of the Framers to develop the largest standing army in the world, peddling influence in practically every conflict on the planet?

And this was to paid for through excise taxes?

And furthermore, that this wasteful spending constitutes a promotion of the general welfare of the people within the United States as authorized by the Constitution?

How many decades of spending is the current budget for the military (~1 trillion dollars after VA expenses, Black budget etc.) when compared to the annual budget of the beginning years of the United States?

[kcchiefs6465]

Because I was curious, the 2017 budget for the military is about 1,564,945 times larger than the entire budget of 1789.

And this was authorized because of Federalist No. 83?

Adjusted for inflation, the US military budget (1 trillion dollars for all intents and purposes) could fund the annual budget of 1789 for 59,166 Years.

And this was authorized by Federalist No. 41?

[johnwk]

It is your understanding of the Constitution that it was the intent of the Framers to develop the largest standing army in the world, peddling influence in practically every conflict on the planet?



Those are your words, not mine. So, how about you answering your own questions, and either agreeing to what I wrote or disagree with an intelligent and thoughtful rebuttal?

JWK

[kcchiefs6465]

Those are your words, not mine. So, how about you answering your own questions, and either agreeing to what I wrote or disagree with an intelligent and thoughtful rebuttal?

JWK
Well, I’m on a phone so I don’t do the debate thing much anymore. It’s too hard to format. I will simply say that this military, which cannot even be audited, has wasted more money than quite possibly every other military on the planet over the entire course of human existence.

Trillions of dollars of waste, in fact.

And here you are to say that those who point out that they piss money away in spectacular fashion and have sold their souls to the complex are Russian agents.

My rebuttal: Alexander Hamilton was a whore.

[AZJoe]

It is your understanding of the Constitution that it was the intent of the Framers to develop the largest standing army in the world, peddling influence in practically every conflict on the planet?


Those are your words, not mine. So, how about you answering your own questions, and either agreeing to what I wrote or disagree with an intelligent and thoughtful rebuttal
JWK

kcchiefs6465 comment is well warranted. According to johnwk (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510947-America-s-military-is-built-to-help-defense-contractors-not-troops&p=6571350&viewfull=1#post6571350), anyone that calls out the wasteful military spending is simply "clever hit piece designed to have the American People question and reject America modernizing and rebuilding her military" and a "Russian propagandists"

[timosman]

kcchiefs6465 comment is well warranted. According to johnwk (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510947-America-s-military-is-built-to-help-defense-contractors-not-troops&p=6571350&viewfull=1#post6571350), anyone that calls out the wasteful military spending is simply "clever hit piece designed to have the American People question and reject America modernizing and rebuilding her military" and a "Russian propagandists"

He's right. Without the excess military spending the economy would collapse and our way of life, as we know it, would end.

[Swordsmyth]

kcchiefs6465 comment is well warranted. According to johnwk (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510947-America-s-military-is-built-to-help-defense-contractors-not-troops&p=6571350&viewfull=1#post6571350), anyone that calls out the wasteful military spending is simply "clever hit piece designed to have the American People question and reject America modernizing and rebuilding her military" and a "Russian propagandists"

What we need is a strong military with a drastically cut budget that is retracted to American soil for the defense of Americans.

[AZJoe]

A little Ron Paul throwback on the Military Industrial Complex, military spending and military waste.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duhaz-WYl3k


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXE8Yxu_N8k


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrX-oQ7ni2M


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWyQZWzyLc0

[nikcers]

He's right. Without the excess military spending the economy would collapse and our way of life, as we know it, would end.
We wouldn't be poor we just wouldn't have an economy where one side benefits off the other side.

[pcosmar]

What we need is a strong military with a drastically cut budget that is retracted to American soil for the defense of Americans.

I thought that was what I said.

[Swordsmyth]

I thought that was what I said.
I was replying to AZ.

[pcosmar]

I was replying to AZ.

OK,, was agreeing..

but I thought I said something like it only different.

[johnwk]

kcchiefs6465 comment is well warranted. According to johnwk (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510947-America-s-military-is-built-to-help-defense-contractors-not-troops&p=6571350&viewfull=1#post6571350), anyone that calls out the wasteful military spending is simply "clever hit piece designed to have the American People question and reject America modernizing and rebuilding her military" and a "Russian propagandists"

"Anyone". I gave my opinion on a specific article. Contrary to your charge, I was complaining about wasteful military spending back in the late 90s.

JWK

[johnwk]

What we need is a strong military with a drastically cut budget that is retracted to American soil for the defense of Americans.

Didn't Trump help to get the cost of air-force fighters reduced?


JWK

[Swordsmyth]

OK,, was agreeing..

but I thought I said something like it only different.

OK, I don't think we are in disagreement either. :)

[Swordsmyth]

Didn't Trump help to get the cost of air-force fighters reduced?


JWK

I think so, but there is much more work to be done, hopefully the single step is a beginning to a journey of a thousand miles.

[pcosmar]

"Anyone". I gave my opinion on a specific article. Contrary to your charge, I was complaining about wasteful military spending back in the late 90s.

JWK

late 90s ?

I am I witness to a whole lot way back to the mid 70s..
Huuge waste.
I mean, you couldn't get better waste..

opps wait,, Read My Lips.

no?

[johnwk]

late 90s ?

I am I witness to a whole lot way back to the mid 70s..
Huuge waste.


So did I but not as accurately as I did in the 90s which included massive waste and fraud in pinko social free cheese programs.

JWK