You might want to go back and revisit both emptywheel’s and Larisa Alexandrovna’s writings on the missile defense shield program in relation to Poland, and the black site(s) there. Was that bit, “severely hurt”, a veiled inference to threats by Poland to reveal more about the site(s) and rendition flights?

Could be. It’s a good point. But from my perspective, that kind of disclosure would be a win-win…

Seems this only strengthens the argument for keeping Gates on as SecDef, assuming he’s on board with the cuts. From my (admittedly uninformed) perspective, it looks like he has a kind of respect from the top guys at the Pentagon that Rumsfeld never achieved.

Also, in case you’re interested, the page that confirms one’s commenter registration misspells the word “continue.”

Procurement struggles are like knife fights in a dark alley: no time to show weakness.

recommendation to obama: put chuck spinney in charge.

I saw that article about Obering lobbying to keep the ridiculous missile defense shield. It was blatant and I think a good reason to fire him just for that.

This a longer entry in my scandals list based on a GAO report on the Pentagon’s procurement programs.

338. A March 31, 2008 GAO report found continued and worsening problems in the Pentagon’s acquisition programs. In 2000 the Department of Defense (DOD) had 75 systems in its acquisition program representing a commitment of $790 billion. In 2007, this had increased to 95 systems worth $1.6 trillion. In 2000, the difference between the total acquisition cost and the initial estimate was 6% ($42 billion). By 2007, it was 26% ($295 billion). Of current programs, 14% are more than 4 years late. 15% are 2-4 years behind schedule. 38% are up to 2 years late, and 33% are on schedule. The average delay is 21 months.
The report looked at 72 individual programs including the largest in greater detail. It found that none of them had proceeded through system development adhering to best practices standards. 88% began without having critical technologies ready and developed for them. 96% still did not have them or a stable design later when they moved into the demonstration phase. And no program as it entered into production had good controls for monitoring the manufacturing process, and most were not even collecting the data necessary to do so.
There were other problems. 63% had changes in requirements after development began causing cost increases of 72%. Programs that did not experience such changes had cost grow by an average of 11%. There was also significant turnover in program managers so that the average time on the job was 17 months, less than half what the Pentagon’s own policy prescribes. As elsewhere, the DOD relies heavily on contractors (48% of acquisitions staff) to do the work that government employees used to do with all the blurring of management and control that this represents. Finally, in about half the projects using software there was an increase of more than 25% in the lines of expected code, an important indicator of cost and scheduling problems.
For 2008, the top 10 (out of 95) defense acquisition programs accounted for $39.1 billion out of a budget of $72.3 billion or 54% of it. What were these programs? The biggest at $8.9 billion is Bush’s ballistic missile defense shield, you know the one that doesn’t work (see item 73). Then there are the Joint Strike Fighter ($6.7 billion) and the F-22A ($4.4 billion). The Navy has even more goodies: the Virginia Class Submarine ($2.9 billion), another aircraft carrier ($3.1 billion), the DDG 1000 destroyer ($3.5 billion), an F/A-18 upgrade ($2.1 billion), and the P-8A an anti-submarine plane ($0.9 billion). The Marines continue to get funding for the V-22 Osprey, a plane that crashes a lot ($3 billion). The US Army which has been doing most of the heavy lifting in Iraq for the last 5 years really gets the short end of the stick in this military industrial lovefest but does have a suite of programs called Future Combat Systems ($3.6 billion).
In short, the Pentagon continues to spend huge amounts of money on acquisition of new weapons systems and manages to waste most of it. It does so by having no clear idea what it wants and then adding on capabilities later when it is much more expensive to do so. It does so by having no one in charge who knows the program or by passing these functions on to outside contractors who have little or no interest in containing costs. It does so by fostering inter-service rivalries which lead to individual services defending systems that contribute more to the nation’s deficit than to its defense. It does so by tying individual careers to the continuance of programs and so creates vested interests that will protect them for reasons that are more personal than professional. It does so by spreading program spending around to many states and Congressional districts so that there will be built in political support for a program even if it is overbudget, behind schedule, and works poorly or not at all.
Looking at the 10 biggest programs, we should ask ourselves if these programs really represent the military we need. Most of them are gold-plated anachronisms left over from the Cold War. Our biggest military operations during the Bush years have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet almost all these systems are irrelevant to such engagements. Indeed while we have been in these countries several years, our experiences in them are not reflected at all in the acquisition budget, a likely legacy of Donald Rumsfeld.
Finally, the 2008 US defense budget is estimated to be $623 billion. This is substantially more than the rest of the world combined. China is second at $65 billion, and Russia third at $50 billion. Whom are we defending ourselves from, and how? Yes, we need an adequate defense both for ourselves and to help defend our allies, but do we truly need to spend 10 times more than our nearest rival and to spend it so poorly? And what are the costs here at home? How many roads and schools are not being built? How much healthcare isn’t being purchased? How much science and technology are not being funded? How much of what makes this country worth defending is being passed over?

i don’t know how to wind down the defense dept. it has to be large bc we are under attack from all the countries that we have abused. got to be a shift in thinking first.

reddit

linky?

Chuck Spinney: Pentagon Apparatchiks Setting a “Reform” Trap for Obama?

Repurpose the military-industrial complex to green industries, keeping everyone one the payrolls (because the GOP needs their welfare).

i like it. that is perfect. turn the military into a constructive force.

you are an idea person. another?

We are under attack?

Good heavens! No wonder everybody’s buying duct tape and plastic sheeting.

Yep. The BIGGEST military in the world keeps us safe.

Or, on the other foot, maybe our arsenal scares the bejeebers out of everybody else.

It certainly has that effect on me.

Don’t see that as a long-range plan, though.

‘Cuz it’ll bankrupt us eventually, and by then, everybody will be totally pissilated with us.

To the GAO report?

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08467sp.pdf

The defense spending numbers can be found here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/…..ending.htm

The rest of it is my entry from my scandals list that you can get to by clicking on my name.

Sweet Jeebus, that lil boat looks just like my fancy European iron.

Windmills, not purple crosses.

sorry, just a little jab to wake up the troops. highly sarcastic in the above post.

hugh’s list item #338

happy to see someone is paying attention

The MIC is hanging on to the teat they have been sucking at for 60 years. Time to wean them away and face reality:

The USA’s defense apparatus is completely ineffective at defending us from terrorist attack – forget 9.11? They sat on their hands.

There is no nation which represents a military threat to the USA. No nation will mount an invasion of our shores… as we have done so many times to OTHER nations. They’re not interested.

So what IS the big threat? Some crazy Dr Strangelove sending a single missile at us? From where? Let’s get serious… it’s not gonna happen.

And tell me why we need nuclear subs with nuclear missiles snooping around the world’s oceans? And aircraft carriers with 5,000 sailors and airmen aboard?

Time to shrink the military by a factor of 10 or even 20.

i would love to get there. how to sell it to the paranoid public?

Sweet Jeebus, that lil boat looks just like my fancy European iron

You know it added almost $5 billion to the cost of the program for that destroyer’s advanced new ironing capabilities, don’t you?

Ah, we usually, (if we remember) apply a snark ‘tag’ (/s) to avoid confusion, consternation and complications related to uncontrollable laughter (as in “ROTFLMAO”) or, in extreme cases, add a ’spew’ alert which warns all and sundry NOT to have liquids in their hands or mouf when reading the warning signed ‘passage’.

Only because it is hard to discern nuance over the tubes, ya know.

;~)

****blush**** my good ideas are few and far between.

What really should happen is to eliminate the permanent volunteer military altogether. It has become exactly the cancer on our society that the founders feared. We should not be permanently stationed all over the world, devoting over half our tax revenues to the war machine.

We can keep our national guard to defend our shores, but the volunteer army is creating a warrior culture separate from mainstream America due to our growing military cities. It would be a lot harder to go to war on lies, like Iraq, if the president had to make the case strongly enough to get people to support raising an army.

Of course, this isn’t going to happen. But it sure would be nice to begin the discussion out in the open so maybe in ten or fifteen years the idea can be taken seriously.

sorry, i’ve been away. try to do better next time.

I expect Congress will bully Obama pork barrel by pork barrel program, state by state, district by district.

this is what a member of congress has suggested. institute the draft. if we really want to bomb/invade other nations, then we should staff for that contingency. Put it to a vote.

Well then, welcome back california!

I’ve been enjoying your perspectives.

you are saying that there are no statesmen left in DC?

thank you.

In stages. The huge impractical stuff first, e.g., missile defense shield, combined with a retooling of the military itself. Immediately begin to phase out the privitazation of the military, e.g., feeding and supplying troops – the beans and bullets pipeline. If Gutbomb Burger wants to put a franchise on a base, fine, let them pay for it.

It will take years but is not impossible. The lower ranks won’t like peelin’ spuds and serving as messcooks but it’s never killed anybody. Lincoln didn’t have much trouble getting rid of the crooked sutlers so it shouldn’t be all that difficult.

Excellent!!!

From your finger tips to Obama’s heart, SD.

i wish you were in charge. we have to return to sanity. i hope for a wind down but there will be resistance.

SD would make an excellent President,crc, but he always pooh poohs the idea ‘cuz he doesn’t like to order others around …

Which is EXACTLY why he would be among the best Presidents this nation has ever had.

That said, I wouldn’t wish the presidency on anyone, especially someone I like and respect.

SD knows where I stand in that regard.

Yeah and as soon as the Obama admin tries to cut defense spending not only will we hear the rabid shouting about terror and defense from the GOP, but the pressure will be intense from both sides regarding coveted jobs in various congressional districts. Defense contractors try to spread a contract to as many politically important districts as possible, to multiply the opportunity to get and keep the contract.

When you throw in a cratering economy and national employment numbers in a death spiral, we will see incredible resistance to program cuts.

This effort (and in fact most of the hoped-for clean up efforts), is (are) going to be inordinately difficult. And nasty. A bit like the job we are doing at our house to kill the rats that have invaded our basement and clean up the mess they’ve left behind.

Military spending has become sacrosanct and no one can suggest reducing or rationalizing it without getting pilloried as a troop hater. This has to change. As incisive as Paul Krugman is, he tends to ignore the implications of military spending. I suspect he understands, but wants to retain his mainstream status. It is the proverbial elephant in the living room, the third rail, choose your analogy. And it is the reason why Dems have to endure the lie that Repubs stand for fiscal restraint. They do, but only for non-military spending. I think fiscal responsibility is one of the big ideas that liberals need to reclaim, and this is the way to do it. They can also reclaim national security by making the case that all this spending isn’t making us safe. Great opportunities beckon…

Resistance isn’t the word for it.

What it will take is a President and Congress willing to make hard, practical decisions and have the will to stand by them. We also have to ensure that more productive industry is available to employ those who will necessarily be out of jobs, up and running when the shifts are made. The workforce is available to shift to a more planet friendly industrial nation, what we need is the political will. Mr Boeing CEO will have to learn to produce something other than war toys to keep his accumulation of wealth dream alive.

I can’t even get my tigers to answer the phone fer Christ’s sake.

Excellent anaylsis of current ‘realities’ Jdrew.

Good to ’see’ you again.

DW

that’s exactly why you:

1) put chuck spinney in charge of procurement
2) not program cuts that involved jobs – program transfers from mic to r&d, design, mfg, deployment of a distributed alternative energy infrastructure.

what to do about the legacy carbon extraction companies i don’t have any ideas.

it will be unamerican to not be able to crush other countries at will. i agree. has to be a shift in thinking. don’t know when it will come. maybe a depression? maybe a nuc hit here? we are slow to learn.

Japandrew and SD, you nailed it. So we need to have programs and proposals set to go for alternative employment (meaning contracts to build stuff that are analog to tech-and-steel defense ‘products’) when the cuts are proposed. The jobs-and-money argument is nullified at the beginning.

it will take WILL. i don’t see the us having that sort of unity right now. most likely is gradual, imo.

What makes you think of a nuclear strike here?

yes, that is a huge program. who has the balls to do it?

Nuke hit would make us a military dictatorship. I think depression could do it/will do it. Full-employment programs, non-military, spending money like water. Hard times present incredible opportunity, but it’s gonna suck.

Well, SD, I shall have to have Feurae call you and speak with your tigers, he’ll straighten them out, pronto.

I know you’re an old softy (when it comes to cats, humans and all other living beings) but ya got steel and moxie where it counts.

DW

That’s the key question. And the balls to report it, take it seriously in the press, media, and analysts, and then to push it through Congress. Whew!

not a thing. but for arguments sake, that is an event that would unite the country. frankly, it would be such a long shot that only the real nazis would fear and protect for that. Simply it is nuts.

We have plenty of historical data on the arguments used over the years for maintaining the most outrageous military schemes. We need to be prepared to counter those arguments on the day the idea to shift is made. Make the military and defense contractors the ones bringing a knife to a gunfight.

bingo!

The US is it’s own worst enemy.

Remind them that our military is being trashed by a bunch of rag-tag irregulars with improvised weapons and a budget that wouldn’t even run a US public school. Remind them that when the British Empire sent their best against us, we sent them packing at the point of squirrel guns and pitchforks.

Tell them that Americans will defend themselves just fine if required. Tell them we need a nice, well-trained militia and have them go training once a month or whatever. Everyone who is interested, anyone of voting age.

Don’t need no Future Combat Systems. They aren’t doing so well on the present combat, though, I can see why they want fantasy wars that they can win in heir imaginations.

Thanks. It’s nice to be back.

you have to be advocating a revolt. it just doesn’t happen that way here. gov’t is slooooow. you may not see it in your lifetime.

it took the brits and sovs a few years to figure that out. we, otoh, don’t seem to get it. how much has it cost in lives and $$$. hell, they know we will leave. just a matter of time.

LOL. I’ve been advocating a revolt for years.

Yes, it will take years and I may not live to see it. But I got nothin’ but time. And a will to help make change.

just stay out of jail. you are needed on the outside.

Yeppers, all human beings REALLY get to ’spend’ is time, and the wise ones realize that and behave accordingly, however ’revolting’ that might seem.

;~D

Aw, man, I spend half my time on the streets tryin’ to get arrested.

Sweet Jeebus, that lil boat looks just like my fancy European iron

You know it added almost $5 billion to the cost of the program for that destroyer’s advanced new ironing capabilities, don’t you?

Trillions to fight pirates on runabouts.

If Gutbomb Burger wants to put a franchise on a base, fine, let them pay for it.

Mmmm, a Gutbomb burger hits the spot every time and destroys your hunger! Mmmmm.

I totally agree and add the following with respect to the present recession:

It has been said, countless times, that WWII brought us out of the 1930s Depression. If that is true, it seems to me then, all that needs to be done to lift us out of this Mini-Depression is for the government to spend on—highways instead of hummers—trains and transit instead of tanks—buses instead of ballistic missiles—schools instead of submarines—hospitals, health and healthcare instead of high-explosives—bridges instead of bombers —fighting famine instead of feeding greed.