Quote:
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.