Forget The Conventional Wisdom
The Sunday New York Times Opinion Section is the gathering place for what John K. Galbraith termed “the conventional wisdom”.
Conventional wisdom (CW) is a term used to describe ideas or explanations that are generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field. The term implies that the ideas or explanations, though widely held, are unexamined and, hence, may be reevaluated upon further examination or as events unfold.
Now is when we need a president who has the skill, the vision and the courage to cut through this cacophony, pull us together as one nation and inspire and enable us to do the one thing we can and must do right now:
Go shopping.
Obama can’t wait until Jan. 20 to weigh in on this. If we don’t stimulate the global economy fast enough and big enough, some of Obama’s inaugural balls might be held in soup kitchens.
I know Friedman is spooked but this is the same kind of nonsense George Bush put forth after 9/11 and reviving the Chinese export economy to Walmart is not the solution to our problems. What we need are the good middle class jobs that domestic construction and production provide. But Friedman’s spouting of conventional wisdom seems tame next to the lead editorial in The Times, titled “A Military for a Dangerous New World.”
Troops and equipment are so overtaxed by President Bush’s disastrous Iraq war that the Pentagon does not have enough of either for the fight in Afghanistan, the war on terror’s front line, let alone to confront the next threats.
This is intolerable, especially when the Pentagon’s budget, including spending on the two wars, reached $685 billion in 2008. That is an increase of 85 percent in real dollars since 2000 and nearly equal to all of the rest of the world’s defense budgets combined. It is also the highest level in real dollars since World War II.
This seems like a reasonable opening, but does the The Times suggesting trimming these bloated budgets? Hardly.
We believe the military needs the 65,000 additional Army troops and the 27,000 additional marines that Congress finally pushed President Bush into seeking. That buildup is projected to take at least two years; by the end the United States will have 759,000 active-duty ground troops…Much of the transport equipment is old and wearing out. The Pentagon will need to invest more in unglamorous but essential aircraft like long-haul cargo planes and refueling tankers. The KC-X aerial tanker got caught up in a messy contracting controversy. The new administration must move forward on plans to buy 179 new planes in a fair and open competition.
China is expanding its deep-water navy, much to the anxiety of many of its neighbors. The United States should not try to block China’s re-emergence as a great power. Neither can it cede the seas. Nor can it allow any country to interfere with vital maritime lanes.
America should maintain its investment in sealift, including Maritime Prepositioning Force ships that carry everything marines need for initial military operations (helicopter landing decks, food, water pumping equipment). It must also restock ships’ supplies that have been depleted for use in Iraq. One 2006 study predicted replenishment would cost $12 billion plus $5 billion for every additional year the marines stayed in Iraq.
Galbraith used the phrase “conventional wisdom” as term of opprobrium, and we should too. With a defense budget equal to all the other countries in the world combined, we need to radically rethink our notions of national security. As soon as we get our 140,000 troops out of Iraq we should begin looking at the 850 overseas American Military bases with an eye to closing more than half of them by the end of President Obama’s first term. We don’t need large garrisons in Korea or Germany and certainly not in Iraq. We need to kill the F-22 program, and the V-22 Osprey VTOL jet. The giant boondoggle of building more Navy ships for a war that doesn’t exist must be halted. All of these moves will occasion squeals of pain from the military/congressional/industrial complex. But as economic historians like Seymour Melman have shown, the Permanent War Economy does not make us more productive, but merely builds a kind of state capitalism that is the bane of innovation and revival.
This battle against the entrenched forces of industry and the military will be the most protracted of the Obama and at this point I am not even sure Barack is aware he’s going to have to fight it. But given the choice of investing in the rebuilding our infrastructure and productive base or keeping 450,000 of our men and women stationed overseas, the choice will be clear. LBJ’s great flaw was that he thought he could pay for both Guns and Butter with borrowed money. A decade of punishing inflation later, the Democrats we thrown out of office, to remain on the sidelines of history for 30 years.
“…the Pentagon’s budget, including spending on the two wars, reached $685 billion in 2008.”
______
Last time I checked, neither al Qaeda nor the Taliban had [1] an air force, [2] a navy, [3] mechanized armored units, nor [4] heavy artillery battalions, yet, well, you know…
I guess they didn’t get the Shock & Awe Memo.
Read the recent Nir Rosen Rolling Stone article about his dicey foray into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23612315/how_we_lost_the_war_we_won/print
Then read Steve Coll’s “Ghost Wars” for historical perspective.
Gonna be interesting. Good luck, Barack.
“…the Pentagon’s budget, including spending on the two wars, reached $685 billion in 2008.”
______
Last time I checked, neither al Qaeda nor the Taliban had [1] an air force, [2] a navy, [3] mechanized armored units, nor [4] heavy artillery battalions, yet, well, you know…
I guess they didn’t get the Shock & Awe Memo.
Read the recent Nir Rosen Rolling Stone article about his dicey foray into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23612315/how_we_lost_the_war_we_won/print
Then read Steve Coll’s “Ghost Wars” for historical perspective.
Gonna be interesting. Good luck, Barack.
BobbyG the Rolling Stone story jibes with one at http://www.tomsdispatch.com I read in April and one I read in http://www.sdcitybeat.com in June. If the media knows and we now know, shouldn’t Obama and crew know?
I think we are, like him, in a holding zone right now and we are going to have to create our own movement to keep from sinking. For example, The LA Times today reported that municipalities of all kinds have projects ready to submit. I am sure they all could use volunteers to help spread the word.
Personally, I am interested in education and the learning process. I believe our system needs to be pulled inside out. I believe we need to learn to live and let live. We need to encourage all styles of teaching and all styles of learning. Make it, as all those real conservatives ask, a open market. Let people test out by doing.
So I am looking for a public project that wants to work to those ends or somewhere near them.
But to get back to Jon’s topic. Is there some way that we can mount a people centered internet campaign to illustrate why we want these changes? Right now! And, what are we going to do with another 450,000 unemployed people?
BobbyG the Rolling Stone story jibes with one at http://www.tomsdispatch.com I read in April and one I read in http://www.sdcitybeat.com in June. If the media knows and we now know, shouldn’t Obama and crew know?
I think we are, like him, in a holding zone right now and we are going to have to create our own movement to keep from sinking. For example, The LA Times today reported that municipalities of all kinds have projects ready to submit. I am sure they all could use volunteers to help spread the word.
Personally, I am interested in education and the learning process. I believe our system needs to be pulled inside out. I believe we need to learn to live and let live. We need to encourage all styles of teaching and all styles of learning. Make it, as all those real conservatives ask, a open market. Let people test out by doing.
So I am looking for a public project that wants to work to those ends or somewhere near them.
But to get back to Jon’s topic. Is there some way that we can mount a people centered internet campaign to illustrate why we want these changes? Right now! And, what are we going to do with another 450,000 unemployed people?
Ha, it’s all Putney Swope at this point….chicken little with a touch of Cleavon Little.
Ha, it’s all Putney Swope at this point….chicken little with a touch of Cleavon Little.
Friedman is like a f***ing pendulum. One moment he’s railing against the environmental catastrophe of an oil-based production system, and in the next he’s cheerleading for us to consume, consume, consume.
Bipolar disorder perhaps?
Friedman is like a f***ing pendulum. One moment he’s railing against the environmental catastrophe of an oil-based production system, and in the next he’s cheerleading for us to consume, consume, consume.
Bipolar disorder perhaps?
billy-bob – I think it’s called cognitive dissonance.
rhbee1 – Yes. What do we do with 450,000 extra unemployed people?
Jon – I don’t think Mr. Obama is going to fight industry and the military. I think he is going to corporately cooperate. I am also thinking I better get used to poverty.
billy-bob – I think it’s called cognitive dissonance.
rhbee1 – Yes. What do we do with 450,000 extra unemployed people?
Jon – I don’t think Mr. Obama is going to fight industry and the military. I think he is going to corporately cooperate. I am also thinking I better get used to poverty.
billy-bob-I think your diagnosis of Friedman’s illness is spot on.
billy-bob-I think your diagnosis of Friedman’s illness is spot on.
CCC…Civilian Conservation Corps, and WPA…Works Projects Administration…converting all government buildings to solar where possible, rebuilding infrastructure, building housing for those still devastated by natural (and unnatural) disasters, chopping brush out of the canyons of Southern California before the next huge fire storm, building schools where they are needed, improving the electricity grid for new sources and uses for power, building that gas pipeline in old Sarah Whatshername’s back yard… It’s not like there isn’t work that needs doing here in the US…work that will benefit many future generations.
Just don’t build any damned bridges to nowhere, and stop thinking that the return to the pre 9-11 self-satisfied consumer culture is going to save us. We need to build shit that works and lasts and benefits us all. Every time I go into a WPA-era post office, I see the murals and the fine craftsmanship of the buildings and appreciate what they did 75 years ago. Ditto when I went to Lark in the Morning music camp held at an old CCC camp ground in Mendocino. Great stuff of lasting benefit. Worth every penny and more of what it cost at the time.
CCC…Civilian Conservation Corps, and WPA…Works Projects Administration…converting all government buildings to solar where possible, rebuilding infrastructure, building housing for those still devastated by natural (and unnatural) disasters, chopping brush out of the canyons of Southern California before the next huge fire storm, building schools where they are needed, improving the electricity grid for new sources and uses for power, building that gas pipeline in old Sarah Whatshername’s back yard… It’s not like there isn’t work that needs doing here in the US…work that will benefit many future generations.
Just don’t build any damned bridges to nowhere, and stop thinking that the return to the pre 9-11 self-satisfied consumer culture is going to save us. We need to build shit that works and lasts and benefits us all. Every time I go into a WPA-era post office, I see the murals and the fine craftsmanship of the buildings and appreciate what they did 75 years ago. Ditto when I went to Lark in the Morning music camp held at an old CCC camp ground in Mendocino. Great stuff of lasting benefit. Worth every penny and more of what it cost at the time.
Here’s an idea: lets tax and spend. Just like progressives are accused of always wanting to do. However, like Rick says, jump into the Neo New Deal with both feet, and spend the kind of money the Bushies were willing to spend on rebuilding our own destruction of Iraq.
Point out to the anit-tax whiners that it’s the cost of over borrowing: at some point the bill comes due, and it’s their own fault for starving the nation of revenue to conduct their own expensive schemes. Republicans, tax cut and spend. Dems: tak and spend. Now really, which is better? I mean when you really just lay it out?
Lets’ take the money people were going to piss away on meaningless shit, and use it to rebuild America. Anyone who objects is a an unpatriotic home grown terrorist and not a real American. So there.
I know that’s bull shit, but man it rolled off the tongue so easily.
But, it’s not BS to say lets tax and spend our way back to some form of stability, and get the infrastructure repairs we’ve deferred for so long in the process.
And, like Rachel said, lets kill star wars while we are at it: or, better, lets just defer it until we can afford it.
Here’s an idea: lets tax and spend. Just like progressives are accused of always wanting to do. However, like Rick says, jump into the Neo New Deal with both feet, and spend the kind of money the Bushies were willing to spend on rebuilding our own destruction of Iraq.
Point out to the anit-tax whiners that it’s the cost of over borrowing: at some point the bill comes due, and it’s their own fault for starving the nation of revenue to conduct their own expensive schemes. Republicans, tax cut and spend. Dems: tak and spend. Now really, which is better? I mean when you really just lay it out?
Lets’ take the money people were going to piss away on meaningless shit, and use it to rebuild America. Anyone who objects is a an unpatriotic home grown terrorist and not a real American. So there.
I know that’s bull shit, but man it rolled off the tongue so easily.
But, it’s not BS to say lets tax and spend our way back to some form of stability, and get the infrastructure repairs we’ve deferred for so long in the process.
And, like Rachel said, lets kill star wars while we are at it: or, better, lets just defer it until we can afford it.
If Obama is for the missile “shield,” I’m pretty sure I know how he’ll approach the military budget.
It seems to me that the place where we should spend more money is the State Department, with actual, constructive diplomacy. The military gets more than enough money. Republicans love to shriek about waste in education budgets but when it comes to the military, all you hear are crickets chirping.
Not that there aren’t Democrat crickets with their own military bases to protect.
If Obama is for the missile “shield,” I’m pretty sure I know how he’ll approach the military budget.
It seems to me that the place where we should spend more money is the State Department, with actual, constructive diplomacy. The military gets more than enough money. Republicans love to shriek about waste in education budgets but when it comes to the military, all you hear are crickets chirping.
Not that there aren’t Democrat crickets with their own military bases to protect.
Speaking of CW: here’s the grey lady’s take on the US auto industry’s likely future (though they don’t say it that way).
Head: “If Detroit Falls, Foreign Makers Could Be Buffer”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17impact.html?hp
Most interesting is the percentage drop over the years of just how much presence the big thee actually have in the work force. Honda and Toyota appear to have pretty much eaten Chrsyler, and GM’s lunch. Ford may be the lone survivor, and that, I think, may be based on the F-150 replacement rates which are heavily related to contractors having work.
So, class, what’s a “Free Market” response to this??
Oh, oh. All those of you who said “Bailout” must stay in from recess and write “I am a closet Socialist” on the board 100,000 times.
Speaking of CW: here’s the grey lady’s take on the US auto industry’s likely future (though they don’t say it that way).
Head: “If Detroit Falls, Foreign Makers Could Be Buffer”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17impact.html?hp
Most interesting is the percentage drop over the years of just how much presence the big thee actually have in the work force. Honda and Toyota appear to have pretty much eaten Chrsyler, and GM’s lunch. Ford may be the lone survivor, and that, I think, may be based on the F-150 replacement rates which are heavily related to contractors having work.
So, class, what’s a “Free Market” response to this??
Oh, oh. All those of you who said “Bailout” must stay in from recess and write “I am a closet Socialist” on the board 100,000 times.
First, the F22, for example, is a fine aircraft that inspires awe in those who would come against us.
Second, in a year and a-half I’ve yet to encounter a Democrat who did not spout “conventional wisdom” about any goddam Republican who wore the latter name.
First, the F22, for example, is a fine aircraft that inspires awe in those who would come against us.
Second, in a year and a-half I’ve yet to encounter a Democrat who did not spout “conventional wisdom” about any goddam Republican who wore the latter name.
And Third, when Ken Galbraith the Yankee Keynesian wound up The War in charge of price supports, he took his time relinquishing FDR’s Socialist high-water mark, the nationalization of anything approaching a “war industry” until well after WWII, thereby ensuring the death or else near-starvation of all but the largest companies — the ones with the most Pull with Galbraith’s equally incompetent bosses.
And Third, when Ken Galbraith the Yankee Keynesian wound up The War in charge of price supports, he took his time relinquishing FDR’s Socialist high-water mark, the nationalization of anything approaching a “war industry” until well after WWII, thereby ensuring the death or else near-starvation of all but the largest companies — the ones with the most Pull with Galbraith’s equally incompetent bosses.
The Marines will fight to keep the Osprey. It was a tough development but the results are good according to the Marines who need heavier lift and faster travel time than they get with conventional helicopters. Gotta have boots on the ground and they have to be placed and resupplied precisely.
One official said the F-22 is possibly the last generation manned fighter. The UAVs are coming along fast and have good-enough capability for the job cheaper.
For fighting forces hiding in bad terrain and coming out late at night, combining increased surveillance with loitering systems is a good approach. Bin Laden may be a live but it isn’t much of a life with a Predator on your ass all the time. Every new Predator is better than the last one; whereas, Bin Laden is the same old my-kidneys-need-help aging bad guy. That’s why the pressure is on the Pakistan government to stop the strikes inside Pakistan by at-a-distance systems. You have kids in short hair cuts hunting him like it was a Wii adventure.
We’re seeing dramatically improved capabilities in the mind control interface systems (think it and it does it). Really. Nice potential for controlling supersonics and setting the quadrapleigics free just as the look-and-aim systems did.
A really awesome technology is brain imprinting enabing a human brain to be loaded similar to loading flash memory. So much for college lectures. The Professor from The Prisoner would be proud.
All sci-fi? All from the History Channel last weekend.
The Marines will fight to keep the Osprey. It was a tough development but the results are good according to the Marines who need heavier lift and faster travel time than they get with conventional helicopters. Gotta have boots on the ground and they have to be placed and resupplied precisely.
One official said the F-22 is possibly the last generation manned fighter. The UAVs are coming along fast and have good-enough capability for the job cheaper.
For fighting forces hiding in bad terrain and coming out late at night, combining increased surveillance with loitering systems is a good approach. Bin Laden may be a live but it isn’t much of a life with a Predator on your ass all the time. Every new Predator is better than the last one; whereas, Bin Laden is the same old my-kidneys-need-help aging bad guy. That’s why the pressure is on the Pakistan government to stop the strikes inside Pakistan by at-a-distance systems. You have kids in short hair cuts hunting him like it was a Wii adventure.
We’re seeing dramatically improved capabilities in the mind control interface systems (think it and it does it). Really. Nice potential for controlling supersonics and setting the quadrapleigics free just as the look-and-aim systems did.
A really awesome technology is brain imprinting enabing a human brain to be loaded similar to loading flash memory. So much for college lectures. The Professor from The Prisoner would be proud.
All sci-fi? All from the History Channel last weekend.
“You have kids in short hair cuts hunting him like it was a Wii adventure.”
Yeah. For five f****ing years now. To the tune of a trillion dollars or so.
What a bargain.
“You have kids in short hair cuts hunting him like it was a Wii adventure.”
Yeah. For five f****ing years now. To the tune of a trillion dollars or so.
What a bargain.
len,
I appreciate very much your recent comments on the national defense interest. Your summative remarks on the Shield string were both equitable and equable, and showed as much Buddhism as Zionism. A colleague and dear friend of mine wrote a few years ago, from the Center for International Security and Arms Control, “In light of the burning children of Auschwitz, we no longer can afford to glorify the profession of arms.”
Senator Obama has sought the counsel of my former boss, Bill Perry, and so with that tasteful counsel, and with the promise of Mr. Obama’s retaining Mr. Gates at DoD, I’m confident that a President Obama will make informed decisions as to our weapons systems, especially as to those systems over against the systems of those who mean to kill us or otherwise to gain advantage. It’s not so much Dr. Perry’s service as Secretary that encourages me, as his quiet decency that does, and his earlier service as Undersecretary for Procurement (and the “Father of Stealth”) for President Carter.
For my part I think we should lay off Lockheed-Martin, for old times’ sake but also because they are contractor-operator of the most important Energy Labs in the country right now, and are doing the work we most need done, if the work is not to be entrusted to the patriots at Google…
len,
I appreciate very much your recent comments on the national defense interest. Your summative remarks on the Shield string were both equitable and equable, and showed as much Buddhism as Zionism. A colleague and dear friend of mine wrote a few years ago, from the Center for International Security and Arms Control, “In light of the burning children of Auschwitz, we no longer can afford to glorify the profession of arms.”
Senator Obama has sought the counsel of my former boss, Bill Perry, and so with that tasteful counsel, and with the promise of Mr. Obama’s retaining Mr. Gates at DoD, I’m confident that a President Obama will make informed decisions as to our weapons systems, especially as to those systems over against the systems of those who mean to kill us or otherwise to gain advantage. It’s not so much Dr. Perry’s service as Secretary that encourages me, as his quiet decency that does, and his earlier service as Undersecretary for Procurement (and the “Father of Stealth”) for President Carter.
For my part I think we should lay off Lockheed-Martin, for old times’ sake but also because they are contractor-operator of the most important Energy Labs in the country right now, and are doing the work we most need done, if the work is not to be entrusted to the patriots at Google…
BobbyG, I thought it was interesting that the book Obama was reading in the last week of the campaign was “Ghost Wars”. It’s a good book, and it must scare the bejesus out of the powers that be in the CIA etc that the incoming President is coming in with such information.
As for cutting military expenditure, y’all have heard me say before that I think the great canker on the country is the degree to which the economy is still geared around military production – especially because it makes it hard to cut funding without local opposition.
That said, Len is right, the F22 is a good airplane, and about the only thing capable of beating what the Russians are currently selling air forces around Asia. Cutting the F35, which is a bad joke “do everything” airplane, would make a lot more sense. Exporting the F22 to friendly allies (and there’s a *big* queue that are lined up) would help keep the production line going without more domestic expenditure. Nobody really *wants* the F35, but it’s all the US is willing to sell. It should be put out of its underperforming misery.
Len, I am completely philosophically opposed to taking troops out of harms way with robotics. The threat of Americans being killed is the only thing standing in the way of further military adventurism. If it can all be done with robots, with no fear of reprisals, it will be done badly. UAVs have their uses, but they’re extremely prone to abuse, too.
My problem with the so-called “Missile Shield” is that it’s bad economics, that can never be made to work cost effectively. Asymmetrical fighting is something the US military has always done poorly.
By the way, even though the technology has improved mightily, I highly recommend Frances Fitzgerald’s book on the original Star Wars proposal, “Way Out There In The Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War”.
BobbyG, I thought it was interesting that the book Obama was reading in the last week of the campaign was “Ghost Wars”. It’s a good book, and it must scare the bejesus out of the powers that be in the CIA etc that the incoming President is coming in with such information.
As for cutting military expenditure, y’all have heard me say before that I think the great canker on the country is the degree to which the economy is still geared around military production – especially because it makes it hard to cut funding without local opposition.
That said, Len is right, the F22 is a good airplane, and about the only thing capable of beating what the Russians are currently selling air forces around Asia. Cutting the F35, which is a bad joke “do everything” airplane, would make a lot more sense. Exporting the F22 to friendly allies (and there’s a *big* queue that are lined up) would help keep the production line going without more domestic expenditure. Nobody really *wants* the F35, but it’s all the US is willing to sell. It should be put out of its underperforming misery.
Len, I am completely philosophically opposed to taking troops out of harms way with robotics. The threat of Americans being killed is the only thing standing in the way of further military adventurism. If it can all be done with robots, with no fear of reprisals, it will be done badly. UAVs have their uses, but they’re extremely prone to abuse, too.
My problem with the so-called “Missile Shield” is that it’s bad economics, that can never be made to work cost effectively. Asymmetrical fighting is something the US military has always done poorly.
By the way, even though the technology has improved mightily, I highly recommend Frances Fitzgerald’s book on the original Star Wars proposal, “Way Out There In The Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War”.
Hi Rachel. Wise words.
One observation: the U.S. military fought well, and most asymmetrically, in August, 1945.
Frances Fitzgerald, and Bart Bernstein for that matter, would kill me for saying that. But then I just might kill them back. (The game theorists’ elusive tit-for-tit…)
Hi Rachel. Wise words.
One observation: the U.S. military fought well, and most asymmetrically, in August, 1945.
Frances Fitzgerald, and Bart Bernstein for that matter, would kill me for saying that. But then I just might kill them back. (The game theorists’ elusive tit-for-tit…)
Well, one thing for sure, this is going to be one very interesting administration.
The fact that the economic realities may offer the weight to offset much of the lobbying of the MIC means an opportunity for some real hard looks what’s in development.
In a Reagenistic Blank Check world, weapons systems were supposed to be bleeding edge, cus when they finally started rolling off the factory floor they were near obsolete in the minds of the R&D guys. Contract Alpha, sell Beta, and hope to make the stuff in the field good enough for government work. If you were lucky you had a platform like the B-52 which kept going, and kept going thanks to all the hacks and hitting an intial sweet spot.
The trouble is that the Pentagon mind set of buy the Alpha and the technology will come has been the main rationale behind the missile shield. So many years, so many promises, so much PR BS, and no administration has had the stones to question it, because the breakthrough fix will always be on the bench in the lab [such as it ever was].
My hope is that this admin will have the fiscal motivation to stop all work on this while it gets a totally independent feasibility study and a risk assessment of whether the bucks needed to go RC and deploy are really going to be well spent.
I’m totally with Rachel, it’s not a cost effective system and the fact that “it’s going to work any day now” is no longer a reason for holding on to the flawed assumptions that got it funded in the first place.
Well, one thing for sure, this is going to be one very interesting administration.
The fact that the economic realities may offer the weight to offset much of the lobbying of the MIC means an opportunity for some real hard looks what’s in development.
In a Reagenistic Blank Check world, weapons systems were supposed to be bleeding edge, cus when they finally started rolling off the factory floor they were near obsolete in the minds of the R&D guys. Contract Alpha, sell Beta, and hope to make the stuff in the field good enough for government work. If you were lucky you had a platform like the B-52 which kept going, and kept going thanks to all the hacks and hitting an intial sweet spot.
The trouble is that the Pentagon mind set of buy the Alpha and the technology will come has been the main rationale behind the missile shield. So many years, so many promises, so much PR BS, and no administration has had the stones to question it, because the breakthrough fix will always be on the bench in the lab [such as it ever was].
My hope is that this admin will have the fiscal motivation to stop all work on this while it gets a totally independent feasibility study and a risk assessment of whether the bucks needed to go RC and deploy are really going to be well spent.
I’m totally with Rachel, it’s not a cost effective system and the fact that “it’s going to work any day now” is no longer a reason for holding on to the flawed assumptions that got it funded in the first place.
True, quite true, but then…others might have imposed rationality on the starry proceedings even before you and Rachel did, Ken.
True, quite true, but then…others might have imposed rationality on the starry proceedings even before you and Rachel did, Ken.
…years before…
…years before…
@rachel: Philosophically, I agree, but troops don’t. They’d prefer not to get shot and when we gut expenditures or plan them badly, guys and gals end up in front areas with nothing but concertina wire and claymores between them and a well-entrenched foe. Caveat vendor.
@ken: The kicker is the B-52 like the Saturn V is the result of teams having years and years of practice to get it right. Do we spend too much on arms? Yes. There is a tradeoff though in having to get and keep skills. If we had kept the Saturn V lines open, we would have heavy lift systems today instead of spending billions to reaquire skills and knowledge lost. We can argue the merits of the purposes, but I simply want to point out a reality of having capability. Just like the weekend warriors of music, practice makes the difference in first and second rate.
Star Wars would not have worked, BTW. The software engineering challenges alone made it a dumb bet, but it was never intended to work. It was intended to break Ivan’s economic back. One charm of Jon’s blog is he is knowingly or unknowingly reporting on the war of this century where the weapons are our economies.
And apparently, we are losing.
@rachel: Philosophically, I agree, but troops don’t. They’d prefer not to get shot and when we gut expenditures or plan them badly, guys and gals end up in front areas with nothing but concertina wire and claymores between them and a well-entrenched foe. Caveat vendor.
@ken: The kicker is the B-52 like the Saturn V is the result of teams having years and years of practice to get it right. Do we spend too much on arms? Yes. There is a tradeoff though in having to get and keep skills. If we had kept the Saturn V lines open, we would have heavy lift systems today instead of spending billions to reaquire skills and knowledge lost. We can argue the merits of the purposes, but I simply want to point out a reality of having capability. Just like the weekend warriors of music, practice makes the difference in first and second rate.
Star Wars would not have worked, BTW. The software engineering challenges alone made it a dumb bet, but it was never intended to work. It was intended to break Ivan’s economic back. One charm of Jon’s blog is he is knowingly or unknowingly reporting on the war of this century where the weapons are our economies.
And apparently, we are losing.
Len, no problem with capability of production. My argument is that Pentagrams weapon’s procurement philosophy has been more like the kid with rich grandparents: “Me! All! Now! or we all die.”
No unified procurement strategic plan, no way to reassess systems in the pipe by paying more of the R&D costs up front as part of the contract, instead of having the vendor build it into a volume run of exty ex units needed to recoup. A process that forces unrealistic gambling on contract projections to get some fly by wire system out the door only to find it sucks in turns due to aerodynamics and weight that have nothing to do with the fbw system.
I want to see our military operate like Halburton when it comes to heavy equipment procurement. They operate in very, very different ways, with only one buyer being on the hook for cost overruns, or production time tables collapsing. The vendors still service both.
But, it’s national security, so it’s premium priced. Horse pucky. I want independent review of systems, costs, contracts, and the potential conflict of interest of any one any where in the chain. And if your found cheating your government, it’s a felony (or treason, if military personnel are put in harms way as a result).
Len, no problem with capability of production. My argument is that Pentagrams weapon’s procurement philosophy has been more like the kid with rich grandparents: “Me! All! Now! or we all die.”
No unified procurement strategic plan, no way to reassess systems in the pipe by paying more of the R&D costs up front as part of the contract, instead of having the vendor build it into a volume run of exty ex units needed to recoup. A process that forces unrealistic gambling on contract projections to get some fly by wire system out the door only to find it sucks in turns due to aerodynamics and weight that have nothing to do with the fbw system.
I want to see our military operate like Halburton when it comes to heavy equipment procurement. They operate in very, very different ways, with only one buyer being on the hook for cost overruns, or production time tables collapsing. The vendors still service both.
But, it’s national security, so it’s premium priced. Horse pucky. I want independent review of systems, costs, contracts, and the potential conflict of interest of any one any where in the chain. And if your found cheating your government, it’s a felony (or treason, if military personnel are put in harms way as a result).
No disagreements with any of that, Ken. I’ve seen it from the inside of the vendors and standards orgs. It’s a true cluster of who’s zoomin’ who.
But before you unload all your buckshot on the Pentagon (which might be deserved but the fields have lots of bird species) Be certain that your favorite neighborhood Senator and House Rep aren’t beholden to the local neighborhood munitions company. They almost always are and that doesn’t get noticed because the issues they distract you with by claiming to support them are hot button social issues and as long as they hit your buttons, you vote for them. Bait and switch is not just for used car dealers.
Every time I’ve seen procurement reform come up, it results in another procurement of systems to control procurements. The long strange saga of CALS is one to study. It did have a spin-off: a lot of web tech.
No disagreements with any of that, Ken. I’ve seen it from the inside of the vendors and standards orgs. It’s a true cluster of who’s zoomin’ who.
But before you unload all your buckshot on the Pentagon (which might be deserved but the fields have lots of bird species) Be certain that your favorite neighborhood Senator and House Rep aren’t beholden to the local neighborhood munitions company. They almost always are and that doesn’t get noticed because the issues they distract you with by claiming to support them are hot button social issues and as long as they hit your buttons, you vote for them. Bait and switch is not just for used car dealers.
Every time I’ve seen procurement reform come up, it results in another procurement of systems to control procurements. The long strange saga of CALS is one to study. It did have a spin-off: a lot of web tech.
Febrile, len, downright febrile. That’s a very detailed map of the minefield. I’d only add, for the perverse pleasure of making things still more complicated, that sometimes the local munitions maker is well worth a tribute or two.
Febrile, len, downright febrile. That’s a very detailed map of the minefield. I’d only add, for the perverse pleasure of making things still more complicated, that sometimes the local munitions maker is well worth a tribute or two.