Civilian Leadership (Congress) influencing defense spending

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 20 Dec 2014 09:35:37 -0500

So, here is another example of defense spending being influenced by civilian leaders in congress that goes against what a service is asking for, in order to save jobs throughout political districts. Although I am for saving jobs, if a service (in this case the Army) says we don't need something, why should congress be allowed to continue to include in in the budget. There is 120 million dollars that could be used for something else that the service needs, or towards the overall government deficit. 120 Million may not put a dent in the deficit, but if this occurs a few more time, the money builds up.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2014 11:05 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:05:11 -0500

An this is the age old question. Who actually looked at the spending bill that went through congress that averted the government shutdown? I am sure there are more examples of this in there.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Dec 20 at 2014 11:21 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:21:23 -0500

Because of civilian control. Period. Full stop.

It is up to our political leaders to decide when, if, where, and how to employ our armed forces. They control 95%+ at the strategic level (the other 5% is just the world getting its own vote). As such they control all aspects of our manning, structure, and equipping.

It is our job to give them our best professional advice. It behooves them to listen and at least seriously consider it, but they are NOT under any obligation to do so.

Editorial1: And it seems that they vastly overstate their ability to form independent and valid opinions.
Editorial2: Look at the bright side, at least the Army doesn't have F35s.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Aug 26 at 2015 3:49 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:49:06 -0400

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Aug 26 at 2015 7:17 AM

LTC Kevin B. — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:17:52 -0400

This is a perfect example of why political rhetoric about "government shouldn't be picking winners and losers", or "crony capitalism", or "stop the wasteful spending", or "moochers" falls on deaf ears for me. Politicians are still perfectly willing to go against their own talking points when/if it keeps them in office.