What are your thoughts on Congressional oversight of Pentagon-related directives, programs and expenditures?

Erin Nelson — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 06:58:35 -0400

Many of today's legislators lack even basic military experience, being chosen from business and private sectors. Is such a group capable of beneficial oversight? What are the pro's and con's in our current state activity?

Response by Erin Nelson made Jun 14 at 2018 7:03 AM

Erin Nelson — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:03:20 -0400

Response by SGT David T. made Jun 14 at 2018 7:46 AM

SGT David T. — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:46:02 -0400

At that level operational experience is less important than business experience. Whenever we get above the tactical level of anything, there is a major shift in focus. At the lower levels, it is all about readiness. When you get to the more strategic levels the focus is shifted to budgets. The military is a political tool and as such subordinate to the political establishment. In a perfect world we would have all the resources we need to have perfect military. Unfortunately, this is not the case so there has to be limits and prioritization. The biggest issue with Congressional oversight is the politicians themselves. They tend to be focused on what is going to benefit their districts and less so on the holistic picture. If I could change things, I would change the focus from local to national when it comes to defense programs.

Response by Maj Marty Hogan made Jun 14 at 2018 7:53 AM

Maj Marty Hogan — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:53:59 -0400

Quick response- oversight is "represented" by special interest and not any one ideal or plan. The system has been broken for years and when you ask for a fix you are ignored- if you don't spend what you have you get less the next time. We are not based on need- but greed. Then part of doctrine places the oversight in civilians hands that makes it worse- because they have favors to repay to get where they are.... probably the most veiled response you are going to get but if you read it it gives you my thoughts. Great question Erin Nelson

Response by TSgt David L. made Jun 14 at 2018 8:54 AM

TSgt David L. — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:54:50 -0400

It would be nice to have more military representation in Congress, Erin Nelson. I think we are at the lowest number of Veteran members since the 1970s. It looks to be on the rebound, but at a slow pace. An outside look from civilians isn't such a bad thing though. Better than all wolves watching the hen house I suppose! LOL

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Jun 14 at 2018 10:08 AM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:08:24 -0400

It’s better than congressional oversight of their own wastage, graft, and corruption.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2018 10:22 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:22:56 -0400

When in doubt, the US Constitution has the answer. Congress, by the law of the land, already has oversight.

Article I, Section VIII:
Para, 1,
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Para. 12:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Para. 13:
To provide and maintain a Navy;
Para. 14: < --- THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Response by SFC Thomas Butler made Jun 14 at 2018 11:02 AM

SFC Thomas Butler — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:02:45 -0400

No doubt the system of oversight is broken, mostly related to the need to get money (lobbying) out of our political process. But it's mandated by law and, lets face it, the DoD is one of, if not the biggest, waster of taxpayer funds in the entire government. That, coupled with some of the idiotic decisions made by some of us in relation to other, non-money issues, means that the people's representatives deserve answers when they ask them.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Jun 14 at 2018 10:28 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 22:28:03 -0400

The Constitution which we swore to defend- says that Congress and civilians have oversight responsibility for the Military- the fact that times have changed where Vets in Congress are a minority compared to the days where they were a majority is the problem. It doesn't matter cause that is the way the cookie crumbles, and we have to make do.

Response by Susan Foster made Jun 15 at 2018 9:06 AM

Susan Foster — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 09:06:51 -0400

Congressional oversight and civilian control of the military is written into the Constitution. As is control of the purse strings, so this includes any expenditures. When I worked in the Pentagon, we talked a lot about how it would be when fewer of our legislators understood the programs we were asking for, since so few had served. Perhaps now more prior military will run for office. However, the military has survived just fine, and will continue to do so. Although it's good to have GEN Mattis in that position now, most legislators are at least educated enough to understand how and why a program or regulation works. What they fund, however, always has been (and will continue to be) what is in their constituent's interest, and their own.

Response by SPC Douglas Bolton made Jun 15 at 2018 3:04 PM

SPC Douglas Bolton — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 15:04:43 -0400

Erin Nelson Another fine mess you have gotten us into. LOL!