« Fear and Loathing in Euro Missile Defense | Matthew Saroff's Blog | Looks Like We Will Have the Zombie Banks Around for a While »
White House Push-Back On Pentagon Insubordination
Obama's people are demanding that all Pentagon staffers working on the budget sign a non-disclosure agreement:
...I'm not sure if this is just paranoia, a recognition that there are a lot of Bushies burrowed in the bureaucracy who will work against this, or a realization that the Pentagon is completely out of control as an organization.
In an undated non-disclosure agreement obtained by Defense News, the administration tells defense officials that "strict confidentiality" must be practiced to ensure a "successful" and "proper" 2010 defense budget process.
...
The pledge covers any data about the 2010 budget, including: "planning, programming and budgeting system documents and databases, and any other information" that concerns the administration's internal discussions about "the nature and amounts of the president's budget for fiscal year 2010, and any supplemental budget request during the current fiscal year."
...
"Under no circumstances will I disclose such information outside the Department of Defense and other government agencies directly involved in the defense planning and resource-allocation process, such as the Office of Management and Budget," the agreement said.
Maybe it's all three.
Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.
Advertisement
Not a fracking clue on how to fix the procurement problems at the Pentagon.
February 23, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cut off all new procurement money until a system-wide review can find and fix the problems. That would include any contracts not already awarded.
The budget gets a lot slimmer if all we cover are current operating costs on existing contracts that get extended to cover the review period as well as the implementation of the new processes. We also need to completely revamp the military's mission. Solutions exist if Obama is bold and decisive and clear as day in describing the military's 21st Century strategic goals. Most of the military will salute smartly and get busy with the task of implementing the Commander in Chief's orders, though some may stomp their feet. The UCMJ is there to cover those small exceptions to the rule.
Just because the Pentagon still thinks in terms of yesterday's conflicts doesn't mean a president can't focus them on the actual needs of America's future.
February 24, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking about going Coast Guard on the Pentagon.
They had their ability to approvee contracts stripped. link
February 24, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
this country spends more then the rest of the world combined on the war machine.
there is no reason to keep more then 100k troops on active duty.
all bases not in this country need to be closed ASAP.
the budget should shrink to 100 billion tops in the next 5 years.
if there are issues in europe or the middle east let those countries handle them.
how does the world look with all the spending we do?
its madness.
February 24, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can no longer afford to be the world's policemen. If we divest ourselves of having to support companies with no loyalties to the US who happen to have some "American" ownership, we could take world news a lot less personally. I believe these "Americans" are merely using this country to support them, all the while showing no support to America. These people have companies in so many countries, they have become citizens of the globe, whose self-interest is all that matters, so they shout that they are American when is matches their interests, but hide their taxes off shore. It's usually a one-way relationship.
February 24, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We aren't the world's policeman. The US military pushes back hard against US deployments to peacekeeping missions, particularly when someone else is in command.
The military spending is about being the world's bully.
February 24, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's not much difference between a police man and a bully, IMHO. They pretty much share the same tactics. I agree, we do tend to demand we hav control of any conflict we support.
February 24, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes to all the above.
One caution from a decade or so in the Defense Production industry, because of certain characteristics of the military development/production cycle, team Obama might reasonably decide to produce more than minimal quantity of items which are now completing development so the really drastic cut backs might be a couple of years away..
Clearly it would make sense to complete those development projects and to then produce enough "deliverables" to have a reasonable quantity to test.
But there's an argument for going beyond that and letting the initial production quantity extend to something like 50 units.(the total cost of the 30 to 50th units will be less than that of the first 4).
Even if the initial decision to develop these items was mistaken, if they're on the verge of entering production no sense compounding the error by stopping foolishly.
As I blogged elsewhere I'm completely in agreement with Barney Frank's propoal in the Nation for a 25% cut in the DOD. But I think we should understand that that should be the target for Obama's 4th year rather than earlier.
Less important but at least worth considering,that year 4 target should allow time for the economy to start recovering before it is hit by a wave of layoffs from Lockheed , Raytheon etc.
As to the budget for subsequent years , certainly it shouldn't increase. I don't pretend to have any basis for a recommendation, I'd look to someone like Frank for guidance. Or Krugmann. Because the real test should be what % of the GDP can we afford to devote to the Military while doing the other things Obama has promised and we want. Once that's established the DOD will have to live with it as best it can. Which it will be quite able to do.
Anyway , FWIW I suggest we be somewhat tolerant if the DOD diet is delayed for a couple of years.
February 24, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it is just a step to reduce leaks to defense lobbyists, and to hawkish commentators and comedians.
I suppose there could be an element of shock and awe in it. Leaks give opposition more time to form up more credibly.
February 24, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well they are cutting the budget by 10%.
I do not like secrecy. Period. I am personally sick of National Security Secrets.
But as the poor with always be with us so will NSS and the DOD
February 24, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me either, especially when there is no particular reason for it.
February 24, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink