I had the very same idea expressed in Joe Klein's weekly column maybe ten days ago driving home from work: would President Obama ever let Robert Gates stay at his post at the Pentagon, if only for a couple of years? Klein focuses on the political aspect of the idea--it would indicate Obama's seriousness about bipartisanship from the beginning. There could be another benefit: one perennial problem democratic countries have in reforming their institutions is that leadership changes every four years. If a Secretary of Defense arrives intent on changing our military budgetary priorities, the Air Force generals addicted to new fighter jets that we don't need only have to stall a couple of years and voila! the problem disappears. Other examples of hidebound thinking abound (automatic budgetary parity between the three branches, high-level promotions favoring very narrow fields of service). Giving Gates another couple of years would give our military a much better chance of reorienting itself for the 21st century.
Matt Yglesias' rejoinder is that Obama leaving Gates around would send the message that Democrats are not as serious about national security as Republicans, an outdated narrative that Obama's campaign seems intent on disproving this campaign. Yglesias could be right, but I think Obama can have his cake and eat it too; if, as president, he were to run an exemplary foreign policy with Gates at the Pentagon, that would reflect well on the Democrats as a whole, and Obama wouldn't carry an asterisk around with him for having appointed a Republican Secretary of Defense. In such a scenario, I think voters would be more rather than less ready to trust a Democrat with our foreign policy in 2016 and beyond.
2 comments:
Defense reform. One of my favourite topics!
From 1997 to 2001 I worked for two different defense contractors. The whole schtinkin mess was disgusting! Iw as a very low level guy, but saw how the blood suckers were absolutely wasting the money and even shifting around from project to project when they were supposedly breaking the law to do so. The first and smaller DC I worked for had their accountant quit because what they were doing crossed her sense of ethics.
While its natural for a company to try to maximize profitability, I have to say that the 'reforms' of McNamara are largely at the root of the problem. He really fubed a lot. The develop cycle was greatly drawn out and THAT adds a lot of cost due to people being one of the most expensive parts of the process. Especially these days.
I'd do the following:
Shorten the cycle. 15 years for a weapon system is ridiculous! this should be 5 years.
FREEZE the requirements BEFORE the procurement goes out to the contractors. Requirement creep causes all sorts of dinero issues.
Have an upgrade potential be in the baseline requirements, but the actual upgrades be separate buys or whatever.
One thing that plagues us now - I work for the University of California at LBNL , a DOE lab rather than DOD - is that we have CONSTANT reviews of our budget and plans. So much so that it eats 20+% of our time. This means 20+% of our personnel budget is to prove we are spending our money wisely. huh. Something isn't quite right there. LANL and LLNL had to cut hundreds of researcher jobs because of the new "streamlined and accountable" contracts that they are run under. *spits* (ie too much oversight is as bad as too little)
Run constant R&D such that there are components that can be easily put into production or adapted rather than doing custom stuff every. single. time.
Finally, KILL PROJECTS THAT OVERRUN THEIR BUDGET LIKE CRAZY. Obviously the contractors low-balled the project, under estimated the risk, or are just outright 'legally' stealing. Spank said contractors HARD.
ahem.
I'm pro military, NOT pro defense contractor. O:)
So do you those issues could be cleared up if you had a streamlining reformer at the Pentagon for a decade, or would they pretty much remain the same?
Post a Comment