Thanks for the insight, well reported, PigPen.

Comments/Questions



This to me is the fundamental problem with our military defense paradigm. That, in order to stay technologically ahead of other nations, we have to sell said other nations (like Pakistan) our equipment, then race to innovate against ourselves. I'm ignorant of many military issues, truly... please enlighten me, I'm more than curious: the economic model at work here strikes me as planned obsolescence, which is of course, very sensible on the part of military contractors, but totally, mind-boggling backwards on the part of actually maintaining a superior armed forces, to say nothing of utilizing tax payer money wisely? No? Help me out, help me clear myth from fiction. I'm under the impression that our defense contracting is a racket, and I'm looking for someone to explain how this economic model makes any sense for anybody other than contractors and maybe R&D. (After all, I imagine if we didn't sell our obsolete equipment, then we'd have less money for R&D, no?)

Having worked for a defense contractor for 16 years with McDonnell-Douglas and later Lockheed in advanced development projects, I can take a shot at explaining how it works. Let's start with an example. Let's say you go out tomorrow with the goal of purchasing the best home computer available on the market. Fastest CPUs, most memory, fastest and highest capacity hard drives, best video card, most awesome video monitor, and all the other bells and whistles. So, you pay big bucks for this computer, bring it home and for awhile you are a happy camper, secure in the knowledge that your computer is the best one on the block. How long is that going to last? How long before you see an ad in the paper that your computer has been discounted 30% and an even better computer is out there for less than you paid for yours? One month? It's the nature of the beast. That's because computer companies are constantly developing more powerful stuff in order to stay competitive in their market.

Well, the defense systems business is not much different, except the market is smaller and the time cycle is longer. The most advanced air superiority aircraft in the world today is the F-22, BY FAR and I am will to take anyone on in debate who disputes that.... They will lose that debate because I know that airplane. I started working on that airplane nearly 25 YEARS ago. I first flew that airplane in a flight simulator in 1982. It was pretty awesome then, but at the time, it wasn't real. Why? Because the technology for that airplane, the stuff that we simulated didn't exist. That's the nature of developing advanced weapons systems. You don't develop them for what exists today. You develop them for what you think will exist tomorrow. At that time the F22 had two engine options because there was a parallel engine development program called JAFE in competition between GE and P-W. That airplane had the equivalent of 4-9 CRAY supercompters on board and we even had a program called "Pilot's Associate" which we nicknamed "R2D2" that would assist the pilot in a tactical environment for target selection and threat assessment. And, it had to be stealthy. Really, really stealthy. Most of that technology didn't exist at the time, but we had to design for it and have a Plan B, C, D in case it didn't come to pass. Add to that the Air Force's desire to use "off the shelf technology" (which is totally ridiculous) and that causes some major problems. So, yeah, it's expensive, but you get what you pay for. Do we as a nation, the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world want to send our young men and women into combat with inferior weapons because we want to save a buck here or there? Or, do we as a nation want to make sure that we've done our very best to give them the best equipment possible?

Well. I can answer that as one of those supposed "fat cat" defense contractors (I made a good living but I'm not rich - made more working for Disney), the answer is no. We took weapons systems development very seriously. The people flying our airplanes were our personal friends. When "my baby", the F-117 which I worked on from the get go went into battle in Desert Storm, I prayed we had done it right. We spent a lot of money making sure we had, and as it turns out we did. Now maybe we could have cut corners in some places, saved the taxpayers a few bucks and maybe lost a couple of pilots. That worth it to you? Well, as a "fat cat" former defense contractor, it wasn't to me.


Aquilla

Therein lies the problem. They have a word, btw, for putting personal gain ahead of national defense security. That word is 'treason', and all those who push for bases or any other military program on the basis of political gain rather than military need are guilty of it.



Replace those test adversaries with Russian or Chinese planes, and you can see the need for the plane. Air power is absolutely essential for modern combat, and don't be naive enough to think that the days of superpowers colliding are over. Conflict with China is not only inevitable, it is already occurring, and will only get worse. We need the technological advantage to keep that conflict from ever escalating into all-out war.

Which isn't to say that there aren't alot of weapon systems that aren't needed, and that are a waste of money given current and projected future need. I just wouldn't include the F-22 in that list. As Ted posted, Russia is planning on making a comeback in the aviation industry, and it's clear that they are doing it for export. Russian made jets were on similar ground with ours just at the end of the cold war--there's no reason to think they won't have some excellent planes to offer to our global adversaries around the world.

I agree. But just to show you how slimy some Congressman are – esp. Dems here is Nancy slamming McCain because he had the nerve a few years ago to that the government might not want to do a sole source award to Boeing to lease aircraft – esp. after the scandal which involved a former Air Force person on the program going to work for Boeing and then trying to steer the contract to Boeing.

The result is that the Air Force BOUGHT 179 tankers for less than the LEASE they would have had to pay Boeing – And sleazebags in Congress are trying to “blame” McCain – how low can you get. – Esp. the head if the Dem Party.

OK, Aquilla, what you explain is exactly what I feared. The difference between home computers and military defense is such.

Both work off planned obsolescence.

But if I sell my g-4 to my fickle next door neighbor, Pakistan, and go out and buy a g-5, so what? Worse case scenario, he replaces his dell with a computer that can handle adobe photoshop. No life or death matter.

But selling weapons to other countries, and then racing to stay a full lap ahead of those countries is an entirely different matter.

First off, how much R&D does selling off obsolete weapons systems to other nations really pay for? That's my first question. Because selling those systems (like the f-16) forces us to stay a full lap ahead of the greyhounds, like the little rabbit on the racetrack. It squares us into developing the G-6 before we're even done selling off our G-4. BEcause you said...



... to which I would point out, we are quite frequently arming the hypothetical other side.

Secondly, and I am going to make heads explode in frustration here, but the US was not adequately prepared for WWII. I'm glad were prepared for the possibility of WWIII. But I want to suggest that idea that we are overprepared, or at least mis-prepared. It would take years, years and years for China, Russia, or any other traditional national threat to emerge and seriously consider countering us. To say nothing of the consequences of two industrialized nations fighting in an age of nuclear weapons. What's more? It would take a fundamentally different economic and geo-political map for such a war to even make rational sense.

So I don't see or at least I don't understand the merit in our level of preparedness for WWIII. I'm just gonna say it. If the F-22's have uses in hunting down AQ, great, authorize their contract. (If, that is, the money couldn't be better spent on boosting troop levels, and on-the ground vehicles, etc.) But I don't see exactly who and what we're preparing for when we talk about:



I'm not *naive*. Naive has nothing to do with it. I don't think the days of anything are over, even disco makes a comeback once in a while.

But at the moment, I do not know what you are talking about when you say "conflict is not only inevitable, it is already occurring." If, by conflict you mean, a spy plane incident 8 years ago, and the fact that China is exporting a bunch of machetes to African states on the verge of genocide then, uh, ok. That hardly strikes me as an omen for an air fight over Beijing.

30, 40 years from now, sure. Maybe, who the heck knows. But if Russian history taught me one thing, it's that a country can gain a whole lot of ground in the arms race in the span of 10, 15 years.

.



We do NOT sell the weapons to countries that are or are likely to be enimies. Where this has happened (Iraq) the countries that had the old stuff found that the spare parts needed to keep the planes flying were not available.

As I said Russia is rushing to catch us and they are good at plane design. And as aquilla said it can take a decade or 2 (or more) to field an aircraft like the F-22. Once done you keep it up graded and sell older versions to trusted allies like the UK.





‘Wrong – they are armed by Russia, and China (and sometimes France)– who are glade to take the money.



Look around. We fight in Iraq against weapons from all over the world – and this will continue. Nukes are out of the question unless WMD are used to attack us. China has threatened us in the past – so has North Korea. Are you really sure there are no threats? In WWII it was about manufacturing, in modern warfare its about technology that can take a decade to perfect and field – not 2 months or 2 years.





Sure just relax – nothing to worry about – famous last words.


http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_Thre...wer_Status.html

“China Threatens to Nuke the U.S.
AFP | July 15, 2005
China could use nuclear weapons to retaliate against the United States if it attacked in any conflict over Taiwan, reports said Friday citing a Chinese general.
"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," said General Zhu Chenghu.
His comments were reported by the Financial Times and the Asian Wall Street Journal, which attended a briefing with the general organised by a private Hong Kong organisation, the Better Hong Kong Foundation.
"If the Americans are determined to interfere (then) we will be determined to respond," said Zhu, a professor at China's National Defence University.
"We ... will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds ... of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."
http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/chi...over_taiwan.htm


“China's rapid military expansion over recent years has sparked concern amongst American officials that its battlefield capabilities may eventually pose a threat to U.S. dominance.
Experts recently met at the Heritage Foundation to discuss the Pentagon's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and its implications for the U.S. strategy with China.
The Pentagon report states, "Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional U.S. military advantages... The pace and scope of China's military build-up already puts regional military balances at risk."
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_Thre...wer_Status.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/index.html

Maybe I haven't brushed up on my current events. Are you using the same conflict that I think of when states are going head to head? This sounds like a great sales pitch for the first arms race of the 22nd century.


That's really interesting, Ted. China feels so secure as a military power it has to threaten us with nuclear war. I'm not surprised China's response about Taiwan is reminiscent of banana republics but I thought they'd be more prepared for conventional war. Then again, maybe they're thinking of Hiroshima.

They certainly are thinking of “conventional war” and have a huge army to pursue it with – but what they are doing here is telling us that if and when they do go after Taiwan that if we try to intercede militarily they will attack us with nuclear weapons. They are no banana republic as we have learned in the past.

Their army is at least two decades behind ours in terms of technology. They don't need to catch up to us to become the predominant military power in East Asia. That's what I think bothers you and spurs you to support more spending. In terms of spending, if China's army is huge, ours is colossal and you want to super size it to titanic.


So? We care about the Taiwan Strait to facilitate exporting more democratic programs in East Asia, whereas Taiwan's complete secession may encourage regions within China to mount their own bid for independence.

Leaving Taiwan doesn't put us at a disadvantage. China is our biggest trade partner. China isn't going to firebomb Taiwan and ruin annexing a great economy. If we can put up with China's abuses for the past decade we'll get over whatever kinship we feel towards Taiwan.

Questions for debate:

Would you support some form of legislation that limits corporate profits that can be made during a time of war, when dealing with government contracts?

Would you support legislation that prohibits senior military officers from taking jobs with firms that do business with the military?

Is there any way possible to end the cycle that seems to link the media-with-war-with profits?
[/quote]

1) Probably not; but, since there are so few real competitors in govt contracting today, perhaps a better way to approach the problem is to give all contracts out on a cost-plus basis; i.e. the contractor gives the govt its independently audited, estimated costs for a job, the govt builds in a reasonable profit, and that is the deal. All companies who wish to have govt contracts, now or in the future, must live within such a system.

2) This is a sticky one--we believe in freedom of contract in the USA--but this practice of job-hopping appears unethical.

3) Fight fewer wars. Frankly, having contractors that would be bankrupt but for govt contracts is a real problem. We need to work with our fine companies like Lockheed, etc., to put them into private contracting so they are not so dependent on govt contracts. Many of these companies are more like govt utilities than private companies. Of course, who but govts would buy most of what Lockheed does? I mean, we do not need stealth automobiles for....well, I could use one on my daily commute, but that is another story....

Cost-plus contracts used to be the norm 30 years ago in the defense business, but then Congress started raising hell about cost over-runs. So, the DoD changed to fixed price plus incentive types of contracts and that caused all kinds of new problems. For one thing, it meant defense contractors started hiring more accountants (bean counters) than they did engineers. There were all kinds of dirty little secrets in that process that were quite frankly pretty disgusting to me as an American taxpayer and working in an industry that I thought was important. One of the lawyers' and bean-counters favorite end run on a fixed price contract was to create a slush fund for any unanticipated costs. Charges would go into that account and we'd just wait for a change request to come in from the customer. Under the fixed price contract concept, ANY change at all merits a re-bid for the change, and it's not really a bid, just a tack-on cost. So, when the customer requested a change, and that happens a lot as a program matures, everything in the slush fund would get charged to that change request. There was one time when I was working on a missile program and the customer requested that we change the color of the paint that we used for the containers that held the missile in storage. They wanted it changed from an olive green to more of a yellow-green. Cost for that? Close to a MILLION dollars.....

::::sigh::::


What can I say?


Aquilla

Not sure you are up to date on that:

“The People's Republic of China (PRC) is seen by many as an economic powerhouse with the world's largest standing military that has the potential to translate economic power into the military sphere

. As one of the elements of power, a nation's military potential is based not only on its capability to defeat an adversary, but also its ability to coerce and exercise influence. China's standing armed force of some 2.8 million active soldiers in uniform is the largest military force in the world. Approximately 1 million reservists and some 15 million militia back them up. With a population of over 1.2 billion people, China also has a potential manpower base of another 200 million males fit for military service available at any time. In addition to this wealth of manpower, China is a nuclear power. It has enough megatonnage, missiles, and bombers to hit the United States, Europe, its Asian neighbors, and Russia. Notwithstanding the recent detargeting announcement between China and the United States, that does not change China's capability to hold Los Angeles or other U.S. cities hostage to nuclear threat. China is also an economic power of considerable strength. The PRC's economy quadrupled in the 15 years up to 1995. The latest World Bank report on its economy, China 2020, indicates that China's gross domestic product (GDP) increased at a rate of between 6.6 percent and 8 percent annually between 1978 and 1995. And China has foreign exchange reserves of about U.S.$140.6 billion, primarily from foreign direct investment”

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/chinamil.htm






Well actually # 2.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/ds...nt/balance.html

And China is ambitions. China supplies missiles and military equipment to potential enemies.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...cr/h980330p.htm

It's Lesly please and thank you. Nothing wrong with my name.

Anyway I got two decades from this Council on Foreign Relations report which was released five years after your FAS. For what it's worth (1) CFR is non-partisan but to the right of FAS, what with their annoying criticism of U.S. developing uranium bunker buster bombs, warrantless wiretapping and other leftist positions, and (2) Saddam had a pretty large standing army as I recall and they massed an impressive beeline retreat.


You're right. China's #2.

China surpassed us as Japan's trading partner and will probably attempt to surpass us with every country in East Asia to pressure states to limit our involvement in Taiwan.


We're doing better than China. We're currently supplying our enemies in Iraq. During a war. With our troops in harm's way.

I find China's ambition rational and therefore lacking compared to our own.

I would never put Iraq in the same league as China. They are far more advanced and their army is far larger. Your article is 2003 and China has announced a significant increase since then. Not that I feel they can “defeat” us but as they develop and field better weapons – and sell them to whoever – we need to be well ahead.

I'm curious if any of the people who derided the idea that defense contractors and the media had a large part in the drum beat for war, had any change of opinion with the recent revelations in the news [not necessarily news to many of us].

Excerpt from an OSD memo:

RECOMMENDATION

1.) I recommend we develop a core group from within our media analyst list of those that we can count on to carry our water. They become part of a "hot list" of those that we immediately make calls to or put on an email distro list before we contact or respond to media on hot issues. We can also do more proactive engagement with this list and give them tips on what stories to focus on and give them heads up on issues as they are developing. By providing them with key and valuable information, they become the key go to guys for the networks and it begins to weed out the less reliably friendly analysts by the networks themselves . . . .

3.) Media ops and outreach can work on a plan to maximize use of the analysts and figure out a system by which we keep our most reliably friendly analysts plugged in on everything from crisis response to future plans. This trusted core group will be more than willing to work closely with us because we are their bread and butter and the more they know, the more valuable they are to the networks. . . .

5.) As evidenced by this analyst trip to Iraq, the synergy of outreach shops and media ops working together on these types of projects is enormous and effective. Will continue to exam (sic) ways to improve processes.
Salon.com

And this has what to do with war profits?

And why are we surprised that any group would like to have the media, where possible, not bashing them? The liberal media is no friend of the “military” or military contractors. The overwhelming bias is against them to the point that cities like SF actually bash them in public and try to discourage recruiting.

You have not come close to proving the “contractors” or the military had anything to do with going to war in Iraq.

Ted, your usual diatribe against anything to the left, regardless of truth is countered by your own statement. If the media was 'liberal' why then the overwhelming preponderance of military analysts and AEI-ish pundits who take their marching orders from the Pentagon, on that media? I presume you have no issue with policy being trumpeted at staggering proportions when your side of the political spectrum is doing the trumpeting.



The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

John C. Garrett is a retired Marine colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News TV and radio. He is also a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq. In promotional materials, he states that as a military analyst he “is privy to weekly access and briefings with the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high level policy makers in the administration.” One client told investors that Mr. Garrett’s special access and decades of experience helped him “to know in advance — and in detail — how best to meet the needs” of the Defense Department and other agencies.

Two of NBC’s most prominent analysts, Barry R. McCaffrey and the late Wayne A. Downing, were on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created with White House encouragement in 2002 to help make the case for ousting Saddam Hussein. Both men also had their own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors.
NYT

Instead of vomiting a screed against the NYT, I invite you to actually reply to the charges themselves.

Here's a fresh outrage. Not really fresh, but outrageous nonetheless and the results of a two year investigation were just recently released. 50 million dollars awarded for a Jumbotron to use for airshows. The next highest bid was 11 million dollars. They justified this as an 'intellectual property rights' issue. In other words, only this company's Jumbotron could be used and no other Jumbotrons were suitable. Some of the highest ranking officers in the Airforce awarded it to the friend who owns the company. They vacation at his home. One of them retired and went to work recently for said company. Oh, and I think the navy actually gets this for free, in return for some advertisement at the airshows.

I know 50 million only pays for a day in Iraq, but it's still enough to make me cringe and wonder if the Air force should once again become the Air guard under the Army. They have no one to blame for the rash of bad press but themselves. And mission statements that include the buzzword 'integrity' have been the recent rage. Makes you wonder what someone's hiding when they talk so very very much about integrity. Like a preacher who proselytizes about chastity and pays weekly visits to the town brothel.

Don’t have to – this is the usual trash. Show me that any “analyst” influenced even one vote in the Congress in the run up to the war.

And all the “analysts” in the world cannot make up for the tide of biased crap from NYT, CNN, the talking heads of ABC, NBC and THEIR “analysts

Well thanks for being consistent Ted. I should have known better than to ask for any debate of substance from you. I'm not sure why you bother to post here........maybe a blog would better suit?

Het DTOM feel free to post something that is responsive to my post anytime. Up to you.

Just show me one damn vote that supports this stupid NYT trash. All sides in any debate have “experts” and “analysts”.

Name some of 'their' analysts. Name some of the biased anti-Iraq war analysts that have received more than a fraction of the airtime that the Pentagon's cadre of retired military officers have received.

Tell me that there is no conflict of interest when retired officers who are also affiliated with or have formed defense industry firms, are also recruited by the DoD to recite the official line. If you're sure of your position, respond to the statements of the analysts in question instead of [yet again] bashing the media source. Better yet, go to the DoD document link. That's if you are interested in defending you point of view and not simply making 2 sentence drive by rhetoric.

Tell us how selling the public doesn't also influence congress. You may be happy with a Ministry of Propaganda [as long as it's a Republican administration of course.....]

I eagerly await any critical thinking and constructive dialog you may wish to impart..........

Sure but this is always the case regardless of the administration.

The subject here is “War Profits” – and its clear the private sector is not raping anyone and is not “making war”. If the President and the Congress want (or not) war then it happens. The companies that supply products for “war” are not Republican or Democrat but both. And if there is waste – what is new about that? Look at the farm subsidy pork bill about to pass which is 60% of the Defense Budget. Now there is pork and “profits” to big agribusiness.

Consistent as usual, you did not venture to tackle any of the questions that asked of your previous statements; instead you treat every issue as a left/right battle, attempting to frame the argument in a way that I have not.

You didn't disappoint me in my expectations.

My previous post has everything to do with conflict of interest between the military and the corporate world, with an added spin of government propaganda in this instance. If you disagree that this is a problem, then answer the questions that I asked you.

If Ted won't address your points, I will attempt to take a crack at it. The relationship between the military and the defense industry is analogous to the relationship between lobbyists and Hill staff. The 'revolving door' that takes place between the public and private sector is a double edged sword. It is a good thing because the people usually have the very best knowledge of their particular area. A retired officer would have contacts in his old employment which helps his current employment. This knowledge and networking skill is something to be valued. The ethical dilemma however revolves around the influence that such positions have over the policy making process. I recently wrote a paper on the relationship between lobbyists and the defense industry (the air fuel tanker case) for an Ethics in Lobbying Workshop. I wrote it from the perspective that I share in this thread. The revolving door has both its benefits and its drawbacks. What is essential though is the character of the representatives in Congress. Congressman should be held to a different standard than those in the private sector since they are held accountable by the taxpayer, not shareholders. I see this entire issue as coming down to appropriations. War and the viability of the defense industry is dependent on Congress appropriating money for such issues. The problem in this instance stems from unethical Congressman appropriating vast sums of taxpayer money for projects that are not in the best interest of this country but rather in their own self interest. Basically, the problem is a big government. Defense contracts are a necessary evil and should continue. But the extent to which the defense industry hold sway over Washington is dependent on the people in Washington. I cannot blame the defense industry for its lobbying activities any more than I can place blame on other industries - its an investment strategy. As long as we have representatives who put up signs that say "open for business", this will be a problem. Once we elect people who close shop and cannot be bought, the defense industry will not be as strong. Compounded with this is the president's policy on war and nation building. If there is no war and no nation building, there is no need for more defense contracts. The onus is on our elected representatives and we have failed to hold them accountable.

Leder, you won't get much argument from me concerning your post. You are correct that government is at the core of the problem. Apparently, many people who decry the lobbying and quid pro quo shenanigans with corporate relationships, turn the other cheek when it takes place within the halls of the Pentagon or the intelligence agencies. If they're OK with that, then they should at least be consistent as opposed to politically aligned.

I simply see the massive infusion of contracted intelligence analysts, trainers and policy planners as a harbinger of a corrupt infection that won't likely be stopped. Retired flag officers who are hired by networks to give an objective military analysis, but in actuality are only reciting the administration script......is just another uncovered facet of this infection. And it infects what should be the most objective and infallible responsibility of this nation: it's defense.

Government will always be corrupt (they have the power and power…..). The conflict of interest you mention has always been there and always will. The check and balance for this should be the Pentagon and the Congress and of course the GAO.

The interface to the “corporate world” is the contracts people who have rules that demand multiple bids and competitive prices as well as a limit on profits. The way this is subverted is by developing a product for an application that is “unique” and then get the government to accept a “sole source” justification. This is not very common.


The real “corruption” is at the Congressional level where money and contracts are directed to companies by Congressmen – as in the recent war funding bill where Murtha slipped in Billions for C-17 aircraft not requested by the Pentagon. The entire Osprey program is another example of this. Military money is “directed” by powerful people like Kennedy to benefit companies in their states.

And finally you have come no where near making a case that the corporate world had anything to do with making a decision for war.

A lack of outrage against government corruption is sad, but hardly surprising. And it's not as if Fox or CNN are going to conduct any investigative journalism on this subject. So I suppose we're just supposed to live with this paradigm, all the while proclaiming we're the land of the free.....

If someone is not interested in knowing the truth, they won't ever know the truth.........one has to dig for the connections, because the media, the corporations and the two-party monopoly will not volunteer the truth.

One can start to connect the dots for the most recent travesty, the Iraq invasion, by looking at the Defense Policy Board.

The Defense Policy Board will serve the public interest by providing the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Policy with independent, informed advice and opinion concerning major matters of defense policy. It will focus upon long-term, enduring issues central to strategic planning for the Department of Defense and will be responsible for research and analysis of topics, long or short range, addressed to it by the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Policy.
Link

Where it gets interesting is when one gets a hold of the Board membership list, and sees how many neo-conservatives and defense contractors fill those seats; from companies such as AEI, Bechtel, Boeing, TRW, Northrop Grumman, Telos, Durango Aerospace, Technology, Strategies, and Alliances Group, The Kissinger Group, Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton.
Link

But I'm sure everything is on the level........

I'm also curious why you didn't mention any Republican examples of corruption?

One can also look into the dealings of Doug Feith, one of the pre-eminent proponents of the Iraq invasion, whose law firm Fandz is at the heart of Iraqi reconstruction.

Feith’s private business dealings have also raised eyebrows in Washington. In 1999, his firm Feith & Zell formed an alliance with the Israel-based Zell, Goldberg & Co., which resulted in the creation of the Fandz International Law Group. According to Fandz’s web site, the law group “has recently established a task force dealing with issues and opportunities relating to the recently ended war with Iraq. ... and is assisting regional construction and logistics firms to collaborate with contractors from the United States and other coalition countries in implementing infrastructure and other reconstruction projects in Iraq.” Remarked Washington Post columnist Al Kamen, “Interested parties can reach [Fandz] through its Web site, at www.fandz.com. Fandz.com? Hmmm. Rings a bell. Oh, yes, that was the Web site of the Washington law firm of Feith & Zell, P.C., as in Douglas Feith [the] undersecretary of defense for policy and head of -- what else? -- reconstruction matters in Iraq. It would be impossible indeed to overestimate how perfect ZGC would be in ‘assisting American companies in their relations with the United States government in connection with Iraqi reconstruction projects.’”
Link

Again, I'm sure that our resident war cheerleaders will see no conflict of interest here, just usual government corruption.....move along....nothing to see here; We've got more important issues to be outraged about, like who didn't wear a flag lapel pin, or what two preachers did or didn't say.

There are plenty. I hit the most recent one in the War funding bill. Bothe parties are guilty as hell.


You would expect theses people to be interested and many may be “neo conservatives” who agreed with the invasion of Iraq. But they did not make the policy.

And as I have said before war is a double edge sword since during war what is purchased are bullets bombs and replacement parts – whereas most of the defense contractors look for the next generation systems to drive their businesses.

So war hurts in many cases more than helps – programs like F-22, FCS, C-17 get cut back because the war is eating up the money. The Air Force really did want the C-17s that Murtha snuck into the bill but when faced with a choice they opted for the F-22 because they could not have both – in the budget.

Thus most “corruption” in military budgets is the direction of funding by powerful congressmen to programs that benefit their districts. Kennedy is anti war but famous for directing contracts toward local defense contractors whenever he can.

DICK CHENEY, Secretary of Defense (before Senate Armed Services Committee):

"Congress has let me cancel a few programs, but you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. "You've directed me to buy the V-22, a program I don't need. You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s and F-16s... Congress has directed me to spend money on all kinds of things that are not related to defense, but mostly related to politics back home in the district."
NARRATOR: Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "raise and support armies." To do so, Congress consults the military. But, in the end, it is Congress' responsibility to reject or accept Pentagon advice. Sometimes, however, Congress rejects the advice of the Pentagon to cancel weapons not for military reasons but for political reasons.
The Seawolf nuclear attack submarine, designated the SSN-21, is a prefect example. The Navy intended the Seawolf to combat future Soviet submarines. Now that there is no Soviet Union, those Soviet subs will never be built. The Pentagon no longer wants the Seawolf, but Congress forced the Pentagon to buy the attack submarine anyway because building it provides jobs.

Secretary CHENEY (before Senate Budget Committee):
"The SSN-21 would be nice. Again, our problem is just sheer cost. Where am I going to come up with the savings that everybody would like to come up with? And we've identified these programs, and the SSN-21 specifically, because the thing that was driving that construction program was our anticipation of improved Soviet submarine capabilities."

NARRATOR: After the Soviet Union ceased to exist, Defense Secretary Cheney wanted to build only one Seawolf, but Congress forced Secretary Cheney to buy a second Seawolf and set aside money to build a third. The cost to the taxpayer: $2.2 billion, enough money to teach 30 million Americans to read.
http://www.cdi.org/adm/615/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A96F948260

Would you support some form of legislation that limits corporate profits that can be made during a time of war, when dealing with government contracts?

Yes I would but that would require returning to a time when corporate profits were been limited through a combination of open bid contracts and a military that did did not privatize logistical support.


Would you support legislation that prohibits senior military officers from taking jobs with firms that do business with the military?

I would but I couldn't see how you could impose it. I hear Eric Prince's Total Intelligence in the five months it has been open for business has recruited a substantial portion of ex-CIA personell. It is hard to compete against lucrative interests.

Is there any way possible to end the cycle that seems to link the media-with-war-with profits?

Remember there was a battle 8 years ago between Rumsfeld and the Pentagon brass to act in a less constrained fashion. To do that he led the drive to begin privatizing segments of army operations in a effort to cut costs, take on more 'work', and act with less oversight. Eight years in, I'd say he succeeded.

Short of taking an absolute anti-war stance based on libertarian principles the only thing we can do is catalogue our observations and act in an after-the-fact manner. The best way to quell discussion of new threats is to begin citing abuses of the system - which I might add is difficult because the executive placed a gag order on the allegations. From the BBC;



My arguement is that because the war was handled as an off-budget expense the oversight needed to conduct it was not there from the beginning. Here the fault lies more with congress than with the executive. But then again, they gave Bush the power to brand a terrorist using broad, undefined terms. He also has been given the authourity to pursue and conduct this war anywhere he chooses. Right now if I was an American I'd find a way to hold congress accountable in a manner that goes beyond removing them from office. This is an abrogation of duties which led to the misuse of the military and got people killed. In short we are dealing with a corruption issue which has led to so much money being splashed on politicians that it is limiting policy making.

Profits on (US) government contracts have always been limited and always will be. In fact the government usually follows up by auditing the books of companies to verify they did not make too much profit - typically 15-18%.


Canada may not do this but the US sure does.