This is a Max Boot article from the 21 October 2010 Wall Street Journal, page 15. America followed the progressive Europe into a socialized society in the late 1960s. Now we will follow them in paying the price. The U.K. is about to cease as a world power to pay for its failing socialized programs. We are close behind.

Britain emerged as a world power in the years after its defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. By 1815, following the defeat of Napoleon, it had become the most powerful nation in the world. Then came World War I and World War II—both conflicts for which Britain was not well-prepared. It's been downhill ever since. In the three decades after 1945, Britain shed virtually all of the colonies that had taken centuries to acquire.

Yet Britannia remained one of the world's leading military powers, still able to project power around the globe. In 1982 Britain carried out one of the most ambitious amphibious operations since Inchon, sending 65 warships and 7,000 Royal Marines and soldiers to evict the Argentines from the Falkland Islands, one of its few remaining colonies.

Britain was also America's most important ally in the 1991 Gulf War, the 2003 Iraq War and the 2001 Afghan War. The British sent 45,000 troops to the Gulf in 1991, including an entire armored division, and sent roughly the same number in 2003, including an armored brigade. Today they still have 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, making them the second-largest foreign contingent after the Americans.

But the days of British military power appear to be ending—with the obituary written, ironically, by a Tory-dominated government supposedly dedicated to a strong defense.

The Strategic Defense and Security Review released this week by Prime Minister David Cameron is bad news for anyone who believes that a strong Britain is a vital bulwark of liberty. Granted, the news isn't as bad as it could have been. The government will cut "only" 8% from the defense budget over the next four years—not the 10% to 20% that had been rumored. Britain will continue to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense—far less than the U.S. (nearly 5%) but more than most members of the European Union.

In announcing the cutbacks, Mr. Cameron promised that Britain would still "punch above its weight." His words ring hollow.

The British army, already cut a third since the end of the Cold War, will lose another 7,000 soldiers, dropping to 95,500 Tommies from 102,500, one-sixth the size of the U.S. Army. Also gone will be 40% of the British army's tanks and 35% of its artillery, thus making it very difficult to replicate the sort of armored blitzkrieg that Britain carried out against Iraq in 1991 and 2003. In the future Britain will be able to keep only one brigade of about 7,500 soldiers in the field long-term, well below the number deployed today in Afghanistan.

Both the navy and air force will also see manpower reductions, about 5,000 in each case. Only 40 new F-35 fighter aircraft will be bought, down from initial projections of 138. The navy will lose its Harrier jump jets and its flagship, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal. Britain will be left with one aircraft carrier but, ludicrously, without any carrier-strike aircraft until 2020. The Royal Navy will be allowed to finish building two new aircraft carriers, but only one will be operational; the other may be sold or mothballed. The navy's fleet of destroyers and frigates—its workhorses—will shrink to 19 from 23, the lowest number of warships since the days of the Spanish Armada. A decision about replacing Britain's aging Trident submarines, which carry its nuclear deterrent, has been postponed.

Republicans expecting to take over one or both houses of Congress may be tempted to emulate the British example to deal with our own budget woes. But while Mr. Cameron's courageous cutbacks in bloated domestic spending should inspire admiration, his scything of defense—one of the core responsibilities of government—is an example that we would do well to avoid.

The fact that British defense capabilities are in steep decline means that even more of the burden of defending what used to be called the Free World will fall on our overstretched armed forces. The British can cut back secure in the knowledge that Uncle Sam will protect them if anything goes truly wrong. But who would we count on in a crunch?

The old man mumbled a derogatory remark as his granddaughter tried to hurry him though the crowd, afraid he’d make a scene and embarrass her. The professor heard them and zeroed in on the old man, eager for a chance to embarrass the poor rube in front of the students.

“Do you have a problem with what I’m preaching, old man?” he said and pointed an accusatory finger at the old man’s chest, “Well I got news for you, I’m a communist! That's right! I’m communist and LOVE IT! Not only am I openly communist, but so are most of the faculty here at this school. Better yet, our salary is funded by taxpayers like you!”

The professor crossed his arms and smugly waited for the old man to reply. The old man simply smiled, adjusted his black ball cap with the words VIETNAM VETERAN written on it, and set his jaw a bit firmer.

“Well, young man, we have a lot in common. The taxpayers used to pay me, too! And guess what? They paid me to kill communists, and I LOVED IT!”

The End.

Its goal, according to a Kuwaiti newspaper that reported on the investigation: to strike targets in Israel and the West.

Over the years, Hezbollah — rich with Iranian oil money and narcocash — has generated revenue by cozying up with Mexican cartels to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S.

In this, it has shadowed the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Tehran, which has been forging close ties with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who in turn supports the narcoterrorist organization FARC, which wreaks all kinds of havoc throughout the region.

In March, Adm. James Stavridis, then head of the U.S. Southern Command, which includes Latin America, warned a Senate committee hearing: “We see Hezbollah acting throughout the region in proselytizing, fund-raising, involved in the drug trade.”

The Wall Street Journal reported last week:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has poured billions of dollars into Afghanistan in the past nine years, doling out money to private Afghan and international contractors... Last year alone, a U.S. military officer said coalition forces awarded about $14 billion in contracts.

Yet oversight has often been lax to nonexistent, and commanders now believe the huge infusions of cash are helping engender a culture of corruption...

USA Today had this to say on the subject:

The U.S. government, which is pressing Iraqi and Afghan leaders to get tough on internal corruption, is doing the same in its ranks. Cases of suspected fraud and other wrongdoing by U.S. troops and contractors overseeing reconstruction and relief projects in Iraq and Afghanistan are up dramatically.

I think the corruption goes much higher than a few US troops and contractors overseeing reconstruction. Case in point comes from Fox News:

The U.S. government came under fire from Congressmen for buying Russian-made helicopters instead of American choppers to form Afghanistan's air force, according to a report in Saturday's edition of The Washington Post. 

The U.S. Defense Department was criticized for planning to purchase 10 Russian Mi-17 helicopters next year for the Afghan National Army Air Corps, after the Pentagon already spent $648 million to buy or refurbish 31 of the aircraft. 

Some Congressman charged that the government failed to consider alternatives to the Mi-17s, which were widely used in Iraq and Pakistan, creating a lack of competition and allowing Russia's defense contractors to hike their prices. 

Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) urged the government to reconsider and purchase U.S.-built aircraft. 

"The Mi-17 program either has uncoordinated oversight or simply none at all ... The results have led to massive waste, cost overruns, schedule delays, safety concerns and major delivery problems," the Washington Post quoted Shelby as saying. 

If there was ever the proverbial ‘pot calling the kettle black’ it’s our government accusing the Afghan government of corruption. Senators Shelby and Dodd are raising a stink only because they’re on the leash for hundred of thousands of dollars from the powerful defense aerospace lobby. 

The military gave the Afghani’s Mi-17s for one reason only – military necessity. The Afghanis and most of the regional militaries fly the Russian Mi-17 because is cheap, rugged, and available. It is what’s best for the Afghanis. Pork, jobs, or ‘Buy American’ isn’t (and shouldn’t be) on their radar. What’s on their radar is getting the mission done, which means building a functioning Afghani Air Force as quickly and efficiently as possible.

What’s really behind the congressional outrage is most likely defense industry lobbyist putting the screws to their pet Senators. Senator Shelby (R-AL) is the number one congressional campaign cash recipient from the defense aerospace industry.  Senator Dodd’s (D-Conn) number two donor is United Technologies, parent company to Sikorsky Aircraft and manufacturer of the Black Hawk helicopter. The Black Hawk is the American competitor to the Mi-17.

Did media report these facts anywhere in their coverage of Shelby’s and Dodd’s outrage over the Air Force Mi-17 buy? No, even though it took this humble blogger about ten seconds to look up the facts.

There are two differences between our government and the Afghani government: 1) Our guys are much better at corruption; and 2) The Afghanis haven’t legalized their corruption yet.  

Shame on Senators Dodd and Shelby. If they truly cared about ending this war they’ll shut up and get out of the way. Let the military do its job and come home. Shame on the defense aerospace lobbyist pushing this issue. Any gain from selling a few helicopters and spare parts is fruitless if we lose this war. The end result may be Black Hawks in the hands of a resurgent Taliban government.

WASHINGTON DC - “Steve Austin, astronaut...a man barely alive. Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world’s first bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better...stronger...faster.”

 Former astronaut Colonel Austin has been selected as the first bionic man. Austin was reassigned to the Air Force’s unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program after the Obama Administration cancelled US manned space program last year.  He recently suffered a horrific accident when he was hit by a donut truck stepping out of the UAV control trailer to get a cup of coffee. He is currently in critical but stable condition at Bethesda awaiting the pioneering surgery to attach a bionic arm, ear, eye and two legs.

When asked when the surgery will take place Mr. Goldman, the Bionic Initiative program manager, said they will operate immediately when the Pentagon gives the green light. Depending on how fast Austin recovers, his new limbs may be ready for field testing by late summer.

15 April, 2011, The Wall Street Journal, p.10A

WASHINGTON DC - Colonel Steve Austin still waits for the ground breaking surgery to give him the powerful mechanical limbs and prosthetic sensory devices he so desperately needs. The Air Force announced last week the Bionic Initiative delayed indefinitely due to potential violations of Pentagon acquisition regulations, and possibly federal law.

In a press release from the Office of Scientific Investigation program manager Oscar Goldman stated, “This office did not knowingly violate federal rules. Due to the urgent nature of Colonel Austin’s medical condition we decided to press forward with a sole source contract.”

The Wall Street Journal learned yesterday Lockheed-Martin is the prime contractor for the futuristic synthetic appendages. However, a rival defense contractor filed suit in federal court challenging the contract. Boeing states Lockheed used unfair business practices, namely grossly underbidding the contract at a mere six million dollars. When asked about the allegations Mr. Goldman refused comment.

As for Air Force Colonel Austin, his doctors state he is resting comfortably and is looking forward to the surgery. 

12 July, 2011, New York Times, p. 10A

PENTAGON– The Secretary of the Air Force announced today the Bionic Initiative will be re-opened to competitive bidding. This move has done little to quell the controversy over the so called ‘Bionic Man.’ After Boeing challenged the single-source contract award to Lockheed-Martin a federal court indefinitely delayed the surgery to attach the advanced prosthetic devices to Col. Steven Austin, the man selected to become The Bionic Man.

Bethesda doctors state Col. Austin has been fitted with two peg-legs, a glass-eye, a hearing aid from Wal-Mart, and a broom-handle arm (the most authorized under Tricare) until the Air Force officially picks a winner, expected this fall. 

1 August 2011, The Hill Online

Capital Hill – The Senate opened a formal investigation today into allegations of wrong doing by the Air Force’s Office of Scientific Investigation. Allegations surfaced of wrongdoing by both Lockheed-Martin and OSI program manager Oscar Goldman. Specifically, senate sources question whether Goldman and the Air Force were authorized to award the contract without competitive bidding. Also, there is strong suspicion Lockheed severely underbid the contract at only six-million dollars. Most experts put the real cost of equipping a human with cybernetic body parts closer to six billion dollars.

Neither Lockheed nor Mr. Goldman returned The Hill’s phone calls or e-mails.

Sources say the investigation is really in response to pressure from powerful appropriations committee member Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). Alabama is slated to get a Boeing factory to build bionic body parts if Boeing wins the Bionic Initiative contract. 

“The American people and our men and women in uniform are entitled to the best technology for their tax dollar,” Senator Shelby told us on the phone, “And the competitive bidding process gives us this. The good people of Alabama can make mechanical body parts better than anyone in the world and ought to be given a fair chance to prove it.”

O’Reilly: “Its time for the Pinheads and Patriots segment on The Factor. Our Pinhead is Mr. Oscar Goldman, former head of the Pentagon’s Bionic Initiative, who resigned today in disgrace. He is accused of short-circuiting the Pentagon’s acquisition’s process in order to build the first so-called ‘Bionic Man’. What some called ‘The Six-Million Dollar Man’ is now costing upwards of six-billion dollars due to waste and fraud. For blowing it, Mr. Goldman is our Pinhead of the Week.

Our Patriot of the Week is Air Force Colonel Steve Austin, who was supposed to get the bionic surgery following a tragic accident. The Air Force announced they will be medically retiring Colonel Austin due to his injuries. Unfortunately, Colonel Austin will not be the first Bionic Man. Most experts agree it may be years before we see a cybernetic human being, as the contract process could drag on for years. Austin didn’t deserve this and has proven his dedication to our country as a decorated fighter pilot, test pilot, and astronaut. For his service and sacrifice for our country, we award Colonel Austin our Patriot of the Week Award.”

15 January 2012, Defense Weekly, p. 43.

PENTAGON – Today, the Air Force announced the winner of the Bionic Initiative. Lockheed will build and install the components for the first Bionic Man. The ten-billion dollar contract aims to fielding a prototype cyborg for operational testing by 2014.

Lockheed’s chief competitor, Boeing, has already filed a court challenge.

1 April 2012, London Times, p. 4A

Secretary of Defense Gates stated the competition will be restructured based on current military requirements and he will personally review the need for such systems, “The rest of the military is trending towards unmanned systems. I’m not convinced we need a ‘manned’ bionic man. I think we need to look hard at unmanned bionic man...system...whatever.” Gates indicated the requirements would be rewritten and the contract bid for the third time.

WASHINGTON DC - Today the Pentagon announced the winner of the controversial Bionic-X program, the successor to the cancelled Bionic Initiative. After half a decade, three re-bids, and several court challenges the Pentagon announced Boeing will build the first bionic man.

1 June 2016, Meet the Press

David Gregory: “Senator Shelby, you’ve been a strong critic of how the Bionic Initiative, now Bionic-X, has been handled from the beginning. Now that Boeing, a powerful economic force in your state, has won do you feel vindicated?

Sen. Shelby: “It has nothing to do with Boeing. It has everything to do with the best interests of the American people and the people of Alabama.

David Gregory: “Senator, with a deficit reaching levels for which we no longer have numbers able count that high, does America need, or can it afford, a Bionic Man?” 

Sen. Shelby: “We can’t afford not to have a Bionic Man!”

David Gregory: “Are you referring to recent statements you’ve made concerning a Chinese Bionic Man initiative?”

Sen. Shelby: “I wish it were only a Bionic Man initiative. However, I’ve been briefed on key intelligence the Chinese are developing something much more disturbing...a bionic sasquatch.”

David Gregory: “Are you going on record stating the Chinese are developing a Bionic Bigfoot?”

Sen. Shelby: “Not only are they developing a Bionic Bigfoot, I want to go on record as stating America faces a grave “Sasquatch Gap” in our bionic capabilities.”

2 June, 2016, National Enquirer, p. 1

VINDICATED! Powerful US Senator Confirms Mechanical Bigfoot Roaming American Wilderness (also hints Gary Coleman NOT really dead!)

AUSTIN, TX - Work on Boeing’s controversial Bionic-X program came to a sudden halt as congress seeks to enforce elements of the Berry Amendment. The Berry Amendment directs certain specialty metals and parts for defense purposes must be milled and produced in the United States.

DW has learned much of the technology for the B-X program comes from Chinese sources. Boeing released a press statement stating that in today’s global market its normal to acquire components from all over the world.

Senator Cornyn (R-TX) pushed the Pentagon to enforce the Berry Amendment, stating good paying American jobs will be shipped overseas.  The B-X contract, currently 500 billion dollars over budget, is nearing prototype field testing.  This drawback is the most recent in a string beleaguering the program. Even if the program is given another green light, a candidate hasn’t been selected for the surgery.

1 December 2018, The Wall Street Journal Online

DALLAS – In a single page press release, Boeing announced it will partner with Lockheed-Martin to mass produce bionic body parts for the Army. Lockheed-Martin will produce bionic gall bladders in a new plant yet to be built in Texas and provide 34,000 new jobs for Texas

Senator Cornyn (R-TX) hailed the move as “good for America and good for Texas.”

In a separate and unrelated announcement, elements of the Berry Amendment were waived for the B-X program.

15 July 2019, Boston Globe Online

WASHINGTON – As the B-X Program nears completion the search is on for a viable candidate for the surgery. Originally, the Pentagon wanted only test pilots, special forces soldiers, or Marines for the program. However, under intense pressure from Vice President Nancy Pelosi and Secretary of Defense Al Sharpton the Pentagon widened the field of prospective candidates.

“I think this is as much about diversity as it is military necessity,” Pelosi said today, “Most of America’s ‘firsts’ have be accomplished by white males.  It’s time to spread the wealth around.”

Secretary Sharpton had these comments, “We’ve had ‘social justice’, and we’ve had ‘economic justice’...now its time for ‘bionic justice!’”

MARYLAND - Army Specialist Jamie Summers emerged from Bethesda Hospital today as the first Bionic Person, ten years to the day since the inception of the Bionic Initiative.

Specialist Summers was handpicked ahead of dozens of other candidates, some of which where soldiers and Marines who’ve lost body parts in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, where America still wages combat against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Former Navy and Air Force personnel were not considered since the Pentagon terminated both of those services three years ago due to budget cuts.

Summers is already known as a pioneer of sorts in the military. She was the first transgendered person to openly serve in the military after the controversial policy known as “Don’t Look, Don’t Stare, Don’t Ask, and Try Not to Think About It” was rescinded by President Madonna. Formally known as “James Summers” he served as a pre-operative Person of Dynamic Gender until he became the first soldier to undergo Pentagon provided sex change surgery and officially became “Jamie Summers.”

The Army Chief of Staff had this to say about the selection, “In the Army we celebrate our diversity, which is the core of our strength. This is another step in the fundamental transformation of the US Army.”

Specialist Summers, formally a motor pool technician who crossed-trained as a hair stylist technician, was picked over dozens of combat-tested personnel. An unnamed Army surgeon said, “Summers has a proven track record of successfully undergoing numerous and extensive surgeries. Ah...this is really a fairly minor procedure for her...him...it.”

When asked how she felt after the surgery, Summers simply responded, “Faaabulous!”

FT. HOOD - Today the US Army formally cancelled the Bionic-X program after a year of extensive field tests at Fort Hood in Texas. The Army officially stated the program “didn’t meet minimum technical requirements or milestones and was significantly over budget and behind timeline.”

Over a decade ago the original ‘Bionic Initiative’ program called for a bionic eye, bionic ear, bionic arm and two bionic legs at a cost of six million dollars. Specialist Jamie Summers underwent surgery twelve months ago and was given a bionic eye, mechanical eyelashes, synthetic hair extensions, one bionic leg, three bionic fingernails, a bionic uterus, and a bionic wrist for a cost of 600 billion dollars.

Anonymous sources in the program admit the tests were a disaster.

“She actually ran slower than a normal human. In fact, I swear she ran in slow motion. And there was that crazy noise every time she used a bionic body part...it sounded like sheet metal shaking in the wind. ‘cha, cha, cha, cha...ching...ching...ching...ching.’  And that includes EVERY bionic part, including that creepy bionic female part. No one got any sleep, all night ‘cha, cha, cha, cha...ching...ching...ching...ching.’ Worst of all, those bionic fingernails kept breaking and when they did Jamie Summers cried and EVERYTHING stopped until we fixed them.”

28 July 2022 – The Drudge Report

BREAKING NEWS – Reports are filtering from Afghanistan of a major military defeat for US forces. Eyewitnesses report a giant bionic sasquatch attacked and destroyed several US armored personnel carriers. DEVELOPING....

26 December 2022 – The Denver Post, p. C28

COLORADO SPRINGS - In a sad note, Retired Air Force Colonel Steve Austin was found dead outside a charity mission in Colorado Springs. His wheelchair was frozen in a snow-bank. Around his neck was a sign “The Original Bionic Man. Will work for food. God Bless.”

A friend said Austin never recovered from the cancellation of the original Bionic Initiative program, but tried to get his life back on track. He was later dealt a series of blows from which he couldn’t recover. The Veterans Administration refused to pay the cost of his prosthetic limbs, glass eye and hearing aid. Then ObamaCare turned him down because Colonel Austin had ‘insufficient potential good life-years’ remaining and was not a good candidate for the expensive procedures.

Secretary of Defense Gates is on a crusade to cut spending within the defense department while keeping the overall $548.9 billion budget (not counting war costs) down to 1% growth for the foreseeable future. This effort is aimed at freeing up $100 billion to channel to higher priorities over the next five years.

Gates and the Armed Services Committee have public stated they don’t want to cut force structure or needed acquisition. According to “The Hill” they want to “reduce Pentagon bloat and scrutinize the defense budget... from trimming overhead on a department-wide basis.”  

They’re going to establish committees and “tasks forces” to find news ways to cut the Pentagon budget. I think they’re wasting their time. The military could cut way more than $100 billion is waste over five years with one simple step.

Each unit, it doesn’t matter what service, has a budget officer or NCO. They are the commander’s ‘go to’ person for his annual budget. All of them quickly learn two rules:

1. Budget and spend at least as much money this year as you did last year. If you don’t, you’ll lose it forever.

2. Have all your “unfunded requirements” ready to go at the end of the fiscal year. This is to collect tons of fall-out money (unspent funds) each September 30th.

Young officers and NCOs who innocently try to save money by not spending all their funds or fail to be ready to pounce upon fall-out money are quickly chastised by their commanders. I believe billions are wasted each year this way. If Gates would simple change this culture of waste he’ll free more money than any committee could dream of. To do this these cultural changes must take place:

1. Make saving money advantageous to commander’s careers, especially non-combat units. The key caveat, it must not come at the expense of the mission.

2. Make saving money key to performance reports for unit commanders and budget officers/NCOs.

How do you do this? Each service will have to find their way. Good luck, Mr. Gates.

The move goes beyond a memo Obama signed last June, which permitted same-sex partners to use the government's long-term-care insurance and other fringe benefits. The Office of Personnel Management said Tuesday that same-sex partners will become eligible for such insurance next month...

...These benefits do not cover uniformed members of the military. Last week, the House voted to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans gays and lesbians from openly serving in uniform, and the Senate is scheduled to vote on a repeal in the coming weeks. If a repeal is included in the final version of the annual defense spending bill, the Pentagon would take steps next year to address the treatment of gay and lesbian service members.

Though Obama has extended a greater number of benefits to gay federal workers than any of his predecessors, he is prevented by federal law from providing full benefits to same-sex partners. To that end, he reiterated support for House and Senate legislation that would grant all federal benefits to same-sex partners

President Obama signed a memo last June extending some benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, including access to the government's Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program. On Tuesday, OPM essentially broadened the definition of relatives eligible for the program to include same-sex domestic partners of eligible federal workers, U.S. Postal Service workers and federal retirees.

OPM will not extend access to opposite-sex domestic partners, because they can obtain the insurance through marriage, "an option not currently available to same-sex domestic partners," the agency wrote in Tuesday's Federal Register.

OPM said same-sex couples can visit www.ltcfeds.com to complete a form that states they are each other's domestic partner and intend to stay together indefinitely. The federal worker must submit the form to their employer. Couples will not be required to provide further proof of the relationship, OPM said, because that "would impose a greater burden on domestic partners than other qualified relatives." The agency said it does not ask opposite-sex couples for bank statements or other proof of marriage.

Secretary of Defense Gates appears to be softening his 'fire and brimstone' rhetoric about slashing defense spending. This is from the Christian Science Monitor

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday the Pentagon’s budget won’t shrink any time soon but that it is imperative to trim the fat and make the building operate more efficiently...Appearing at the Pentagon with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Gates reiterated his push to reform the Defense Department’s baseline budget which for fiscal 2011 is proposed for $708 billion. But that doesn’t mean Gates thinks it should get any smaller. On the contrary, he said that during a period of “continued conflict,” the defense budget should in fact grow “modestly but steadily” over the long haul. But excesses exist, said Gates, and “belt-tightening” is important.

That's a far cry from "the gusher has been turned off." So what is he up to? I think Gates has run into two major roadblocks:

1. Congress: The Pork-Beast will not cut weapons and acquisition during an election year. He can't change this and neither can his boss.

2. The Generals and Admirals: It’s possible he went a 'bridge too far' when he went after the carriers and subs. The Navy won't roll over on the centerpieces of their power projection capability. I think the Army has drawn the line on several key systems, too. Gates might even be facing some behind the scenes threats of public resignations...maybe, I don't know.  

I think Gates is changing strategies. This comes from Defense News: 

Like many of his predecessors, the defense secretary is seeking to shrink a massive Department of Defense bureaucracy that analysts and former officials say will fight back...In his speech, Gates said he will direct the military services, the Joint Staff, all major and functional commands, and “the civilian side of the Pentagon to take a hard, unsparing look at how they operate, in substance and style.”...Citing a recent Defense Business Board finding that overhead takes nearly 40 percent of DoD’s budget, Gates said he wants to “cut our overhead costs and to transfer those savings to force structure and modernization within the programmed budget ... to provide the equivalent of the roughly 2 to 3 percent real growth” needed “to sustain America’s combat power at a time of war, and make investments to prepare for an uncertain future.”

On the surface, it sounds like Gates is snatching 'low hanging fruit' and cutting administrative wastes within his direct power. It makes sense in an environment where congress won't cut budgets. However, I think he's using this as cover to conduct 'political purges' of sorts within the Pentagon under the guide of cutting overhead. He needs more generals, admirals, and powerful bureaucrats friendly to his agenda. He needs to do what he did to the Air Force a few years ago to the Navy and Army, but in a less dramatic way.

“... in terms of the kind of deep cuts that followed the end of the Cold War, I would hope that we've gotten smarter than that."

His words from Ocober 2008 were spoken during the greatest economic crisis since the Depression. Now, when we're supposedly in a recovery, his recent words concerning defense spending are much more apocalyptic:

“The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time." 

In the past few weeks Gates has called for cuts in the Navy’s submarine and carrier fleets as well as cutbacks to military pay and benefits, which he says are “eating us alive.”  

The defense budget is rife with opportunities to cut waste and slash spending. Veterans and active duty personnel know this simple truth: every dollar America borrows abroad for defense runs counter to our national security. What good is a new aircraft carrier or a pay raise if it’s bought with Chinese money?

Veterans put their lives on the line to defend this nation. Therefore, reducing their pay and benefits is a small sacrifice if it means providing a better life for their children. Veterans will gladly sacrifice their entire retirement check and all their healthcare benefits if they thought it would liberate their children from the crushing debt facing them. The sad fact is our leaders in Washington know this.

While veterans have a congressional lobby, they’re not unionized. American soldiers aren’t Greek government workers. They won’t march on Washington or protest if their pensions or healthcare are cut. Our leaders in Washington know this, too.

This is why other cabinet secretaries aren’t making speeches about how the “gusher” is being turned off in their departments. Their workers are unionized. Their workers will protest. Every dollar saved in the defense budget will be spent by other government departments, and then some. Where are the calls for austerity in Health and Human Services? Treasury? Energy? Education? There are none. In fact, the other departments are on a spending spree - flush with stimulus, TARP, and bailout money. The government is set to hire 100,000 to 250,000 new workers under this administration. Looks like the 'gusher' is alive and well.

To be fair, I did find cuts in one other department: Homeland Security. They’re making selective cuts to the Coast Guard and Border Security, including scrapping the new border fence.

Veterans sadly know if the entire defense budget was cut tomorrow any savings would quickly be swallowed by those beholden to political and financial interests over the greater good. If we scrap a 5 billion dollar aircraft carrier that money will show up in a pork program somewhere else. If we cut a year’s worth of veteran’s medical benefits that money will wasted in Medicare fraud in about a month.

This is why veterans and active duty respond Secretary Gates calls for cuts and reform with shrug and a collective “whatever.” They’re numb and tired.  And they’re angry...angry at the hypocrisy.

The progressive voices start as they always do, from the shadows of obscure op-ed pages and websites. At first, most people respond with “that’s crazy” and “that’ll never happen.” Eventually, the voices gain unstoppable momentum the main stream media and academia until “that’s crazy” becomes “normal” and then policy.

It’s happening again. This time the progressive voices call for cuts to military pay and benefits. “That’s crazy,” you say, “We’re fighting two wars. How can we cut military pay and benefits now?”

When progressives are forced to cut budgets they always cut essential services, like the fire department and police, instead of pork or welfare. There’s a two fold purpose for this: They never cut the source of their power – spending on constituent groups; and to punish those who call for the cuts.  

In order to accomplish this end progressives play fast and loose with the facts. For example, last year Jim Arkedis, director of the National Security Project at the Progressive Policy Institute, called for cuts to military pay and benefits in a San Diego Union-Tribune op-ed piece. Here his main points:

According to the Pentagon's Office of the Comptroller, direct personnel costs such as salaries, health care, benefits and housing amount to nearly $200 billion – or 31 percent – out of this year's entire defense budget. Adding indirect personnel costs such as military construction, travel, moving and utilities, all personnel outlays amount to nearly $230 billion – 36 percent of everything the Pentagon buys.

Military personnel costs are expensive, but only because this is what it takes to recruit, train and retain quality personnel. There is no draft and demographics have changed since the Vietnam War. Nearly all recruits must have a high school degree. Most service members are married and many are single mothers – families drive up healthcare costs.

If you want to reduce personnel costs then cut pay, reinstitute the draft, and prohibit married people or single parents from being recruited. Let’s see how long those policies last.

In 2001, the cost per service member was around $75,000, with 1.39 million troops on active duty...Today, 1.44 million soldiers, airmen and sailors are on active duty, but...the cost has shot up to an astonishing $160,000 per person.

Mr. Arkedis is being misleading. This ‘cost per service member’ includes everything associated with that member being at war, including fuel costs to ship a soldiers overseas, body armor, and shipping meals into war zone. In 2001 we weren’t involved in two occupation wars. The only way to cut this cost is to bring the troops home. 

Retired military veterans receive at least 75 percent of their base pay and have full military health coverage for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Arkedis is being misleading a best. Most retirees receive 30-50% of their base pay. One must serve 30 years to receive 75% of their base pay. This is not truly “retirement pay,” its retainer pay. It comes with a very important string – one can be recalled to active duty for many years after ‘retirement.’ It’s happened many times since Desert Storm.

No, military retires do not receive full military health coverage for the rest of their lives. They get a reduced benefit called “Tri-care for life,” which is essentially Medicare. When they are 62 they are kicked off entirely and truly put on Medicare. What’s so generous about Medicare?

These progressive voices like Mr. Arkedis are now being echoed in the main stream media. David Wood, a respected writer on defense issues. Here are excerpts from a piece he wrote in PoliticsDaily.com

...the Army pays its soldiers well. A first-year single soldier, boasting the insignia of a private first class, will earn $35,948.04 this year, with $3,355.43 of that tax-free. That's 10 grand more than the median income for 16-24-year-old civilian males, who will earn $24,596 this year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Isn’t being deployed in an active war zone, filled with IEDs and terrorists worth an extra 10 grand a year?

An Army captain with eight years of service, married with two children, gets $84,299.28 a year, of which at least $6,135.73 is tax-free. All pay in a combat zone is tax-free, as are all danger pay and other bonuses.

An active-duty soldier who has served 15 years and agrees to stay another five gets a $30,000 bonus.

The Army is having difficulty retain mid-career officers. They’re simply burning out.

...One reason is pay. Since 2002, military pay has risen 42 percent, while civilian pay grew by 32 percent.

The real issue is the slow growth in civilian pay. Military jobs were considered second rate throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, even after the Reagan pay increases. Civilian pay growth stagnated from the late 1990s to today, making the military look good by comparison. 

...college tuition assistance that can top $80,000, and a pension system that will pay $8,000 a month to today's privates if they wait until they're 50 to retire.

The G.I. Bill and Post-9/11 G.I. Bill are success stories and one of the biggest recruiting tools. Eliminating or reducing this will have severe consequences attracting young recruits.

Soldiers also receive food and housing subsidies that are untaxed. Since 2002, housing allowances have risen 83 percent and the food allowance by 40 percent.

Of course housing costs rose 83% since 2002, it was the height of the housing bubble. If a service member lives on base (if housing is available), that allowance is removed from his pay. This cost can be controlled by building more military housing.

Since the 1980s, food and energy were removed from the inflation index for political reasons. The basic allowance for sustenance (BAS) is still tied to actual food prices.

As for these benefits not being taxed, I’ve never understood the government taking money in the form of taxes, dispersing it, and then taxing it again.

Now factor in the Army's low-cost health insurance -- premiums haven't been raised in 15 years...Health care costs are swelling at about 10 percent a year, not counting a massive expansion of physical and mental health services needed for troops returning from combat deployment. The health care costs alone "are eating us alive,'' Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last year.

Military healthcare is government “single payer” healthcare. Maybe someone should have paid attention to this before we passed government healthcare.

But there's more. To attract and retain smart and ambitious soldiers, the Army has been quietly investing in an astonishing range of "quality of life'' programs far beyond pay, health benefits and pensions.

Army bases...are model, crime-free communities of quiet streets and neatly trimmed lawns, with their own schools, day-care centers, supermarkets, theaters, college classrooms, hotels, medical clinics and rec centers.

The Army offers free financial planning and family and marriage counseling, babysitting for families of deployed soldiers, and other services.

Yes, this is all true. It’s always been true about bases to one extent or another for generations. What’s wrong with this? Why is this bad thing?

Mr. Woods closes his article with these quotes:

...Lindsey Graham, Republican senator from South Carolina and a reserve officer, touched on this the other day in a committee hearing: "Well, you know, I want to be generous and fair to all those who serve . . . but there's a cost containment problem'' in the personnel budget.

Speaking specifically of sharply rising costs for military health care, Graham said, "I don't see how we can sustain this forever.''

Has the military given an excellent return on investment? For those who say it’s too expensive I’ll only say this: As long as the American people allow less than 1% of their population, volunteer force or otherwise, to shoulder the burden of sustained ‘war without end’ this is what it will cost to field such a force.

The size of the Pentagon's combat search-and-rescue (CSAR) helicopter fleet is likely to stay steady through its upcoming recapitalization and potential modernization, a top Air Force official said yesterday.

"As we look at modernization of CSAR, our goal is to get back to an original fleet size of 112, to replace our combat losses of HH-60, and a newer capability down the road," said Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Howie Chandler.

"I think we're being more realistic also with recapitalization and modernization to a fleet size that is somewhat less than we had described in the earlier CSAR solicitation," he added...

The Air Force earlier this year revived plans to purchase a new rescue helicopter, with its efforts now focused on procuring a far less costly platform than initially expected. Officials have said that the Pentagon leadership is now fully behind a plan to replace the Air Force's aging Sikorsky HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters. .

...The plan calls for a contract award in 2012. The Air Force wants eight new helicopters ready to deploy by late 2015, but the RFI indicates no timeline for replacing all of the approximately 100 HH-60Gs in the fleet...

"The question you have to ask yourself is, can I really buy my way out of low-density and high demand in an area like this? I think the answer we've come to is, probably not," he said.

"The more of this you have, the more of this the system will require. We need to decide what we can afford, what capabilities we need for the department, and then recapitalize to that," he added. "So I think any fleet following the fleet that we have today in terms of HH-60s...will be similar in size to the fleet that we have today."

...Air Force officials have also said in recent months that they hope to have "high commonality" between their CSAR and Common Vertical Lift Support Platform (CVLSP) to save on development costs...Earlier this year, a top Air Force acquisition official indicated that recombining the two programs is still a possibility

While we watched, shell shocked and numb, congress fired another explosive piece of legislation our way: the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. This bill is a bi-partisan initiative between Senators Levin and McCain. A modification to this law just cleared the House of Representatives. The orginal law and the new modification are supposed to reform the broken military acquisitions system. After reading it I believe it will do the opposite. It will make things worse.  

The 2009 bill can be found here: http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2009/AcquisitionsReform.022309.pdf

1. It doesn’t tackle the number one culprit in the acquisitions mess: Congress. The tinkering and manipulation congress induces into source selection is illustrated by the Air Force Tanker fiasco. Congress forces contractors to spread manufacturing across as many states and districts as possible to win critical votes. When companies lose contract competitions they unleash their pet congressmen and senators against the military and against their competitors. They file one legal challenge after another until the system is overwhelmed. Their lawyers can always find a selction violation because the Federal Acquisition Rules (FARs) are so complicated. Its impossible not to violate them in one manner or another.

2. This reform doesn’t touch the FARs. About 20-30% of these titanic volumes deal with acquiring new military technology. The rest is how to navigate the minefields of congressional laws and mandates which favor one constituent group or another. This patchwork of pork, favoritism, legalized corruption, and lobbyist candy is the choking our ability to buy and field weapons. Our worst enemies could not have designed a better weapon to cripple us than the FARs.

1. Tells the DoD it must hire more engineers and insert them into the broken bureaucracy.

2. Creates a new position, which I’ll call the “Developmental Test Czar.” His job is to tell the services they need to conduct more developmental testing (translation: spend more money, take more time, hire more people). The services already know this, but don't have the resouces to do it.

3. Creates another new position, which I’ll call the “Czar-To-Make-Sure-We-Know-The-Things-We-Already-Know” or, “Czar for Elimination of Innovation.” His job is to make sure contractors are use established technologies and avoid groundbreaking innovation, which might result in cost overruns or otherwise be “messy.” The bottom line” avoid risk. He, in turn, issues comprehensive reports for congress to ignore.  

4. It adds another coordination layer by requiring the combatant commanders (the generals actually fighting the wars)to state if the services are buying what he needs to fight the current war. On the surface, this sounds good. However, the combatant commanders are responsible for the “here and now.” Service chiefs are responsible for planning for the future. This will also inhibit strategic planning.

The rest of the bill is comprised of statements like “insert sentence here” and “add at the end of the new paragraph.” It tweaks at the edges of an already broken system. It’s like welding a patch over the hole on the Titanic as it sits on the bottom of the ocean.

It is not without some possible benefits, such as competitive proto-typing. However, everywhere the act might give acquisitions professionals some teeth to control costs and terminate programs one finds loopholes congress can intervene.

In ten years we’ll see the fruits of this reform. I predict we’ll still be scratching our heads and wondering why we can’t field major weapons in under a decade, on budget, and without horrible legal challenges. In other words, we won’t be fielding new weapons systems.