You will forgive me if I do not share your interpretation of the Constitution. You are quite wrong on that. The government has a responsibility to provide for the common welfare of its citizenry-and there is plenty of argument that supports my line of thinking from many of the founding fathers. Whether Social Security and Medicare are the correct ways to do that are process questions-not constitutional ones. No American-except for the most naive ones, wants to go back to the days of William McKinley and the misery that was inflicted on a large portion of the population.

As for resources, the government has plenty-it fails to utilize them effectively. That’s what this discussion is about-the inability of Navy leadership to make the right decisions for the good of all its warfighters-not just the few preferred customers of Naval Aviation. In just about every case the service had the bucks to do something-it allowed itself to get sidetracked. The money is out there both within the defense budget and without. Its just not well acquired or used.

The country has plenty of resources too-and it fails to utilize them effectively as well. That’s essentially what the arguement has been over the last three Presidential elections.

Clinton may have given over a reduced size military, but Bush has probably done worse to damage and reduce the size of the military by committing it to an open ended and unnecessary conflict in Iraq-which has tied down the military of the United States and used up considerable resources that could have been used elsewhere for better benefit. The costs of the war have been great and they have been insidious-the supplemental bills never represent the true total cost of operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

More specifically, the blame for the current state of Naval Aviation lies at the feet of only one villain-Navy leadership. Even with the changes that you decry politically-there was room to maneuver within the hallowed halls of the Pentagon and get things done for the fleet.

We are in agreement that Bush II did not make good on his promise to fix the armed forces, but ask yourself why he did that. If anything, minus 9-11 he was committed to even more larger reductions that Clinton, so as to minimize the deficit effects of his tax cuts. Had the original QDR of 2001 gone forward, it would have been a disaster for all the services-but the Navy in particular would have gotten really screwed. Even if Republicans win both houses of Congress next year, you are not going to see a massive infusion of cash into the defense budget. You’ll see defense spending stay at about the same GDP percentage it is now. Even if McCain had one the election last year-it would have stayed about the same percentage.

Skippy is in favor of all that unconstitutional nonsense, based on what he has posted here and on his own blog, but then complains because the FedGov doesn’t have the resources to do its real job. The cognitive dissonance is quite glaring to all but him, alas. That problem, however, is all too common, and may seal the fate of this country in the very near future. As Rumsfeld so inconveniently pointed out, you fight with the military you have, not the one you want. Clinton gave Bush a seriously damaged military at the end of a process begun by Bush I and Congress wanting its “peace dividend” so they could engage in more pork and social spending they had no legal authority for. Bush II made no effort to fix either the material damage of his predecessors, or the social damage done by Clinton.

As we look at the F-22 and F-35, stop and think about the logistical support for either aircraft. In my own personal and probably flawed view, there’s a great deal more to be considered, before we decide.

You’re counting in nominal dollars, not constant ones adj for inflation. Hell EVERYTHING costs more each year in nominal dollars, but that doesn’t mean we’re spending more as a per-centage of our salaries. A far, far, better measurement is spending as a % of GDP. By this measure we are barely spending more as % of GDP than we were just prior to Pearl Harbor! Now, granted, we had almost a zero base at that time, so we are working from a larger foundation, but still, defense spending is small potatoes and has been shrinking as a % of GDP for the last decade. In other words, real, constant dollar, defense spending is going DOWN, and NOT up! We’ve a 17 TRILLION $ GDP, for crissakes! The REAL pac-man spending is SS and Medicare plus interest on the debt.

I don’t understand you, Skippy. OTH you make sophisticated and knowledgeble criticisms of the wpns acquisition and program development process and assoc. philosophical strategic trends, but on the other seem blind to the difference between constant (real) dollar and nominal (current) dollar costs as a measure of defense spending. My only conclusion is that your bitterness towards the admitted stupidity of many of the service’s acquisition policies have blinded you to the larger problem of ever shrinking defense budgets (in real terms) which not only do not allow for any mistakes and/or inefficiencies in the acquisition process, they are still inadequate to buy/build everything that is needed even if all decisions are the right ones and there are no inefficiencies getting from A to B–design to operationally fielding.

And WHATEVER combination of wrong-headed decisions as have been made and inefficiencies as have happened/are happening, they are AS of NOTHING compared to our “affordable” public housing programs, medicaid/medicare fraud, etc. Money down the rat-hole in these civilian areas, while deplorable and serve to deprive deserving projects
of funding, are unlikely to destroy the nation. Refusal to fund the defense budget at a level needed to meet the identified potential threat out of pique at inefficiencies can cause the utter destruction of our existence. I would further remind you that history has shown time and again that even poorly designed ships, tanks and aircraft can triumph over a superior armed foe via superior tactics and better trained personnel if the numbers are there. But this has no chance of happening if there are no ships, planes or tanks of any kind–or at least enough to be meaningful–for better trained soldiers, sailors and airmen to utilize however sub-standard they may be. And currently we are neither funding adequate numbers of superior systems OR “cheapeer” “B-” type systems. We currently have the worst of both worlds…

Go, Skippy, Go! right on, right on.

It is what it is though. We gotta stop this slide into a “Sand Pebbles-like” Navy somehow. I wish I had the answer. There isn’t any one answer except perhaps a need for some stinking competence applied to the problem. That’s too much to ask of today’s society. It ain’t gonna be easy.

b2