[iwar] [fc:Return.Of.The.'Military-Industrial.Complex'?]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-02-16 07:51:23
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:SNMP.Threat.Shows.Why..IT.Can't.Afford.to.Be.Shortsighted]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Chinese.Official.Eyed.In.Bugging.Of.Plane]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200202161551.g1GFpNV20998@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 07:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Return.Of.The.'Military-Industrial.Complex'?]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christian Science Monitor
February 13, 2002
Return Of The 'Military-Industrial Complex'?
Pentagon officials come to Congress to make case for big rise in defense
spending.
By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
In his vow to fight terrorism - to "win the first war of the 21st century" -
President Bush has pledged "whatever it takes, whatever it costs...." If the
administration's projections are correct, in just a few years that cost will
near a half-trillion dollars a year.
On Capitol Hill this week, service secretaries and other top Pentagon
officials are explaining to Congress how those sums will be spent. At a time
of anticipated budget deficits, lawmakers are likely to temper their support
for national security with the need to appear frugal.
Yet, depending on where they're from, they also can be expected to assert
that the military bases and defense plants in their districts are among the
most vital assets to protect the homeland.
In a military budget that is as big as the 15 next biggest countries
combined, what's the potential for waste, inefficiency, and good
old-fashioned pork? When it comes to military spending, the tradition of the
"iron triangle" - Congress, the Pentagon, and defense industries - joining
to push costly weaponry is nothing new.
"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," five-star Army
General Dwight Eisenhower said in his last speech as president in 1961. "The
potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist."
With the nation under recent attack, US forces fighting overseas, and
patriotism-fueled Pentagon budgets rising faster than usual, that potential
increases.
Writing in the Washington Post, White House budget director Mitch Daniels
warns that special interests are likely to jump on the national security and
homeland defense bandwagon to promote their products. But larding the
federal budget with extras isn't limited to nonmilitary items, others note.
"What Mr. Daniels forgot to mention was that vested interests also exist in
the defense sector - that is, defense industries - that are out to do much
the same," says the Cato Institute's Ivan Eland.
Some weapons outmoded?
Under increased scrutiny are big-ticket weapons that critics say are too
costly, unreliable, or otherwise inappropriate in an era shifting from
superpower cold war to terrorism and other forms of unconventional conflict.
Among these are the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft, B-1 bomber, V-22 Osprey
tiltrotor aircraft, Crusader self-propelled artillery system, and Comanche
helicopter.
These "are five of the most wasteful and ineffective weapons systems," says
Danielle Brian of the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight.
Before Sept. 11, Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld himself had questioned
some major weapons systems that, in his view, did not fit the needs of
military "transformation." When he was Defense Secretary 10 years ago, Vice
President Dick Cheney questioned the value of some major weapons, too.
But the current Pentagon budget slows some programs, but doesn't eliminate
any controversial big-ticket items. Mr. Rumsfeld says that there had been a
"holiday" in procurement that needs to be redressed. Critics say it's matter
of bureaucratic inertia, military turf protection, and favored congressional
programs. "The new defense plan ... is focused on the acquisition of
traditional on the acquisition of traditional kinds of weapons programs,
such as tactical fighters, aircraft carriers, and heavy artillery systems,"
says Steven Kosiak, a defense specialist with the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments in Washington.
This is likely to be an issue for many lawmakers, particularly in the
Democrat-controlled Senate. "Longstanding problems in areas such as
financial management, acquisition management, management of information
technology, and personnel management have not disappeared just because we
are now fighting a war," Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin
(D) of Michigan said Tuesday.
Other spending necessities
Weapons procurement is not the largest portion of the Pentagon budget.
(That's operations and maintenance.) But procurement, together with research
and development on new weapons and other gear, adds up to nearly a third of
the budget - $123 billion proposed by the administration for 2003. In
addition, the proposed budget for homeland security nearly doubles the
current figure to $38 billion - more opportunities for military industries.
Within weeks of the terrorist attacks, the Defense Department issued a
"Broad Agency Announcement," in which military contractors were asked for
"help in combating terrorism." Thousands of proposals have been submitted
since then. The "military-industrial complex" that General Eisenhower warned
of presents potential political landmines for any administration. For
example, many former Republican officials and political associates of those
now in the Bush administration are associated with the Carlyle Group, an
equity investment firm with billions of dollars in military and aerospace
assets.
Chairman of the group is Frank Carlucci, secretary of Defense in the Reagan
administration and a close friend of Mr. Rumsfeld. Others who work for
Carlyle include former Secretary of State James Baker as well as the
president's father, former President George Bush.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
When building an e-commerce site, you want to start with a
secure foundation. Learn how with VeriSign's FREE Guide.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/oCuuSA/XdiDAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:SNMP.Threat.Shows.Why..IT.Can't.Afford.to.Be.Shortsighted]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Chinese.Official.Eyed.In.Bugging.Of.Plane]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-12-31 02:15:03 PST