> But in the case of offensive campaigns, the military very much gives the government an idea of what the plan looks like, including the budget, timeline, casua

> But in the case of offensive campaigns, the military very much gives the government an idea of what the plan looks like, including the budget, timeline, casualties, chances of success, etc You're correct that the military comes up with the plans. In some scenarios they may come up with multiple plans. There may also be other parts of the government, such as the state department, coming up with alternative plans. Choosing which plan to go with and what budget to give it is the responsibility of civilian leadership. > It's worth noting here that the military very much has a vested interest in saying yes to military action, because that's good for job security. Whose job security is it good for? The private who just joined isn't involved in these conversations. The people who are in these conversation are well established and in the later parts of their careers so they don't need to worry so much about job security. > But when it turns out that you cannot get in and out of a country in the forecasted amount of time, and when that country then goes back to its former political landscape despite all of our best efforts, that failure cannot land entirely at the government's feet. Why not? What happened to "the buck stops here"? > This once again sounds like an internal KPI that the US military can without doubt be very proud of. An external observer may ask how much such an effort would cost, and how well we compare on a per soldier basis with someone like China or Russia Sounds like the sort of things people in relevant committees in congress would probably ask questions about. If they don't like the answers they could probably even make some headway in getting that changed. > A good example to bring up here would be the cost of the F-35 program. Is it an impressive aircraft? You bet. Are the capabilities of that aircraft in line with its cost? My gut tells me no, and I think a lot of people would agree. Do I have any hope that this was an isolated instance, and that the next-gen aircraft program will be done more cost-efficiently? Not really. These kind of purchases are very political. How spread out is the manufacturing for this jet? How many different congressional districts in the US have at least one part being made there? Here are a couple articles about the government buying military equipment the military doesn't need or want [0][1]. [0] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-agai... [1] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tell...