4 ms·

> And while corruption in the so-called "military-industrial complex" exists, based on my 20 years in uniform, I'm not sure it's worse than in other sectors of

> And while corruption in the so-called "military-industrial complex" exists, based on my 20 years in uniform, I'm not sure it's worse than in other sectors of the economy. Your response to the corruption is whataboutism? Should we aim to end corruption regardless of what happens in other sectors?

nononoenono 3y ago
a more appropriate interpretation (according to the site guidelines) is that the poster was implying corruption in the us economy is very low and that military corruption, being no worse, is also very low. aiming to eliminate corruptoin is a bit pie in the sky.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Exactly this. If the Fat Leonard fiasco had been a "dog bites man" story, it wouldn't have been such a scandal. Again, looking back on a 20-year active and reserve career in uniform, my personal opinion is that a lot of the waste and inefficiency in DOD is precisely because of all the ethics rules. Not that I don't approve of ethics rules, but there are times it seems the hoops you have to jump through to spend government money are based on the assumption that A) everything has to be above board and B) all contractors involved are inherently a bunch of flim-flam artists who will fleece the government given half a chance. And this is precisely why the Pentagon bureaucracy is so infamous, and why companies want to hire retired Generals and Admirals to help them navigate it.
psunavy03 3y ago
Of course we should. But I'm not convinced barring four-stars from going to work with Raytheon or Lockheed Martin is the way to do it. First off, defense contracting is run through the services, not the combatant commands, so there's 11 four-star officers off the bat who aren't making contracting decisions compared to six who are. Remember, military services man, train, and equip the Joint Force. Combatant Commanders employ the Joint Force. The service heads have no command authority in the field. They are merely force providers to the Combatant Commanders. What's more, funding allocations to the services start with what's called the Defense Planning Guidance, which is a document issued by the Office of the (civilian) Secretary of Defense. This is then broken down into Service Program Guidance about where each military service spends its money. Services then come up with a Program Objective Memorandum outlining the budget they need, which then goes to the Joint Staff, because the Joint Staff's job is refereeing interservice food fights. This then goes to the (civilian) Presidential administration, who presents a budget to Congress, who approves it. So there are many cooks in this budgetary kitchen, and if Congress doesn't like the military Congress funded and approved for the President to use, then perhaps Congress can look itself in the face and ask itself why it's not fulfilling its duties under Article I of the United States Constitution, instead of trying to pass the buck onto the President's subordinate officers, when it's ultimately Congress who controls the purse strings. I keep saying "Congress" for a reason . . .
mattmcknight 3y ago
Yes, but ending the ability of government employees who are forced to retire to seek employment in their field of expertise is not a good solution to corruption.

nononoenono 3y ago

a more appropriate interpretation (according to the site guidelines) is that the poster was implying corruption in the us economy is very low and that military corruption, being no worse, is also very low. aiming to eliminate corruptoin is a bit pie in the sky.

psunavy03 3y ago
Exactly this. If the Fat Leonard fiasco had been a "dog bites man" story, it wouldn't have been such a scandal. Again, looking back on a 20-year active and reserve career in uniform, my personal opinion is that a lot of the waste and inefficiency in DOD is precisely because of all the ethics rules. Not that I don't approve of ethics rules, but there are times it seems the hoops you have to jump through to spend government money are based on the assumption that A) everything has to be above board and B) all contractors involved are inherently a bunch of flim-flam artists who will fleece the government given half a chance. And this is precisely why the Pentagon bureaucracy is so infamous, and why companies want to hire retired Generals and Admirals to help them navigate it.

psunavy03 3y ago

Of course we should. But I'm not convinced barring four-stars from going to work with Raytheon or Lockheed Martin is the way to do it. First off, defense contracting is run through the services, not the combatant commands, so there's 11 four-star officers off the bat who aren't making contracting decisions compared to six who are. Remember, military services man, train, and equip the Joint Force. Combatant Commanders employ the Joint Force. The service heads have no command authority in the field. They are merely force providers to the Combatant Commanders. What's more, funding allocations to the services start with what's called the Defense Planning Guidance, which is a document issued by the Office of the (civilian) Secretary of Defense. This is then broken down into Service Program Guidance about where each military service spends its money. Services then come up with a Program Objective Memorandum outlining the budget they need, which then goes to the Joint Staff, because the Joint Staff's job is refereeing interservice food fights. This then goes to the (civilian) Presidential administration, who presents a budget to Congress, who approves it. So there are many cooks in this budgetary kitchen, and if Congress doesn't like the military Congress funded and approved for the President to use, then perhaps Congress can look itself in the face and ask itself why it's not fulfilling its duties under Article I of the United States Constitution, instead of trying to pass the buck onto the President's subordinate officers, when it's ultimately Congress who controls the purse strings. I keep saying "Congress" for a reason . . .

mattmcknight 3y ago

Yes, but ending the ability of government employees who are forced to retire to seek employment in their field of expertise is not a good solution to corruption.