9 ms·
The author mentions "perverse" incentives in Congress, but what he doesn't mention (because it's a very politically difficult subject) is the perverse incentive
by feedjoelpie 12y ago
The author mentions "perverse" incentives in Congress, but what he doesn't mention (because it's a very politically difficult subject) is the perverse incentives afforded military officers. When you have a system in which it's so common as to be expected that the officers who influence your purchasing will in a couple years retire into a job with the private contractor from whom you're purchasing, you have a recipe for bias. Even from really standup people who don't recognize their own vulnerability to influence. It's just such a common thing to work in the private sector for the same office as you did when you were enlisted that nobody blinks an eye. Because it's often really good to still have those people around.
But at the same time, I think that's a pretty untenable situation. The military needs to do something to balance the career mobility of their officers with the ethical hazards of the current system. Without some rules to prevent the scenarios that have the most potential for abuse, the situation is not unlike the flow of Congress members into lobbying. Except we don't elect military officers.
It's a tough balance. Part of the promise of the military's recruiting is that you'll advance your career. They should fulfill that promise. At the same time, they need to make sure that the ways in which they fulfill that promise don't incentivize poor judgment on behalf of the public interest.
- Tloewald 12y agoThe basic perversity is building a gigantic military in peacetime because the arms companies have enormous lobbying power. Everything else flows from and is secondary to that.
- sithadmin 12y agoWe're not talking about scaling out cloud deployments or something here. Building a military takes an incredible amount of lead time. If you don't have a strong standing military force during peacetime, you won't have one during wartime.
- javajosh 12y agoUtterly false. Prior to involvement in World War 2, the US had hardly any standing army and rather weak tooling industries (being wiped out by the Great Depression) and yet still managed to field like 2 million troops and vast amounts of weapons for allies in a very short period of time.
- ArkyBeagle 12y agoI don't know how this was downvoted - it's completely true. Read any bio of Eisenhower. Eisenhower was involved in big experiments just to see if men and materiel could even be moved across country in the US by wheeled vehicles.
- hackuser 12y ago> I don't know how this was downvoted Perhaps it was the tone, "utterly false". When I see writing like that, I generally stop reading; often what follows is another hyperbolic Internet rant and I've seen enough of them for my lifetime.
- javajosh 12y agoInterestingly, the score for my comment has fluctuated back and forth between +6 to -2. Clearly something touched a chord, which is strange because a) WW2 is a valid counter-example to the claim that you need a huge standing army to fight and win wars, and b) the extent of my "tone" was a single word, "utterly". May all the 'hyperbolic internet rants' limit themselves to a single word.
- ArkyBeagle 12y agoI hear ya - fatigue happens.
- brc 12y agoThat is the number 1 reason for the interstate system. It's also why Germany built the autobahn. The peacetime/domestic benefits were considered secondary.
- 12y ago
- xnull2guest 12y agoIsn't it more complicated than that? Today being behind on military technology by as little as 5 years can be decisive in confrontation. The last decade has brought huge changes in military technology including super and hypersonic missile delivery systems (these can defeat the US's current interception capabilities), THAAD technology, directed energy weapons, new reactive armors, satellite bombing systems, startling new radar arrays, hybrid warships, autonomous drones, practical railguns, missile adhoc networks and intelligent interception, material science bringing in new stealth materials and body armor, satellite kill systems, not to mention advancements in electronic warfare. There is constant pressure on the US, because it is the second largest arms dealer around the world, to constantly build better military equipment. And there is constant pressure to do the same because the US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich. The Washington Consensus chose 25 years ago to continue the investment of military with a pivot in tactics and to uses its military might in tandem with 'soft power', financial leverage, social disruption, culture export, etc in an attempt to fix its success and the success of its allies with "minimal bloodshed" - but a form of colonialism nonetheless. It will continually sell off old equipment to aid in funding new research and development. The US is a world empire - and while this can be seen by looking at a map of military locale it is better seen as a Capitalistic one. It uses its host of leverage, import-export bank, 'structural adjustment programs', 'value sharing initiatives' and the like. The US's foreign policy is wrapped up intrinsically in providing energy security to the first world, which means constant interventionism in the Middle East. It also has a huge number of security and military obligations around the world - e.g. right now we're promised to go to nuclear war were there to be an attack on Latvia. The US has many reasons to be militaristic - its waning economic dominance but continued military commitments and global footprint, its obligations and its own incentives to fix its success during continued globalization. Military contractors feed this fire, yes. They benefit from it, yes. But it is not as simple as military contractors lobbying successfully.
- tim333 12y ago>US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich I'm sceptical that the military might does that much to make the US rich besides providing basic peace. Obviously things would be screwed if WW3 started. The US has got rich mostly by trade and enterprise and producing much of the worlds high value stuff. Spending a huge portion of governments revenues on the military rather than things like education, R&D and science has probably been a drag on growth.
- philwelch 12y agoGigantic? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans... Have you considered the gigantic military requirements that are placed on the United States? By treaty alone, the US is required to defend almost all of Europe, Japan, and South Korea. These are not easy requirements to disentangle from; if Japan alone were allowed and required to rearm, it could lead to an arms race that would destabilize all of East Asia and either stall or undo the tremendous economic gains that have been achieved in that region. If it wasn't for US obligations towards NATO, most of Eastern Europe would suffer the same fate that Ukraine is facing from Russia. If it wasn't for the US Navy enforcing freedom of navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#United_States_.22Freedom_of_Navigation.22_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#United_St...), tinpot dictators could shut down international trade by making and enforcing illegal claims on international waters. Maintaining the Pax Americana is a hard, unappreciated task.
- hackuser 12y agoI'm not sure why the parent was modded down. It's 'settled theory' in the foreign policy world, though what philwelch lists are significant risks and not certainties. Also, I would add our obiligation to ensure the flow of energy from the Middle East. There are many benefits to being a hegemon, but it comes with obligations too.
- tsotha 12y agoThe US military is on the order of 4% GDP. That's comparable to pre- WW II levels.
- ArkyBeagle 12y agoThis is really driven by "up or out" ( also called "up and out") personnel management in the military. You're required to charge rents back to your employer for business relationships outside the military. It's all part of the general pattern of careerism. It's in sharper relief in military contracting because there's simply more & different information about it. It is also damaging in the private sector.