It's about time the Nation's Defense Department started spending money responsibly. Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates laid out the plan for the military's 2010 budget. While roughly the same amount of money will be asked from the 2009 budget, (that's around 4 % GDP) the 2010 budget will take that money and use it where it is needed.
A prime example of this irresponsible use of taxpayer money would have to be the Air Force's
F-22 program. The program is not going to be completely scrapped but the budget calls for the Air Force to scale back on the number of aircraft in its regiments. This makes perfect sense, the wars being fought today and probably for the rest of this century will be wars fought on the ground, from an enemy that can fire a surface to air missile, get on his or her bike and disappear before we even know it, to make an analogy, we're buying dynamite to kill an ant hill.
The downside to actually doing what is for the greater good of the Military, is the legislative outcry from state representatives. These projects create and sustain jobs and these jobs bring money to our representative's states. While this budget causes these jobs to be lost and the money to go to more important causes, like better health care for our service men and women, or rebuilding the equipment that the wear and tear of lengthy deployments wreaks on them; it is obvious that someone finally needed to make this decision.
Politicians like to use the military as their pity party when they want to pitch their ideas. Instead of not complaining because your district or your state won't be able to make a wiring harness for a multi-billion dollar jet, or a camera lens for a state-of-the-art laser system (that sometimes works), actually sympathize for the men and women in our military and agree to this budget because their tired of using broken equipment, and their tired of inadequate health care facilities or substandard living conditions. Maybe if our Government hadn't of spent billions of dollars on a faulty missile defense system, then maybe our troops could of had the armor they needed, during the first and second and even third stages of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe soldiers wouldn't have died from electrocution while taking showers on U.S. bases. As if these men and women don't have enough to worry about over there, roadside bombs, mortars, ambushes, etc. they also have to worry about faulty wiring in their living quarters. If that isn't a wake up call to our leaders, then I don't know what is.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/67092/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-apr-8-2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/10/zakaria.pentagon/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with the author of this post on every angle that he is commentating on. Spending money on F-22 fighter jets instead of optics and thermal sights that the combat soldiers on the front line actually need and use every day and night. There was many nights on patrol in the middle of Baghdad where my NVG's (night vision goggles) would not work or the clarity of the device was not up to any ones standards. When it comes down to saving a life or your life being saved because of great tools and optics, well then don't you want the ability to have access to the best and most reliable equipment. I believe that our funds should be spent on fixing and improving military equipment like the author of this article explains as well as experimental research in medical treatments for the men and women serving our country. http://thebloggedeagle.blogspot.com
ReplyDelete