Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
The military has spent the last decade reorganizing and spending more efficiently. The whole concept of joint operations (between Marine, Navy, Army, Air Force, and external military forces) is a perfect example of this.
This initiative in itself allowed the invasion of Iraq to be accomplished by about half the number used to liberate Kuwait just ten years ago.
And one of the primary drivers of this was less money available for them to spend.
I'm starting to fear we've gone horribly off topic here though.  |
I was in the Navy during much of this period of "right-sizing" as we were instructed to refer to it. Studying military affairs is a labor of love for me personally, so forgive me if I indulge this tangent for a moment.
There were many reasons for the reorganization of the military. The free-spending days were certainly over, which had partly to do with it. Many expensive programs hatched during the Cold War were strating to mature (peaking costs). But most importantly, the force structure and organization was too geared to the post-Vietnam Cold War environment (which it excelled in).
But in short, it was not as much a case of their budgets being cut, as much as it was legislators and administrations which demanded greater efficiency, and cut some programs/bases. The force structure changes were less financial and more mission based.
This is how you do gain in the efficiency department. You have leaders who are responsible administrators of the public trust. They actively work to improve the effectiveness of the agencies to best improve the efficiency of public spending. That in a nutshell is my argument: it starts with leadership and I would rather have a responsible leader who works to ensure that agencies operate as efficiently and effectively as possible, than one who eagerly cuts taxes at the expense of good governance.