The F-35 Program Reveals What Is Wrong With The Pentagon

F-35A Lightning IIs from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings, at Hill AFB, Utah, prepare for takeoff at Aviano AB, Italy, on May 31, 2019. Air Force photo by A1C Caleb House. 

Sean McFate, The Hill: The F-35 tells everything that's broken in the Pentagon 

It’s official: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a “rathole” of taxpayer money, something defense experts already knew — at least those without dubious ties to the military industrial blob. Now the House Armed Services Committee chairman has joined the ranks of the outraged, saying that when he thinks about the F-35, he thinks about “failure on a massive freaking scale.” 

The F-35 is an allegory for everything that’s broken in our Department of Defense, which receives more money than the rest of the federal interagency, combined. In fact, we spend more on our armed forces than the next 10 biggest militaries in the world, combined. What are we getting for our tax dollars? Unfortunately, the F-35. 

Read more .... 

WNU Editor: The F-35 is not the only program that illustrates problems in the Pentagon. The Navy's LCS and its new aircraft carrier program are others.

Are America's Military Generals Just Another Group Of Self-Interested Technocrats?

Ryan McMaken, Mises Institute: Military Generals Are Just Another Group Of Self-Interested Technocrats

The United States has always had a love affair with certain generals. George Washington, of course, was immensely popular, and thirteen US presidents were generals before they were president.

But prior to the Second World War, generals as a group were not revered or treated with any particular veneration or respect. In fact, in the nineteenth century, full-time US military officers were often treated with suspicion and contempt. While state militia officers were regarded as indispensable night watchmen who preserved order, the full-time government employees who served in the federal military were often derided as lazy and otherwise unemployable.

But now those days are long gone. In recent decades, active generals and retired generals have grown into a group of politically influential technocrats who can be regularly seen on evening news programs and are habitually feted and promoted as incorruptible patriots. They are fawned over by media organizations while being paid enormous pensions. Moreover, upon retirement they are able to turn their former government employment into lucrative positions on corporate boards and throughout the private sector.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Regardless of what happens after this year's Presidential election, I will always give President Trump credit for exposing how Washington works, how the media covers the news, how US trade policy hurts the American worker, and how useless fighting these forever wars have been to the American soldier and to the country as a whole.

Is There A Problem In The Top Ranks Of America's Military?

Flanked by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper (L) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Mark Milley, U.S. President Donald Trump meets with senior military leaders at the White House in Washington, U.S., October 7, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Andrea Widburg, American Thinker: There is something very wrong with some in the top ranks of America's military

With Bob Woodward's anti-Trump book about to be published, the media are focusing entirely on the easily debunked claim that Trump mishandled the Wuhan virus by "lying" to the American people. What the media are ignoring, however, is a much more serious claim, which is that former secretary of defense General James Mattis plotted to overthrow Trump and his administration. This fact, if true, supports my longtime fear about the damage Obama inflicted on the upper echelons of the Pentagon.

The Conservative Treehouse caught the Mattis item:

According to a pre-release excerpt from the Washington Post Bob Woodward writes about a discussion between General James Mattis and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats about a plot to overthrow the elected government of the United States.

What do you call a conversation between the Defense Secretary and the head of the U.S. intelligence apparatus where they are talking about taking "collective action" to remove an elected President? That's called sedition[.] ... A seditious conspiracy.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I could be wrong but my gut tells me that if President is re-elected, he will be doing what President Obama did in his first term .... fire a lot of Generals .... Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years (Investors Business Daily). And the first person that he is going to replace will be Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

Is The Pentagon's 'Credibility Problem' Getting Worse?

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, left, and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, arrive for a briefing in Capitol Visitor Center for a closed-door briefing about Syria on Oct. 17. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

Roll Call: Analysis: The Pentagon has a credibility problem, and it’s only getting worse

The Defense Department’s waffling on casualties from Jan. 8 Iran strike latest in a growing trend.

Americans breathed a collective sigh of relief when, the morning after Iran’s Jan. 8 ballistic missile attack on Al Asad air base in Iraq, Defense Department leaders said there were “no casualties.”

That initial assessment hasn't held up, and neither have the department's varying statements on the matter since then.

The Pentagon confirmed Friday that 34 personnel have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries or concussions from the strike. While half have subsequently returned to duty, 17 continue to be treated in Germany and the United States, Jonathan Hoffman, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, told reporters.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: For as long as I can remember the Pentagon has always had a problem communicating accurate information to the media and the public. This was usually due to two reasons .... (a) a deliberate decision from the top, or (2) inaccurate information that was not vetted and passed up the chain of command. But times have changed, and I have a contrarian point view from the above author. I believe the Pentagon is getting better, and I credit the role that the internet and social media are playing, and how they can quickly disseminate information that in the past would have been kept under wraps. In today's world it is very hard to pass misinformation or a narrative that is convenient politically. The truth always comes out in the end.

Throughout U.S. History The Pentagon's Top Generals Have Only Said No To A President Once

Mark Perry, Daily Beast: When the Pentagon Top Brass Said No to the President

The speculation intensifies by the day: Will the generals with whom our bellicose president has surrounded himself ever just say no? There is a precedent.

Polls tell us that the U.S. military is the most admired of America’s public institutions. Seventy-two percent of those asked say they have confidence in the military—outpolling organized religion, public schools, unions, and even the police. That stands to reason: Our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen (and women) volunteer to serve, and nearly 7,000 of them have died in combat since 9/11. We’ve asked them to sacrifice, and so they have. The same respect is accorded to our military leaders: George Washington is revered, the funeral of Ulysses S. Grant drew millions, Gen. George Marshall is seen as a military giant, while public esteem for soldier-president Dwight Eisenhower has grown with each passing year.

Read more ....

WNU Editor:The U.S. military has definitely changed since 1992.

Should A Former General Be In Charge Of The U.S. Defense Department?

Gen. James Mattis testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington July 27, 2010, on his nomination to be Commander of U.S. Central Command. Yuri Gripas/Reuters

Anna Mulrine Grobe, CSM: Enter the generals: Why Trump's cabinet picks give Pentagon pause

President-elect Trump's pick for secretary of Defense, retired Gen. James Mattis, is widely respected among military analysts. But he will need a congressional waiver to serve.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump confirmed Thursday that retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis will soon be named the new administration’s pick for Secretary of Defense.

“We’re not announcing it ’til next week, so don’t tell anyone,” Mr. Trump told a cheering crowd in Cincinnati Thursday evening, referring to the nominee by his nickname, “Mad Dog” and calling him “the closest thing we have to George Patton.”

It is what many former military officials consider a “good news, bad news” story for the Pentagon, which, despite its implicit focus on waging war, has a long – and necessary, analysts are quick to add – tradition of civilian, rather than military, leadership.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I must admit that I am a fan of Ret. General Mattis .... and I was also surprised that President-Elect Trump chose him to be the Secretary of the Defense Department. Is the General qualified .... probably. Will his tenure be a long term success story .... or short live and a failure .... it is far too early to make that prediction. But is selecting a former General to head the Department of Defense the right appointment .... on this I have my doubts. I am one of those who firmly believes that there must be a mix of both at the top .... but with a civilian being the top person. This appointment violates this rule .... and we are now entering unknown territory. I am still going to withhold judgement ..... and give the new Secretary of Defense the benefit of the doubt for the next six months. It is going to be during this time that we will quickly learn if he is going to be there for the long term .... or (like former Defense Secretary Hagel) be replaced within two years.

5 Pentagon Programs That May Not Deliver What Was Promised

U.S. Air Force F-35A © Daniel Hughes / Reuters

RT: 5 costly Pentagon projects of dubious merit

With the world’s biggest military budget at its disposal, even budget cuts leave the Pentagon with plenty of money to spend. Even so, a few of the organization's projects cause serious doubts among its own members.

F35 Joint Strike Fighter

The JSF, the Pentagon’s magnum opus for a stealth one-size-fits-all aircraft is estimated to cost over $1 trillion over its lifetime, but years into development it’s plagued by software glitches, conflicting performance requirements from different service arms, lack of weapons required for the missions it’s supposed to conduct and other problems. The silver lining is that US allies are willing to buy them nonetheless.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: A few programs are missing in this list .... missile defense being one .... but it is still a good list.

Does The Pentagon Take Us For Fools?

The Pentagon, headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, taken from an airplane in January 2008. Wikipedia

Sputnik: Why US Officers Believe Pentagon Officials Take Them for a Fool

Serious tensions are simmering between "interventionists" and "America Firsters" in the US Army, American author Justin Raimondo warns.

While the Pentagon and NATO officials are playing the game called "Chicken-Little, sky-is-falling," in claiming that Russia is harboring plans to invade Europe, other US military officers urge their counterparts "to stop waving the bloody red shirt," American journalist and the editorial director of Antiwar.com Justin Raimondo writes in his article.

Predictably, the whole "Russians-are-coming" fuss is all about the money, he stresses.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I have been following wars, conflicts, defence and intelligence stories for years .... and the rational that sometimes comes out of the Pentagon on why they need more of this and/or more of that .... coupled with bigger budgets .... always astounds me. But here is the kicker .... they usually get what they want .... so yes .... we must be the fools.

The Pentagon's Priorities Are Going To Change Soon Regardless Of Who Wins The White House

Wikipedia

Loren Thompson, Forbes: Why Pentagon Priorities Will Soon Change No Matter Who Becomes President

Military planners and defense investors have begun focusing on the fact that President Obama is in his final year as the nation’s commander in chief. Next year, a new president will start putting his or her imprint on the U.S. defense posture. However, new leaders seldom have an immediate impact on Pentagon priorities unless something happens overseas, because the makeup of the joint force reflects political compromises arrived at over many years. Besides, it typically takes over a decade to field new weapons — longer than two presidential terms.

Nonetheless, I can predict with high confidence that sometime soon, Pentagon priorities will change markedly. Perhaps policymakers will decide they need to spend more money on defending the homeland against nuclear attack. Or maybe they will reverse the gradual unraveling of the Army that has occurred on Obama’s watch. I can’t predict precisely what shifts will occur, but I can state with near certainty that big change is coming.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: One thing that I have learned since starting this blog is that nothing stays the same. Wars and conflicts come and go, alliances and enemies change, and what is important today is irrelevant tomorrow. Are big changes for the Pentagon (and for the U.S.) coming down the "pipeline" .... definitely .... and it is going to impact all of us .... the question is .... how are we going to respond it.

U.S. Defense Industry Described In One Sentence

A high-tech U.S. military blimp designed to detect a missile attack is pictured coming to the ground in Montour County, Pennsylvania, October 28, 2015. REUTERS/SECV8, A SEGMENT OF SERVICE ELECTRIC CABLEVISION

WNU Editor: From Eric Palmer's Blog ....

.... "A high-tech US military blimp designed to detect a missile attack has come loose from its moorings and is floating free."

And there is more ....

A recent investigation by the Baltimore Sun found the programme had been "hobbled by defective software, vulnerability to bad weather and poor reliability".

Again, describes the U.S. Defense Industry...perfectly.

Maybe I am being unfair to new technology.

Or not.

Is The U.S. Buying The Right Weapons For Future Wars?

The fourth Air Force F-35A Lightning II aircraft arrives at the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, April 24, 2013, REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Daniel Hughes/Handout

P.W. Singer and August Cole, Reuters: The weapons the U.S. needs for a war it doesn’t want

Terrorism and Middle East insurgencies are not going away. Yet in the 21st century, the United States must understand it faces a return of a serious national-security concern that shaped the last century: the risk of great-power conflict.

The Defense Department’s new military strategy acknowledges this by noting the implications of the renewed rivalry with China and Russia. The possibility of a major war with great powers, like World Wars One and Two, is “growing,” according to the U.S. National Military Strategy released this month.

WNU Editor: An excellent analysis on how the Pentagons goes about acquiring expensive weapon systems that may now function as advertised. Near the end of this commentary the authors sum it all up accurately with one sentence .... The Pentagon must plan for the worst day of war, not the best. Read it all.

Is Politics Killing The Pentagon

Wikipedia

Politics Is Killing The Pentagon -- Mackenzie Eaglen, The Hill

As America returns to war in the Middle East, ramps up for new problems from Russia, battles Ebola in Africa and continues the “pivot” to Asia, the capacity of the U.S. military is once again front and center. But Washington is in denial about two major realities: The U.S. military’s technological edge is eroding, and politics is killing the Pentagon. All too soon, America won’t be able to take on this range of challenges. Indeed, it’s not even clear that we still can today.

At a recent Democratic Party event, President Obama boasted that, “American military superiority has never been greater compared to other countries.” But the opposite is true. Earlier this year, the Pentagon acquisition chief contradicted his boss: “Technological superiority is not assured, and we cannot be complacent about our posture. This is not a future problem; this is a ‘here now’ problem.”

Read more ....

My Comment: It has always been about politics .... but the difference is that in the past threats and objectives were defined by the White House/Congress/foreign and national security specialists .... money then raised and the Pentagon told on what to do. Today .... the Pentagon is told what to do .... threats and objectives defined later (maybe) .... and the money is then raised (or not). This is what happens when there is no leadership .... no direction .... and everything is being done on a fly .... and made worse from a world that is rapidly becoming multipolar with deeply divided regional differences and conflicts.

Who Really Runs The Pentagon?

The Men Who Really Run The Pentagon -- Foreign Policy

Bob Gates wrestled the defense budget back from the Joint Chiefs. Chuck Hagel is handing it back.

Before Chuck Hagel was nominated to be secretary of defense about a year ago, he made a reputation for himself as a independent Republican politician who described Pentagon spending as "bloated." In office, however, the former Nebraska senator has argued that the Pentagon should be rescued from historically minor and appropriate reductions. In doing so, he seeks to reverse one of the few real reforms that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates before him enforced on high spenders inside the Pentagon and in Congress.

Hagel and the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Sylvia Mathews Burwell, say they want to revive the old "wish list" process in which the Joint Chiefs of Staff used to connive with each other and Congress, behind the back of secretaries of defense and OMB, to make additions that couldn't cut the mustard in the regular budget review process.

Read more ....

My Comment: A sobering analysis on who is "really" running the Pentagon now. My only beef on this post is that there is no mention of what Leon Panetta did when he headed the Pentagon.

Eight Challenges That The Pentagon Must Face In 2014

The Pentagon, headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, taken from an airplane in January 2008. Wikipedia

New Year, New Missions: Eight Challenges Awaiting The Pentagon In 2014

The Pentagon was busy in 2013. A new defense secretary took the helm, the U.S. went to the brink of war with Syria, budget politics continued to frustrate military leaders, and the war in Afghanistan reached a critical moment before its finale. And 2014 promises to bring more challenges as the military continues to redefine and reshape itself for a post-war era by confronting new threats abroad and navigating the battle for resources at home in Washington.

Here’s a look at what’s on the horizon for 2014:

Read more ....

My Comment: Leaving Afghanistan is a big one ..... but the biggest challenge will be it's budget (i.e. what to cut, what to keep. and what to eliminate).

How Prepared Is The CIA And Pentagon For The Next Crisis?

Will The CIA And Pentagon Be Ready For The Next Crisis? -- Fareed Zakaria, Washington Post

As Leon Panetta and David Petraeus move into their new jobs at the Pentagon and the CIA, they should use the occasion to fundamentally reorient U.S. intelligence and national security planning.

Consider the intelligence community. We spend around $80 billion on intelligence every year — more than the rest of the world put together — and yet we seem perpetually unprepared for global events. The CIA did not imagine the fall of the Soviet Union, the revolutions of Eastern Europe, the breakup of Yugoslavia, Sept. 11, Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, the global financial crisis and, most recently, the Arab Spring.

Read more ....

My Comment: Governments have a long history of never being ready for the next crisis .... and I do not believe that this track record is going to change in the foreseeable future. What governments can do .... and I agree with Fareed Zakaria on this point .... is that governments should have their fiscal house in order, as well as some resources and monies "socked away" that can be used when a crisis does occur. But telling government to save money and put some aside instead of spending it .... LOL .... that is never going to happen .... especially with the current batch in Washington.

Obama's Partisan Pentagon -- A Commentary

From Human Events:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ sweeping gag order prohibiting senior military officers from discussing the 2010 defense budget is raising fears of politicizing the Pentagon.

Six Republican House members wrote to Gates on May 5, saying his requirement that generals, admirals and senior civilians sign a non-disclosure agreement seems so broad the signers may withhold candid testimony on Capitol Hill.

The letter comes amid a disclosure of another apparent politicization of the Pentagon. Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, (D-Mi), sent a letter to Gates on February 2 asking that the Defense Department Inspector General re-do a January report that cleared the Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon of any wrongdoing in providing briefings some 70 retired military TV analysts. Gates relayed the letter to the acting inspector general, and subsequently the IG report was withdrawn.

Read more ....