Replies

The Bush Administration claims that rather than expand, or even maintain, existing military force levels, funds are being allocated to develop a new generation of weapons that could enter production by the end of the decade. Even if true, the world is moving too fast to indulge in such a strategic pause. The 1990s were a relatively calm decade in the aftermath of the Cold War and could have been used for this kind of modernization and transformation. Instead, the decade was wasted in a "procurement holiday" that saw military force levels drop and the industrial base that sustains them shrink dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of skilled production workers, engineers and managers left the industry, and the opportunities to attract a new generation into the field were limited. In addition, hundreds of American defense subcontractors and high-tech companies were bought up by foreign firms, who moved their research and technology offshore. Another wasted decade would be hard for the industry to endure.

Funny they don't mention which administration this "procurement holiday" most took place under. FWIW, we called it being Clinton-sized, when we were laid off from our Arsenal of Democracy positions.

But as the author's indicate, the Bush years have been pretty lean in the force modernization and procurement arena as well. They also canceled important *Army* weapons systems, which would have been very handy, such as the Crusader SP Artillery and the Comanche helicopter. They did continue the under armored Stryker program. The Mobile Gun System version is said to no longer flip over when the 105mm (Abrams tank uses 120 mm) gun is fired to the side, but I remain skeptical about that.

Funny they don't mention which administration this "procurement holiday" most took place under. FWIW, we called it being Clinton-sized, when we were laid off from our Arsenal of Democracy positions.

Because there is no need to belabor that obvious well-proven fact (which the author has previously demonstrated on innumerable occasions). Indeed, he proceeds from it as an axiom, the GOP, the serious party (formerly under Reagan anyways) is the one that needs to be looking at the issue...and it is a subject of immense consternation that he has to call it...and this particular administration which had run as "pro-defense" to task, when he makes this rhetorical point (which I again reiterate):

If the political will does not exist in a Republican administration, with majority control of both houses of Congress, at a time when American military forces are engaged in combat operations on multiple fronts in nearly every part of the world, when will it exist?