Generals turn on ‘ornery’ Rumsfeld ("SWEET AND LOVEABLE" ALERT)

The Sunday Times ^ | October 20, 2002 | Tony Allen-Mills

[Grampa Dave]

Last paragrap should start with and read as:

He the President, has the same problem with all of the Federal Agencies/Departments re card carrying rats in the ranks is in the military. We can elect a conservative republic president, and he inherits 100 of thousands of card carrying rats in the military and other agencies. These card carrying rats work 24/7 to keep the new president from cleaning out the rat messes and from implementing their plans and actions.

[Maximum Leader]

Churchill never served in the navy (he was an army man).
First Sea Lord was always an Admiral.

Churchill was the civilian head of the Royal Navy at the beginning of both World War I and World War II. And he had the coolest job title in the world, First Lord of the Admiralty.

[Mr Rogers]

Disagree. I'm involved in military testing. Rummy wants to 'streamline' the acquisition process. Under the old system, the military would determine it needs something. It would then create an ORD - Operational Requirement Document - specifying exactly what the military thought it should get from the contractor. Then contractors would build a system, and we would test it to see if it worked. Then, if it passed, it would go to the field.

Rummy's idea on streamlining - the military says it is interested in something, but we aren't sure what. The contractor builds what they can produce at a comfortable margin for scheduling and profit. Then the miliitary tests it, and then we write the ORD. That way, contractors can never fall short - the "requirement" is only made AFTER delivery. This does make things faster...

Of course, it won't have a lot of capability at the start. So we will do "spiral development". In the words of a General I know, this means we pay 100% for 50% capability, then pay 100% for another 30%, and maybe - someday - pay 100% for the remaining 20%. That way everyone is happy - the military eventually gets something useful, and the contractor makes 300%! Only the taxpayer gets screwed.

I've been working test on some products built by the nation's largest defense contractor. I give you my word - all the contractor cares about is profit margin. On one "2-year" program, we're a year behind and still haven't seen the level of performance we expected at start-up...and the item only costs twice as much as its competitor! On the other, the screw ups won't hit the field for another year - but when it does, it has a good chance of grounding perfectly good combat aircraft - a point we made in an initial review some time back.

DOT&E has already gone public with their complaint that the US Navy is fielding equipment that doesn't work, and doing it by 'dumbing down' the requirements when the article is obviously about to fail. From what I've seen, Rummy is pushing the rest of the services to follow the Navy's example. Either Rummy is clueless, or he's the contractor's best friend!

BTW - his acquisition reforms are described by one guy (a contractor!) as, "We'll give money to the contractor until they cry UNCLE, and then see if they give us anything back". Contrary to some's beliefs, there is rational opposition to the Defense Secretary.

[Mr Rogers]

In acquisition, Rumsfeld IS throwing money at the problem. The last thing we need is to give contractors MORE latitude to screw the taxpayer. If the military doesn't establish standards of performance BEFORE buying something, the only result can be a lot of wasted money.

[Mr Rogers]

The military is filled with those with 03 ranks and up, who are more interested in Diversity and PC concepts than killing and destroying our enemies.

Horse$#!t. I'm in the military, at a rank to know a number of "O3 ranks and up", and NONE are PC minded butt kissers. Won't speak for O-9 & above, but the O-3 thru O-8 ranks seem pretty well grounded, IMHO.

[Miss Marple]

I have read your complains about the contract process. I must confess I have little knowledge of this subject, so I am at a loss to either affirm or rebut your statements.

However, I would point out to you that there is nothing about the contract process in this article, but rather a character smear of Rumsfeld's leadership style and vague hints that he is alienating upper level generals, all without any attributable quotes.

I hope that others on the forum who are knowlegeable about this subject will post their opinions, so that we can get a better perspective on this issue. My opinion of this article, however, stands. I have pinged a few pepople who may have knowledge or know of people who have knowledge on this subject.

[Grampa Dave]

Glad to hear it!

I ran into some 03's at the end of the Clintoonian era who should not have been in the military. They should have been running some phoney Rat Non Profit or working as Diversity training rat for Cal Trans.

Thanks for posting this, this is good news: "O-3 thru O-8 ranks seem pretty well grounded, IMHO"!

[pray4liberty]

Most of the complainers are those who got their promotions during the Clinton years, and are all too happy to whine to the press. I pay them no mind.

I hope our President, the Commander-in-Chief, will pay them mind and "retire" the lot of them.

[pray4liberty]

For every blue-rinsed matron sighing with delight at Rummy’s repartee..

Well, I think he's sweet, lovable and gorgeous to boot...and he's old enough to be my father.

[AFCdt]

You're right.

I've heard a Captain say "The Air Force mission is not to 'defend the United States and its interests,' it is to break stuff and kill people!"

And a Major I know: "I think every morning we need to send some missiles to a different part of the world. Keep people on their toes and take the initiative."

In fact, I was at a briefing a few months ago where a Major General (O-8) showed graphic Predator footage of Taliban/Al-Qaeda terrorists being "eviscerated" by an AC-130. The purpose of the footage? An attention getter for the rest of his, unrelated, briefing!

Granted, I know a few officers who I hope to never serve with, for the primary reason that they are so outwardly politically active, even while in uniform. They will seek every opportunity to say, "Hey, look what your stupid President is doing to us now!" But, generally, the large majority of officers are grounded and not the least bit interested in 'diversity' and PC. Diversity because race honestly doesn't matter in the military, and PC because it is contrary to the job.

We aren't supposed to be politically anything. We are supposed to "break stuff and kill people."

[Darlin']

"irascible, intolerant and “ornery”, "trusting only a tiny circle of close advisers"

Hey, I like those traits in a Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld is streamlining and reshaping the DOD, he is stripping waste from a bureaucracy that has been notoriously bloated for years. It is inevitable those feeding at that trough will object. If, indeed, some on Capitol Hill are getting all wadded up about it I take it as a positive sign of his effectiveness. Go Rummy.

[Mr Rogers]

I read the original article. The point was that Rumsfeld doesn't listen to military advisors - only a select few aides he brought with him.

Don't know if this is true. I don't work in the Pentagon, thank goodness! I am sure there are many in the Pentagon who don't know their head from a hole in the ground. I think the F-22 may be a bad idea whose time has passed, and am glad Rumfeld is ruffling feathers by killing a few projects. But his acquisition reforms scare me. Whoever is advising him in that area either doesn't understand what is going on, or is giving aid & comfort to the big contractors - who are NOT our friends. The couple of years I've spent in military test have made me very cynical about Lockheed, Boeing, etc. I used to think they would temper their greed with patriotism - silly me!

[Hipixs]

    The Washington Post [NY Times, LA Times, et al] got tired of trotting out its template piece [every two weeks or so] that the Pentagon [Rummy] and the State Department [Powell] were at odds. Secretary Powell was the last best hope to save us from the Bush Doctrine according to the left's fantasy, and driving a wedge between Rummy and Powell was a key part of this fantasy as well as promoting a view that major divisions existed in the Administration.

The template piece went to pieces when it has been amply demonstrated that Powell is fully on board with the Bush Doctrine; so now the left has taken a new tact:

Discredit Rumsfeld by highlighting/manufacturing discord in the military and civilian ranks.

Promote the idea that the Pentagon has been taken over by a group of zealots [e.g. Dowd's column about Perle {The "Prince of Darkness"} and Wolfowitz {the Super Hawk, the Velociraptor, the Unilateralist}].

Along a parallel course, comes Belafonte with an outrageous slap at Powell for being off the reservation [plantation] by falling in with the Adminstration.

So, are we now seeing the new template piece for the liberal rags -- the Pentagon is in disarry with unhappiness in the ranks, an out-of-control cadre at the top, and State is a sell-out?

[slowhandluke]

On one "2-year" program, we're a year behind ...

I'm not sure I understand this. Bush II hasn't been in office for 2 years yet, and Rummy even less. So, any program started 2 years ago (and still a year behind) wasn't started under Bush rules, but rather under Clinton rules.

Or am I misreading your comment?

[Mr Rogers]

Started last year. Supposed to finsh next year. Right now, we are further behind than where we were promised by the contractor at last year's start.

My point was that contractors care only about their profit margins. This one (a very large one) was awarded a contract on a promise to deliver. Now we hear the 'you've come this far, success MUST be just around the corner' rationale.

This program is on the old rules. Imagine what it would be like if the contractor built the widget, and then the military had to figure out what to do with it.

The new system puts a great deal of trust in the good will and patriotism of the contractor. I've seen no sign of either. I have seen a great deal of dishonesty. So I'm worried about an acquisition model where all the rules favor the contractor, and none favor the military.

[jjm2111]

Great post.

[Aric2000]

If that is indeed the way that the military is now doing busines then it is the most bassackwards way of doing business that I have ever heard.

The military tells the contractors what it wants, the ocntractors should use their own funds to build a prototype and then sell it's wonders to the military, and then, when ALL the bugs are worked out, the military should sign a contract with the best contractor.

But, the contractors whine about the costs and so the military gives in and gives them prototype advances and all that crap. BS, if a private company wants to quote and build a military contract, which are ALL lucrative, then they should put up the front funds to build the prototype to the militaries specifications.

If their product is the best, and competition makes a wonderful motivator to be the best, then they should get the contract.

The M-1 worked that way I believe, and it is THE BEST tank ever created!! I love those M-1's, I used to maintain a platoon of the beasts, plus the colonels tank. I LOVE THOSE machines. All contractors should put out an excellent weapons system like that.