[EODGUY]

Speaking as a proud veteran of our military and as a fervent supporter of that military, this article reminds me of a discussion I had with a liberal acquaintance who complained that President Bush promised to rebuild the United States military that was "decimated" (he added a sarcastic tone here) by Clinton, and has yet to do anything substantive to make good on his promise.

I reminded him that liberals think throwing money at a problem will solve it. Our president has chosen to study the needs of our service men and women before he decides what is truly needed for them to remain the most highly trained/equiped/motivated military force in the world.

Anyone who has been in the military knows that money is not always spent wisely, particularly when the end of the fiscal year approaches and it becomes a "use it or lose it" situation.

Military waste is generated from the highest levels, not from the line troop level. Our Secretary of Defense is doing a terrific job maintaining control of the hierarchy of our military, some of whom are nearing retirement and hope to land another cushy job with a defense contractor. Perhaps their retirement plans cloud their objectivity.

[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.