Not a master plan, but more along the lines of "whoops, didn't think THAT would happen." I don't disagree that budget-cutting was necessary, but to slash budgets the way that they were done and then act surprised now that it takes significant efforts from outside contractors just shows that there's a general lack of understanding of logistics.
See, they COULD have cut a few high-budget programs that were already looking like they'd be out of date before ever being fielded. The Comanche helicopter, for example, cost billions of dollars but wasn't ever going to prove to be of any greater value than the UAVs that also were taking on the covert surveillance role, and Comanche wasn't any more survivable against the low-tech RPG/machine gun threat than the helicopters it was supposed to replace. The Crusader artillery system was another high-dollar project that would have some cool technology but also was going to be too heavy to airlift and not a big improvement over the modern artillery+precision airpower combination. Cutting those two programs would have freed up a lot of budget for lower-echelon deals, but it's a lot easier to sell the gee-whiz high-tech stuff over the beans & bullets that haven't changed much since WWII.
What I'd be interested in seeing is a projection of how much it would have cost the govt to keep the military operating in the way it was (and especially if they incorporated some smart cuts like I've mentioned) versus what the contracts with KBR, Blackwater, etc. are costing over a specific time period.
Last edited by Jeb Hoge; 06/23/05 07:44 PM.
