Category Archives: defense policy

Audit Failure and a Target for Reduction in Force

Posted on by
Reply

The Pentagon has failed, again, the audit of its finances. This makes seven in a row, and it calls into question how hard the relevant officers and civilians are trying, along with their level of competence.

A total of 1,700 auditors worked on the 2024 audit, which cost about $178 million.
A breakdown of the audit found that 15 of the 28 standalone financial audits received a failing grade….

Pentagon Comptroller Michael McCord:

…the Department has turned a corner in its understanding of the depth and breadth of its challenges[.]

After seven years.

As Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy look around the Federal government for places to cut, and as SecDef nominee Pete Hegseth (assuming he’s confirmed, even as the Left and their Progressive-Democrats ramp up their smear campaigns) looks into the Pentagon establishment he’d be overseeing, here is a lucrative, target-rich environment to enter.

A RIF is a Reduction in Force, a move whereby the military branches occasionally winnow down their ranks of officers and enlisted that each branch deems excess to its needs. The financial types—both military and civilian—in the Pentagon’s budgeting and acquisition sections, from supervisors on down, have by their successive and apparently determined failure to perform have self-selected for RIF. Start with McCord and his disingenuosity.

The RIF shouldn’t be limited to these folks, though. To the extent they’re getting bad, or merely slow, data with which to work, Pentagon training staff (and training is at the center of the Pentagon’s mission), branch Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff, and their financial staffs should be similarly targeted, over and above the Secretaries and Chiefs themselves being fireable by the incoming President for reasons suitable to the President.

Nor should it stop there. The Combatant Commands and the supporting commands—supply, transport, personnel, and so on—need to be closely scrutinized with a view to assessing the quality and timeliness of the data they’re sending to the Pentagon. Those personnel, again both military and civilian and again regardless of rank or position in the hierarchy, need to be RIFed also.

No doubt, this will lead, if carried out with sufficient breadth and depth, to a large reduction in the personnel complement of the Pentagon and of those additional establishments.

That opens up a twofer. Many of the critics of Hegseth’s nomination stew openly about his lack of experience in leading so large an organization as Defense. One approach for dealing with that is to shrink Defense. These RIFs would go a long way in that direction.

Part of the Task

Posted on by
Reply

President-elect Donald Trump (R) is, supposedly, drafting an Executive Order that would create a warrior board whose purpose would be to review three- and four-star officers and to recommend removals of any deemed unfit for leadership. The board would consist of retired general and noncommissioned officers.

The draft order [if it’s actually being drafted] says it aims to establish a review that focuses “on leadership capability, strategic readiness, and commitment to military excellence.” The draft doesn’t specify what officers need to do or present to show if they meet those standards.

Such a review and removal has been needed for some time. Flag rank is a political rank as well as a military one, but for some years, now, the political has taken precedence over the military in the minds of too many flag-ranks. Nor do the officers need to do or present anything to show whether they meet those standards; the board, presumably, would have access to the officers’ personnel records, and the board would have in front of it those officers’ recent empirical performances in the staff and command positions they’ve been holding.

There are a couple of additional steps, though, that remain to be taken. One is that the board membership needs to be lined up, if less publicly than Trump’s Cabinet and staff picks, and ready to be appointed in the minutes after the EO is signed.

The other step is to set up a similar board to review the senior civilian posts and their incumbents with a view to removing those personages who fail to have the requisite leadership capability, strategic readiness, and commitment to military excellence. This board also should review all of the civilian positions with a view to identifying those positions not actually needed. Those incumbents should be returned to the private sector along with those civilians who failed the explicit leadership review. The latter, however, should be returned without opprobrium or stigma.

It’s time DoD was put back into the role of building, maintaining, and supporting a lethal military establishment capable of taking on our enemies in two and a half simultaneous wars and defeating those enemies so decisively they cannot attack us again for a long time. Two and a half simultaneous wars? That was the DOC of our military at the height of the Cold War, and Russia, the People’s Republic of China, and Iran are bent on another Cold War against us, with two of them already engaged in hot wars against a friend and an ally, and the third threatening and girding itself for a hot war against another of our friends.

Time’s a-wasting.

Terrorist Chimera

Posted on by
Reply

Hamas and Hezbollah say they have reached a concord regarding governing Gaza once the war Hamas inflicted on Israel and in which Hezbollah enthusiastically joined with Hamas is at an end.

Palestinian officials from both factions, long bitter rivals, have reached a consensus to create an apolitical committee of Palestinian technocrats not affiliated with either of them to manage the sensitive and massive jobs of aid distribution and rebuilding, Palestinian and other Arab officials said.

Tariq Kenney-Shawa, of the Palestinian Policy Network:

They have a lot more room and urgency for common ground now and to avoid being sidelined[.]

There expressed is the chimera of the concord. Hamas and Hezbollah don’t want to be sidelined in setting up the governing body or in its operation.

Nor will they be, if their proposal is accepted; they’ll remain in complete control: keep in mind who would be selecting these technocrats, or at the least who would have the final say in their selection. It’s beyond naïve to believe that personnel selected by the terrorist entities wouldn’t be tied to those entities.

Fundamentally Transform America

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what ex-President Barack Obama (D) bragged was about to occur shortly before his 2008 election victory. He got a major step of that transformation when he nationalized roughly one-sixth of our economy with his nationalization of our health care coverage industry with his Obamacare.

Now the Progressive-Democratic Party is on the verge of finishing the transformation as they sit on the knife’s edge of a sweeping election victory next week. The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial headline lays it out:

[Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala] Harris has already endorsed President Biden’s plan to impose “ethics” rules on the Justices that would invite political harassment and compromise judicial independence. Now she won’t disavow packing the Court. She has called for Democrats, if they keep the Senate in November, to bypass the 60-vote filibuster rule, letting them enact such bills without even a modicum of compromise.

Those would be the final two straws in the destruction of our federated republican democracy form of government. It would be the institution of one-party rule, with the minority party not even a loyal opposition but merely irrelevant, and the conversion of our Supreme Court and of our Federal judiciary in general from its current status as an independent, coequal check on the power of the central government into a rubber stamp of Party decisions.

The WSJ editors aren’t given to hyperbole, and they’re not being hyperbolic in their closing paragraph.

Democrats are serious. They say Mr Trump is a threat to democracy and US institutions, while they’re pledging to restructure the judiciary wholesale. Do they notice the cognitive dissonance? Apparently not. But voters might.

That’s what’s at stake next week.

A Question of Border Security

Posted on by
Reply

This question has been rattling around, sub rosa, in my pea brain for some time, and it’s finally percolated to the surface. Texas, in particular, has spent some billions of dollars on its own direct effort to seal its southern border against the flood of illegal aliens allowed in by the Biden-Harris/Harris-Biden administration. Several other States have spent significant dollars sending units of their respective National Guards to Texas and Texas’ southern border to support Texas’ efforts. Florida and South Dakota come particularly to mind, although those are far from the only States to send Guard units. Those units, too, serve to improve the sending States’ own security.

The proximate question is this: should the Federal government reimburse those States for their expenses in guarding our national southern border, expenses necessarily incurred as a result of the present administration’s decision to abrogate its security responsibility?

That raises an overarching question: precisely who is responsible for maintaining the security of our national borders?

Were the Federal government to reimburse, that would be tantamount to asserting a strictly Federal responsibility for border security. Texas’ Governor Greg Abbott (R) has a valid point too, though: Texas has a responsibility to see to the security of its borders, particularly that portion that coincides with the national border with Mexico.

Given the flow of illegal aliens throughout our nation, much of that flow actively and deliberately abetted [sic] by the Biden-Harris administration in transporting illegal aliens from the locations where they’re caught and temporarily detained to a variety of destinations in our interior (along with the flow of gotaways and of an unknown number of undetecteds), by extension of Abbott’s point, all 50 of our States have a responsibility to see to the security of their borders—and their interior—with respect to the illegal aliens in their midst.

The answer, it seems to me, is that border security in our republican federal democracy is a responsibility shared between the central, Federal, government and our several State governments. That leads me to lean toward no Federal reimbursement, per se. However, it may be appropriate for our national defense budget—not any part of a Department of Homeland Security budget—to allocate some border security funds explicitly to the States to defray, not reimburse, some of the States’ costs in securing their own borders.