It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: olaru12
The naivety of members is astonishing. There is only one leader in DC and it's the Pentagon. Politicians don't tell the military what to do, it's the other way around.
Few paid any attention when Ike said "beware of the military industrial complex" It's to late now....
"There has got to be a more effective and efficient method of procurement," he said. "When [President] Eisenhower said 'beware of the military industrial complex,' man he knew what he was talking about ... We force stuff on you all that we know you don't want."
Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno agreed with Manchin.
"We are still having to procure systems we don't need," Odierno said, adding that the Army spends "hundreds of millions of dollars on tanks that we simply don't have the structure for anymore."
For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II. The Army suggested that production lines could be kept open through foreign sales.
Each time, Congress has pushed back. In December, Congress won again in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 that funded $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades.
The Army and the Marine Corps currently have about 9,000 Abrams tanks in their inventories. The tank debate between the Army and Congress goes back to 2012 when Odierno testified that the Army doesn't need more tanks.
Odierno lost then too. Congress voted for another $183 million for tanks despite Odierno's argument that the Army was seeking to become a lighter force.
I don't think it is so simple... Pentagon Tells Congress to Stop Buying Equipment it Doesn't Need When even the military is telling the government to stop buying # for the military and the government still doesn't listen, it tells me that there is NO ONE calling the shots.
So while yes both are insiders, it's not exactly the same.
One has a reasonable chance of being in control of his own actions.
The other is owned through and through right down to her very core.
Now that's not saying Trump is a better leader, nor that he's not loyal to the game. But with him at least there's a chance he's not a servant to the other players but a competitor, while Hillary most certainly is.
That chance does count for something.