If there is a single overriding theme to Joint Forces Command’s newly released Joint Operating Environment 2010 report, it is the reminder that a critical component of national power is economic power; something often lost on military analysts and so called strategists. The JOE discusses at length perilous federal budget imbalances, oil dependency, the damage inflicted by the 2008 economic meltdown, declining resources, climate change and a number of the familiar and unsavory effects of globalization.
The part that really jumped out to me was where the JOE said the military’s approach to buying new high-tech weaponry has become a strategic liability and is weakening the force. A big reason is because long development timelines for new high-tech gear means troops in the field are not getting the latest and greatest in a timely or cost effective manner.
The early 21st century is the age of the asymmetric opponent, and that asymmetry extends to defense spending, the JOE says, using the IED war as an illustrative example. “The United States has spent literally billions to counter these crude, inexpensive, and extraordinarily effective devices. If one were to multiply this ratio against a global enemy, it becomes untenable.”
The JOE points out that because the Chinese have become masters at reverse engineering and because they have lower labor and material costs, they’re able to produce a comparable unit of capability at far lower cost than we are.
The failure to reform acquisition is “no longer a bureaucratic issue: it is having strategic effects,” the JOE says. Absent reform, enemies will develop weapons faster, more effectively and certainly cheaper than the U.S. That’s a pretty big indictment of the almighty military industrial complex.
– Greg
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Where to start…acquisition reform, congressional earmarks, service infighting, lack of vision from services (AF)….all these things suck effectiveness and capabilities from our Armed Forces.
Start with acquisition reform to get the RIGHT systems to our troops ON TIME and ON BUDGET.
Again, Climate Change reares its ugly head. There is no such animal. Man made climate change doesnt exsist. How can someone project what the weather is like in 10 years but cant tell you next week. Just because the say it is happening doesnt mean it is. We are projecting weather based off a temp that happen on an average in the Past. Oh yeah we are stopping the data at 1975.
Anyway, Economiclly speaking we still outspend everyone on Defense however Health Care bill would destroy what we can do on future spending. The Govt has to gain control back in spending.
Yes, let's ignore a thing that 90% of scientists who study weather agree upon. They can tell you the weather next week, and it's usually pretty accurate. You can't base your assumptions on their accuracy on past performance prior to the 90's. Computers have made weather forecasting a very accurate science. Just because we are basing the rise on an average temp in the past doesn't mean that the consequences of that average rising aren't substantial.
That last paragraph in the post is a no-brainer. Of course China can develop these weapons faster than us or the Russians…it's because it takes more time and effort to design weapons than it is to steal and reverse-engineer them. Unfortunately not many countries have military tech that the US could benefit by reverse engineering.
RE: "The JOE discusses at length perilous federal budget imbalances, oil dependency, the damage inflicted by the 2008 economic meltdown, declining resources, climate change and a number of the familiar and unsavory effects of globalization"
That list is very similar to "99% of men , like cars,have two testes, or beat their wife." The only relevant factors listed are at the top of the list the tail end of it makes this a politiclal document.
RE: "Yes, let's ignore a thing that 90% of scientists who study weather agree upon"
90%? Name them.
Maybe 90% think the world is warming slightly, but 90% will hardly stand up for 'man-made' warming. Langmuir's Laws apply to the AGW issue perfectly.
And what was it that "Eisenhower Warned us" about? I do hope the reference is to too big of a government slice of the GDP and NOT the now fabulous [ "purely imaginary"] 'Military-Industrial Complex'. (As always, if one answers -answer carefully.)
The Pentagon has acknowledged that climate change is ream and poses serious challenge to future operations and/or contingencies….but I'm sure you know better than them Carlos. Oh and I'm sure those silly scientists are all wrong too…..
"Health Care bill would destroy what we can do on future spending…"
The CBO estimates that the Health Care bill will reduce the Federal Defecit by 130 B over 10 years……..wrong again Carlos.
Not to hijack this thread and turn it into a health-care debate but can you show me a federally funded social program that has ever reduced deficits or operated within budget???
It's a reduction in spending compared with current spending. If we kept the status quo we would be $130 Billion more in debt in 10 years than if we pass it. Pretty simple if you use that thing that is located above your neck. This comes from the CBO…their figures are usually spot on and they are very non-partisan.
I don't know why we pay a single dollar to defense companies to research something. No public company would ever do that, they would do it in house or not do it at all. The military is more than capable of assessing it's own needs and improving on it, while outside vendors should be working R&D costs into the final product they try and sell. I realize that this leads to lots of smaller changes in design as companies try and put out a better XYZ every year to sell, but isn't that sort of evolutionary change just the kind of thing you need to keep your enemy from knowing exactly what you can do?
The USA is close to bankruptcy, the FED manipulates the interest rate, not allowing a real recovery. It's like a drunk guy that refuses to face the hangover, and gets even more drunk to avoid the necessary correction.
Frankly, both welfare from Dems and warfare from repubs is economical suicide, forget the ideology for a moment.
Welfare and warfare are necessary. The argument on how much of each goes on forever.
One means of defeating an enemy is to cripple his ability to build weapons and field armed forces. The US was able to contribute to victory in WW-1 and WW-2 because we had industrial capacity that could be used to build weapons. That capacity has over the past decades fallen into decline because we prefer to buy more cheaply from abroad.
And from a potential enemy's point of view, it is MUCH cheaper than strategic bombing!
IMO.