Cycle continue; war-horny psycho to become Secretary of Offence

[obidamnkenobi]

Reports and Analyses

Our reports and analyses highlight ways government isn’t best serving the people, and they recommend ways it can.

www.pogo.org

• “In 2002 she went from positions in the Pentagon and the National Defense University to the mainstream but hawkish Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is largely funded by industry and Pentagon contributions.”
• “Five years later, she co-founded the second-most heavily contractor-funded think tank in Washington, the highly influential Center for a New American Security. That became a stepping stone to her role as under secretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration.”
• “From there she rotated to the Boston Consulting Group, after which the firm’s military contracts expanded from $1.6 million to $32 million in three years. She also joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm laden with defense contracts. In 2017 she co-founded WestExec Advisors, helping defense corporations market their products to the Pentagon and other agencies.”

What do we need? More war! against who? Anyone!

“Flournoy was widely considered to have been one of Obama’s more hawkish advisers and helped mastermind the escalation of the disastrous war in Afghanistan,” Arwa Mahdawi pointed out in a Nov. 21 Guardian piece. “She has called for increased defense spending, arguing in a 2017 Washington Post op-ed that Trump was ‘right to raise the need for more defense dollars.’ She has complained that Obama didn’t use military force enough, particularly in Syria. She supported the wars in Iraq and Libya. . .”

Hey Joe, Where You Going With That Pentagon in Your Hands? | Common Dreams

The pernicious and lucrative aspects of military madness are personified in the favorite to be Biden’s Defense Secretary.

www.commondreams.org

 

[dank69]

Let's hold the complaining until the new admin actually starts a new war or new offensive, shall we?

 

[pauldun170]

POGO....hard to listen them bitch when they present content that misleads from the outset. It's like they actively refuse to print how government funding is allocated and then try and convince you we live in a world of $10,000 hammers.

For those that actually care to understand her position

Sharpening the U.S. Military’s Edge: Critical Steps for the Next Administration

Developing strong, pragmatic and principled national security and defense policies.

www.cnas.org

 

[evident]

I'll take her over the clown car of SecDef's (except Mattis) we had the last 4 years. And that website is total bullshit.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

POGO....hard to listen them bitch when they present content that misleads from the outset. It's like they actively refuse to print how government funding is allocated and then try and convince you we live in a world of $10,000 hammers.

For those that actually care to understand her position

Sharpening the U.S. Military’s Edge: Critical Steps for the Next Administration

Developing strong, pragmatic and principled national security and defense policies.

www.cnas.org

A defense contractor lobbyist advocate for more military spending? Wow what a surprise! Published by a think-tank set up to boost military spending and intervention? More shocks.. Warning of "our enemies" and/or China getting an upper hand (yeah right). Despite that fact even with yesterday's weapons the US navy could annihilate China four times over. And the ever-popular "x-gap". Haven't heard that before.. The nuclear gap, the psy-gap (yes really), the cyber-gap.

And I have no idea what this means, but it sounds psychotic
"promising prototypes to bridge the “valley of death” into production, "

Any critique of her industry/lobbyist ties and endless hawkishness? Or just against the messenger?

 

[pauldun170]

And I have no idea what this means, but it sounds psychotic

So you posted about something you do not understand because it had a couple of catch phrases that you thought were worth Karen'ng about?

 

[skyking]

One must be concerned after all. Change is concerning.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

So you posted about something you do not understand because it had a couple of catch phrases that you thought were worth Karen'ng about?

yes sorry, I don't know what the "valley of death" phrase means. So clearly I can't have any issues with an industry lobbyist becoming SecDef. Do you have more substantive comments, or just more of this?
And really? Karen?! That phrase is fully worhless now I guess, just hurled at anyone people disagree with.

 

[pauldun170]

Her crime is being involved with people who worked at the pentagon and have what some might say "Experience in war stuff" and working with people in the defense industry "who build stuff used in wars stuff and working on road maps for what we will need in the future. She also committed the heinous act of helping defense companies craft communication strategy when promoting projects.

Obviously that's not the type of person we should have as a defense secretary.

 

[pauldun170]

yes sorry, I don't know what the "valley of death" phrase means. So clearly I can't have any issues with an industry lobbyist becoming SecDef. Do you have more substantive comments, or just more of this?
And really? Karen?! That phrase is fully worhless now I guess, just hurled at anyone people disagree with.

Are you asking me to explain your links to you or do you want me to write a novel about how defense acquisition and strategy actually works?

 

[obidamnkenobi]

One must be concerned after all. Change is concerning.

It's the lack of change that concerns me. The bipartisan foreign policy consensus; US empire and hegemony. Trump said he was against it, but changed nothing of course

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Are you asking me to explain your links to you or do you want me to write a novel about how defense acquisition and strategy actually works?

No thank you, I don't think I've experessed major issues with defense acquisition details? It's a bid broader than that.

 

[pauldun170]

It's the lack of change that concerns me. The bipartisan foreign policy consensus; US empire and hegemony. Trump said he was against it, but changed nothing of course

There are 2 issues here.
One is political.
The other national defense.

I'll start off on defense.
If you want a military that can survive a conflict. You need to make investments. You need to think long term. Do not get thrown off by $$$ presented in government spending. It's misleading to the average person - Read through the old F-35 thread and search for my posts in the OT forum and that is explained thoroughly there. I don't have time to type that crap out again. If you are actually serious about learning about it and being informed maybe I'll post up a refresher. If you are just looking to be argumentative, then it's not worth my time. The way Defense programs are structured and reviewed is lot different in the modern era. This isn't the 20th century any more and the tired old tropes are obsolete.

Any conflict is fought the prior generations innovation. You don't want us to maintain a modern fighting force?
Fine. Then it's time to drastically shrink military and shrink from the world stage.
It's a legit position. Get rid of the airforce, sell off all the carrier groups and subs. Shrink down the military to the bare minimum to defend against an incursion from the southern or northern border and focus on an air defense system purchased from China\France or Israel.
Deal with all the laid off military personnel and civilian support and shift spending to infrastructure and entitlement programs.

Second issue is Political.
Republicans love fighting wars against 3rd world countries. They love feeding conflict.
Americans as a whole love war porn and will not vote for anyone who disagrees.
Democrats are hesitant to appear "soft" on threatening small countries.
We've haven't taken a break from blowing up shit in other peoples yards since the seventies.
We've been blowing up brown people in the middle east since the 80's.

Do you want to kill defense spending?
Fine.
Instead of focusing on a Defense Secretary whose goal is to create a military that is capable of doing what we as a society is going to force it to do.
Focus on why the American people want to our military to fight in other people's conflicts? Why we have containment policies based on religious nonsense or antiquated 20th century bullshit.

 

[pauldun170]

It's the lack of change that concerns me. The bipartisan foreign policy consensus; US empire and hegemony. Trump said he was against it, but changed nothing of course

What exactly do you want to change.

Provide context to "Empire and Hegemony" and expand on that.

 

[ivwshane]

I think Biden could have done better. The military doesn’t need more advocates running it. My concern isn’t about more wars being started but more money being spent on the military for things it doesn’t really need.

 

[pauldun170]

I think Biden could have done better. The military doesn’t need more advocates running it. My concern isn’t about more wars being started but more money being spent on the military for things it doesn’t really need.

That's usually where things go south.
Everyone has opinions on what we need or don't need.
People at the Pentagon are in a position where they have to forecast long term and structure things around forecast.
Everyone else focuses on the "here and now"
Individuals service are used to revoked pinky promises and "Surprise..we are going to attack some brown people because "gotta show strength and resolve" so they ask for a bajillion units of whatever because they know 2 years from now they are only going to get 2 and because some senator decided he needs money for a Jesus statues and he promised another senator money for a bridge and now that other conflict we got involved with resulted in a ton of equipment with reduced service life.
Then you have forum people who just want to pay every soldier 6 figure salaries and only buy A-10's and post memes.

So far the objections I've seen to her nomination have to do with her being a subject matter expert on forecasted needs.
It seems what people are arguing for is someone who is coming with sole intent to slash and burn.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

So far the objections I've seen to her nomination have to do with her being a subject matter expert on forecasted needs.

That is not it. She's an expert on manufacturing need; either by selling equipment, or by being in government or think tanks advocating for wars (iraq, libya) to create that need. They aren't stupid, America doesn't "go to war" anymore, too much bad PR. They do "limited interventions", drone strikes, or use local militas (though latter is of course not new).To bend foreign government to their, or US corporation's, will.

You try to make it sound like she'll just be some minor beurocrat ordering staplers. She'll have the president's ear and be a massive influence on any military decision. Just being for the Iraq war should be enough to disaqualify anyone from having any say in those matters for the rest of their lives! But she has, and will probably again after this push for more military buildup and sale? Extremely compromised. She do a few moves so Boeing or Raytheon gets some more sales? Maybe they just might give her a sweet gig in a few years.. Could this be the case with anyone? Sure. But she has already done it!

 

[pauldun170]

That is not it. She's an expert on manufacturing need; either by selling equipment, or by being in government or think tanks advocating for wars (iraq, libya) to create that need. They aren't stupid, America doesn't "go to war" anymore, too much bad PR. They do "limited interventions", drone strikes, or use local militas (though latter is of course not new).To bend foreign government to their, or US corporation's, will.

You try to make it sound like she'll just be some minor beurocrat ordering staplers. She'll have the president's ear and be a massive influence on any military decision. Just being for the Iraq war should be enough to disaqualify anyone from having any say in those matters for the rest of their lives! But she has, and will probably again after this push for more military buildup and sale? Extremely compromised. She do a few moves so Boeing or Raytheon gets some more sales? Maybe they just might give her a sweet gig in a few years.. Could this be the case with anyone? Sure. But she has already done it!

So based on this post you should also have something to say about Blinken.
State Department and Defense Secretary, who is the advocate for the Military and advised by the Joint Chiefs, advise the the president on how much pew pew to rain down on the browns.

 

[brandonbull]

Reports and Analyses

Our reports and analyses highlight ways government isn’t best serving the people, and they recommend ways it can.

www.pogo.org

• “In 2002 she went from positions in the Pentagon and the National Defense University to the mainstream but hawkish Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is largely funded by industry and Pentagon contributions.”
• “Five years later, she co-founded the second-most heavily contractor-funded think tank in Washington, the highly influential Center for a New American Security. That became a stepping stone to her role as under secretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration.”
• “From there she rotated to the Boston Consulting Group, after which the firm’s military contracts expanded from $1.6 million to $32 million in three years. She also joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm laden with defense contracts. In 2017 she co-founded WestExec Advisors, helping defense corporations market their products to the Pentagon and other agencies.”

What do we need? More war! against who? Anyone!

“Flournoy was widely considered to have been one of Obama’s more hawkish advisers and helped mastermind the escalation of the disastrous war in Afghanistan,” Arwa Mahdawi pointed out in a Nov. 21 Guardian piece. “She has called for increased defense spending, arguing in a 2017 Washington Post op-ed that Trump was ‘right to raise the need for more defense dollars.’ She has complained that Obama didn’t use military force enough, particularly in Syria. She supported the wars in Iraq and Libya. . .”

Hey Joe, Where You Going With That Pentagon in Your Hands? | Common Dreams

The pernicious and lucrative aspects of military madness are personified in the favorite to be Biden’s Defense Secretary.

www.commondreams.org

Just more D.C. retreads and Obama leftovers.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

So based on this post you should also have something to say about Blinken.
State Department and Defense Secretary, who is the advocate for the Military and advised by the Joint Chiefs, advise the the president on how much pew pew to rain down on the browns.

Sure, but focused on one thing here. Should we have "continuation of empire; the spice must flow" thread perhaps?

 

[Starbuck1975]

I think Biden could have done better. The military doesn’t need more advocates running it. My concern isn’t about more wars being started but more money being spent on the military for things it doesn’t really need.

Exactly. Are procurement decisions based on what the military needs versus what the defense industry wants to sell. Of course, a procurement strategy assumes you have a global foreign policy strategy, and we’ve not had one since the Cold War. We deployed Cold War Russian front heavy equipment for peacekeeping, sent nimble light skinned forces to fight asymmetrical wars in the Middle East, and I am sure we’ll have the wrong equipment for the next evolution of warfare.

 

[Brainonska511]

There are 2 issues here.
One is political.
The other national defense.

I'll start off on defense.
If you want a military that can survive a conflict. You need to make investments. You need to think long term. Do not get thrown off by $$$ presented in government spending. It's misleading to the average person - Read through the old F-35 thread and search for my posts in the OT forum and that is explained thoroughly there. I don't have time to type that crap out again. If you are actually serious about learning about it and being informed maybe I'll post up a refresher. If you are just looking to be argumentative, then it's not worth my time. The way Defense programs are structured and reviewed is lot different in the modern era. This isn't the 20th century any more and the tired old tropes are obsolete.

Any conflict is fought the prior generations innovation. You don't want us to maintain a modern fighting force?
Fine. Then it's time to drastically shrink military and shrink from the world stage.
It's a legit position. Get rid of the airforce, sell off all the carrier groups and subs. Shrink down the military to the bare minimum to defend against an incursion from the southern or northern border and focus on an air defense system purchased from China\France or Israel.
Deal with all the laid off military personnel and civilian support and shift spending to infrastructure and entitlement programs.

Second issue is Political.
Republicans love fighting wars against 3rd world countries. They love feeding conflict.
Americans as a whole love war porn and will not vote for anyone who disagrees.
Democrats are hesitant to appear "soft" on threatening small countries.
We've haven't taken a break from blowing up shit in other peoples yards since the seventies.
We've been blowing up brown people in the middle east since the 80's.

Do you want to kill defense spending?
Fine.
Instead of focusing on a Defense Secretary whose goal is to create a military that is capable of doing what we as a society is going to force it to do.
Focus on why the American people want to our military to fight in other people's conflicts? Why we have containment policies based on religious nonsense or antiquated 20th century bullshit.

Hillary Clinton wrote seemed to be a nice article regarding reshaping the military in the modern world. I don't have access to it anymore, but a lot of it involved rethinking our overall goals and strategy in the world, integrating more with the State Department, retiring effectively useless legacy systems while investing some of the savings into more modern systems to fight the wars of today and tomorrow. And some of the production lines that get shut down could be repurposed - for example, it was suggested that the facility building excess Abrams tanks could be repurposed to make electric vehicles for the miltary, since they operate >200,000 non-tactical vehicles (ie, a politically viable way to kill off a legacy system production line)

A National Security Reckoning

To lead the post-pandemic world, the United States must broaden its approach to national security and renew the foundations of its power.

www.foreignaffairs.com

 

[brycejones]

I think Biden could have done better. The military doesn’t need more advocates running it. My concern isn’t about more wars being started but more money being spent on the military for things it doesn’t really need.

To put it bluntly we are going to have to maintain a huge presence in the western pacific if we have any hope of containing Chinese expansion there.

 

[Brainonska511]

To put it bluntly we are going to have to maintain a huge presence in the western pacific if we have any hope of containing Chinese expansion there.

Especially since we took one of the primary diplomatic tools to fight that expansion and flushed it straight down the toilet.

 

[pauldun170]

To put it bluntly we are going to have to maintain a huge presence in the western pacific if we have any hope of containing Chinese expansion there.

The argument that flows from certain posters is "Why are we attempting to contain China in the first place?"