This system is broke!

(Thanks to Xanthippas and Adam for showing me the articles)

We were discussing this story a couple of days ago, so I thought it would be worth putting on here. Most people probably don't know how military budgeting really works, but I'm sure no one will be surprised to hear that it's a very political process. On the one hand, you have the Navy, Air Force, and Army (the Marines are part of the Navy) trying to get as much as possible out of the government. Now as all of us know who've ever tried to do it, getting money out of the government is never an easy task. The federal government doesn't just open a big checkbook and say, "How much you need?" No, no. There has to be a strategy for it.

The government has to see tangible results. But not only tangible results, they need big, tangible results that anyone can look at and see without reading hundred-page reports. So instead of asking for $40 billion for say, 1 million sailors with clothes, gear, and training, they ask for $60 billion for a few carriers, destroyers, and all the men to run them with associated gear and training. That's not the only side of it, either. Powerful senators who oversee these appropriations have an interest in big-ticket items as well. That's because a $40 billion ship contract benefits a senator's home state a heck of a lot more than 1 million sailors scattered all over America and the globe. So he definitely has a vested interest in funding huge projects that help his constituents or political allies.

Now, you say, "Well, why don't we just fund all of them at the maximum they need?" Well, that's a good question. The thing is, the services have an agreement as to what percentage of budget money they get. That's because in the old days they squabbled over who got how much and none of them ended up getting as much as they wanted. So they came to an agreement: Army 30%, Navy and Air Force 35% (this was in the days when we thought conventional wars requiring huge ground forces were over and anything but small wars would result in nukes being brought out).

Currently, we have a big problem. I'm sure everyone remembers the news about soldier shortages in Iraq, lack of armor for transports and Humvees, and inadequate body armor for National Guardsmen and all that. Well, if we funded the Army at 100% of what it would have needed to fight this war, we'd have to put in probably around an extra $400 billion for the Air Force and Navy because otherwise the Army wouldn't get the money.

Fred Kaplan makes it clear that this is the norm and even the Iraq war can't shake the system, so established it has become:

Nearly all the big-ticket items belong to the Air Force and the Navy. These services aren't experiencing much of a manpower crunch. (Few pilots or sea crews are being killed in Iraq or Afghanistan now.) And, because of the budget-divvying accord, they can't be called on to slash their planes, ships, or submarines to keep the Army flush with soldiers.
Don't expect Congress to break this logjam. Last week, the House and Senate appropriations committees finished their conference on the Fiscal Year 2006 defense bill—and didn't cut back on a single high-profile weapons system.

He also makes a suggestion I find very sensible:

Are all of these weapons so urgently needed that a few couldn't be delayed
a few years (note: not killed, just delayed)? The stealth planes in particular—no
other country will pose a threat to U.S. combat aircraft for at least a decade.
Is there any reason, besides bureaucratic politics, why, say, half the F/A-22s
couldn't be deferred and the $1.6 billion in savings sent over to the Army or
the Marines? How about Bush's much-cherished, but utterly unworkable, missile-defense program
(fully funded by Congress at $8.8 billion): What would be wrong with
transferring, say, $5 billion of that sum to buy extra armor for the troops or
fund more tangible homeland
security efforts?

But of course, we can't expect our government to start making sense now! Seriously, people, if you love your country, please write your congressmen, the President, and maybe even your school principle to do something about this situation. We have people over there in Iraq. We're going to have people over there for a long time. The Seawolf (a multibillion dollar stealth submarine) will not save a single life. The F-22 is great, but we're not bombing the Iraqis anymore. The cost of just one of those could hire, train, and equip hundreds of men (properly equip, even). Let me link you a story about people who weren't properly equipped, and paid the price for it.

A Mission That Ended in Inferno for 3 Women