Comments on: QDR’s Author Pushes Back http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:15:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Kinghttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-21037 John King Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:30:51 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-21037 Bill R, Your daughter is on target and brighter than most politicians and generals and admirals. She'll do well. Bill R,

Your daughter is on target and brighter than most politicians and generals and admirals. She’ll do well.

]]> By: Bill R.http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-21034 Bill R. Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:11:54 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-21034 When I read about the QDR, I called in my daughter, who is 21 years old, and said to her, "This is on you. In ten years you'll be 31 and the chickens will come home to roost. I'll be nearing retirement, and this will be your problem to fix." She acknowledged what I said to her, but then later she asked me why the USA has to exercise its influence all over the globe. If you don't have that commitment, on what and where and when and why you use military force, arguing over the "how" to use it does not make much sense. When I read about the QDR, I called in my daughter, who is 21 years old, and said to her, “This is on you. In ten years you’ll be 31 and the chickens will come home to roost. I’ll be nearing retirement, and this will be your problem to fix.” She acknowledged what I said to her, but then later she asked me why the USA has to exercise its influence all over the globe. If you don’t have that commitment, on what and where and when and why you use military force, arguing over the “how” to use it does not make much sense.

]]> By: Bill R.http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-21033 Bill R. Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:11:41 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-21033 What i really want to know is why the Dems haven't put in their first team, people like Slatkin and O'Hanlon who hail from that in-side the beltway crowd, are nowhere to be found this time out. Ivo Daadler is Ambassador to NATO, that would be pretty much it out of Haas's old shop at Brookings. This is not defense, strictly speaking, but is the only reason that Nancy Soderberg is cooling her heels down in Jacksonville that she worked for Bloomberg and her husband does business with the UN ? Maybe this is politics as usual, but, as long in the tooth as the Bush 43 team was, it doesn't help to see how little real experienced talent came in this time, after the nation spent 8 long years training the Clinton Administration in how to manage our national security. What i really want to know is why the Dems haven’t put in their first team, people like Slatkin and O’Hanlon who hail from that in-side the beltway crowd, are nowhere to be found this time out. Ivo Daadler is Ambassador to NATO, that would be pretty much it out of Haas’s old shop at Brookings. This is not defense, strictly speaking, but is the only reason that Nancy Soderberg is cooling her heels down in Jacksonville that she worked for Bloomberg and her husband does business with the UN ? Maybe this is politics as usual, but, as long in the tooth as the Bush 43 team was, it doesn’t help to see how little real experienced talent came in this time, after the nation spent 8 long years training the Clinton Administration in how to manage our national security.

]]> By: Bill R.http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-21035 Bill R. Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:11:06 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-21035 The problem is that, in retrospect, 9/11 threw Joint Vision 20xx off plan. There was no Plan B. And the reality is that there can be no Plan B without a significant increase of defense spending over GDP. For this administration, that is an unacceptable solution. Rumsfeld drove the whole thing with the brakes on while he was in office, and now the current team is basically trying to put the engine into reverse to see if they can back out without throwing a rod. Fact is, we're just stuck. The other fact is that a realistic approach would not be to thrash around, but just slow down a bit and accept the inefficiencies and capability gaps for what they are. The problem is that, in retrospect, 9/11 threw Joint Vision 20xx off plan. There was no Plan B. And the reality is that there can be no Plan B without a significant increase of defense spending over GDP. For this administration, that is an unacceptable solution. Rumsfeld drove the whole thing with the brakes on while he was in office, and now the current team is basically trying to put the engine into reverse to see if they can back out without throwing a rod. Fact is, we’re just stuck. The other fact is that a realistic approach would not be to thrash around, but just slow down a bit and accept the inefficiencies and capability gaps for what they are.

]]> By: PvtNileshttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-20074 PvtNiles Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:49:27 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-20074 I am new to the QDR, so I don't have a lot of experience. I have been involved in developing my agency's long-range threat assessment and it attempts to look out 20 years. I found this to be a daunting task, like trying to predict the future. One of the things I had to do was take a look at past assessments from other agencies (we had never done an assessment of such magnitude). A smart man, for whom I have great respect, used to say that the best predictor of future performance is past performance; this doesn't wholly apply here, but I believe it has merit. One must reflect on recent history or performance to get a perspective on the future. The past is somewhat of a foundation on which the future is built. Ultimately, the QDR is a four-year look at what is important to the DoD and its relativity to the security of the nation. Many people have criticized this global war on terrorism for its focus on high-tech material to fight this irregular war in which we are involved. I am new to the QDR, so I don’t have a lot of experience. I have been involved in developing my agency’s long-range threat assessment and it attempts to look out 20 years. I found this to be a daunting task, like trying to predict the future. One of the things I had to do was take a look at past assessments from other agencies (we had never done an assessment of such magnitude).

A smart man, for whom I have great respect, used to say that the best predictor of future performance is past performance; this doesn’t wholly apply here, but I believe it has merit. One must reflect on recent history or performance to get a perspective on the future. The past is somewhat of a foundation on which the future is built.

Ultimately, the QDR is a four-year look at what is important to the DoD and its relativity to the security of the nation. Many people have criticized this global war on terrorism for its focus on high-tech material to fight this irregular war in which we are involved.

]]> By: Phoenixhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-20040 Phoenix Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:20:34 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-20040 After reading many of the comments above and participating in past QDRs and biennial this-and-that studies, I was prompted to look at Merriam Webster's Definition of recycle. In the past 50 years of military service, civilian industry, and other Government work, every report and standard looks backward in order to forecast the future. I can't say for sure how often the forecasting has been accurate. I'm in total agreement with those who state it is time for a change in the way we conduct Government business and what is in the QDR fails miserably to provide that kind of foresight. After reading many of the comments above and participating in past QDRs and biennial this-and-that studies, I was prompted to look at Merriam Webster’s Definition of recycle. In the past 50 years of military service, civilian industry, and other Government work, every report and standard looks backward in order to forecast the future. I can’t say for sure how often the forecasting has been accurate. I’m in total agreement with those who state it is time for a change in the way we conduct Government business and what is in the QDR fails miserably to provide that kind of foresight.

]]> By: William C.http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19977 William C. Sun, 14 Feb 2010 05:18:53 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19977 The sad thing is that I believe at one time he used to give somewhat coherent comments. Apparently watching MSNBC nonstop has melted his brain... The sad thing is that I believe at one time he used to give somewhat coherent comments. Apparently watching MSNBC nonstop has melted his brain…

]]> By: John Kinghttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19857 John King Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:09:10 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19857 Back on topic. The QDR is a restatement of a multitude of philosophies. But it severely lacked more emphasis on those insurgent like activities between the U.S. and non-state players. Insurgencies are the norm, not WW2 force-on-force actions. So stating that we organize and fight the current fight is good. But it needed more flesh. On the other hand, the QDR restated too much about maintaining the current conventional forces. The only real thing I learned in graduate school was -- when all else fails, reorganize, because it has the appearance of progress. That's what I see going on inside DoD. Nobody is paying attention. You win wars by killing the enemy, plain and simple. You do that with ground troops. Sending in UAVs so we can do the Vietnam body count all over again will not win any war. We need less technology and more boots on the ground. But we think we can win because we have more money to buy more military toys. How arrogant. I wanted to see a plain talking QDR about risk we will be facing and all we got was puffery and hot air for the status quo. Back on topic. The QDR is a restatement of a multitude of philosophies. But it severely lacked more emphasis on those insurgent like activities between the U.S. and non-state players. Insurgencies are the norm, not WW2 force-on-force actions. So stating that we organize and fight the current fight is good. But it needed more flesh. On the other hand, the QDR restated too much about maintaining the current conventional forces.

The only real thing I learned in graduate school was — when all else fails, reorganize, because it has the appearance of progress. That’s what I see going on inside DoD. Nobody is paying attention.

You win wars by killing the enemy, plain and simple. You do that with ground troops. Sending in UAVs so we can do the Vietnam body count all over again will not win any war. We need less technology and more boots on the ground. But we think we can win because we have more money to buy more military toys. How arrogant. I wanted to see a plain talking QDR about risk we will be facing and all we got was puffery and hot air for the status quo.

]]> By: FOB Mehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19804 FOB Me Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:33:17 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19804 Just ignore that Byron character. He feeds off of everyone's replies. Starve him. It's easy to do. Just ignore that Byron character. He feeds off of everyone’s replies. Starve him. It’s easy to do.

]]> By: BOOMERhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19783 BOOMER Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:08:07 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19783 Byron - come on troop, stop goading everyone into personal or political attacks is all I'm asking you for. Every one is in agreement that the govt is and has messed things up, it is not restricted to one paticular party. You can not seriously believe that the dems are any better than repubs, you are very well versed so you have to remember that the dems were in power during NAM, they did nothing to support you there or back here on the home front. JFK sent you guys in there to help recapture control of the south for the French who had basicly enslaved the south (and something we are supposed to be against/ in fact Hochi min asked us for help from the french in the 50's and we turned him down), and when the french pulled out and said let us know when it is safe to come back - instead of bringing you guys home he left you there. You should also recall that the militray did no real improvements in equipment or technology and went through considerable down sizing, we entered with old broken outdated equipment and it was only the heart and fortitude of you guys that got the job done. So you should realize how we need to keep updated and maintain a strong military. No I was never a rifleman, and I never recieved a purple heart, that doesnt mean I was never shot or injured - it just means I did things that never really happened in places that I had never been, and when I was in a declared combat zone I was dam lucky to have a good team of guys who watched each others backs. The govt is messed up - leave party affiliation and finger pointing of them out of it. Byron — come on troop, stop goading everyone into personal or political attacks is all I’m asking you for. Every one is in agreement that the govt is and has messed things up, it is not restricted to one paticular party. You can not seriously believe that the dems are any better than repubs, you are very well versed so you have to remember that the dems were in power during NAM, they did nothing to support you there or back here on the home front. JFK sent you guys in there to help recapture control of the south for the French who had basicly enslaved the south (and something we are supposed to be against/ in fact Hochi min asked us for help from the french in the 50’s and we turned him down), and when the french pulled out and said let us know when it is safe to come back — instead of bringing you guys home he left you there. You should also recall that the militray did no real improvements in equipment or technology and went through considerable down sizing, we entered with old broken outdated equipment and it was only the heart and fortitude of you guys that got the job done. So you should realize how we need to keep updated and maintain a strong military. No I was never a rifleman, and I never recieved a purple heart, that doesnt mean I was never shot or injured — it just means I did things that never really happened in places that I had never been, and when I was in a declared combat zone I was dam lucky to have a good team of guys who watched each others backs. The govt is messed up — leave party affiliation and finger pointing of them out of it.

]]> By: Curthttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19769 Curt Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:53:50 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19769 Or for that matter how the Mig-25 was an invulnerable superplane. Or for that matter how the Mig-25 was an invulnerable superplane.

]]> By: Curthttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19768 Curt Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:51:28 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19768 What countries are we talking about anyway? Please name one potential threat that can afford the fighter in numbers greater than 12 outside India and Russia (who I don't see as an adversary in the next 20 years or so). North Korea? Venezuela? Iran? please. As for what happens on the USN Carriers. First, Tomahawks and JASSM chew up the runways and destroy the aircraft on the ground, dislocate the air defenses networks, and destroy the C2 nodes. F-35, supported by E-2Ds/F-18EFs/EA-18Gs/MALDs take out the rest so that any remaining PAK-FAs are unsupported. F-35Cs, F-18E/Fs, and ships with SM-6, supported by E-2Ds/EF-18Gs, overwhelm and take out any airborne threats because they are both outnumbered and out-sensored. Do you really think we will line up the aircraft so that the enemy can take them on one at a time? It is not about just the fighters. The days of one on one combat ended with WWI and the fact that an aircraft is slightly better at dogfighting in not so relevant anymore, especially with the capability of off-boresight missiles. Whoever is seen first loses and right now I don't see that changing. What countries are we talking about anyway? Please name one potential threat that can afford the fighter in numbers greater than 12 outside India and Russia (who I don’t see as an adversary in the next 20 years or so). North Korea? Venezuela? Iran? please. As for what happens on the USN Carriers. First, Tomahawks and JASSM chew up the runways and destroy the aircraft on the ground, dislocate the air defenses networks, and destroy the C2 nodes. F-35, supported by E-2Ds/F-18EFs/EA-18Gs/MALDs take out the rest so that any remaining PAK-FAs are unsupported. F-35Cs, F-18E/Fs, and ships with SM-6, supported by E-2Ds/EF-18Gs, overwhelm and take out any airborne threats because they are both outnumbered and out-sensored.
Do you really think we will line up the aircraft so that the enemy can take them on one at a time? It is not about just the fighters. The days of one on one combat ended with WWI and the fact that an aircraft is slightly better at dogfighting in not so relevant anymore, especially with the capability of off-boresight missiles. Whoever is seen first loses and right now I don’t see that changing.

]]> By: RSFhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19759 RSF Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:50:23 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19759 Ah, lets get back to the topic on hand OK? "RSF, I fail to understand how the 130 or so operational F-22s that exist today will have a problem dealing with one flying prototype of an aircraft that may or may not be deployed in the next 8-10 years and is by all evaluations projected to be less capable than the F-22". Curt, are you sure that one prototype is flying at this time? There is an open debate in aerospace world as to where the PAK-FA program really is. Looking at the many photos released of the supposed first flight there are pretty strong indications that there are possibly several T-50's flying at this time, so this entire first flight PR story is actually a cover on what is a very secretive program. On the topic of being deployed, what you should remember is that the project is not being bankrolled by Russia, its being driven by Indian money. India is planning to buy several hundred two seat versions of the PAK-FA, and the driving force is the arms race now in full swing between China and India. So yes it will be deployed, and if they make them for India, do you really think that they won't be sold to others? On the topic of capability, I am not saying that the PAK-FA is more capable then the F-22, We simply don't know enough at this point to hazard a guess. In looking at the design we can say a few things for certain: 1. It is very fast, with the capability to supercruise. 2. Its level of stealth appears to be closer to the F-35 then the F-22 (from the front profile). 3. It will have a very large combat radius due to its huge internal fuel capacity. 4. It has unusual moving leading edge extensions that when combined with advanced 3D TVC (thrust vectoring) will make it a nightmare in a dog fight. The Raptor at this point has something like a 130-0 kill ratio against US/allied fighters in mock combat. If we make a conservative guess as to how effective the PAK-FA is vs. the F-22, and say its only 50% as good, this fighter if built in large numbers will change the balance of air power in the coming years. And what happens when a USN Carrier flying Super Hornets and F-35's is deployed to a hot spot in the world populated by PAK-FA's in the coming years? Neither the Super Hornet or the F-35 have the A2A performance capabilities to take on the PAK-FA. Will we have to fly in F-22's to fly cover for all USN carrier operations in the future? Do you still think that 187 Raptors are enough now? Ah, lets get back to the topic on hand OK?

“RSF, I fail to understand how the 130 or so operational F-22s that exist today will have a problem dealing with one flying prototype of an aircraft that may or may not be deployed in the next 8–10 years and is by all evaluations projected to be less capable than the F-22″.

Curt, are you sure that one prototype is flying at this time? There is an open debate in aerospace world as to where the PAK-FA program really is. Looking at the many photos released of the supposed first flight there are pretty strong indications that there are possibly several T-50’s flying at this time, so this entire first flight PR story is actually a cover on what is a very secretive program. On the topic of being deployed, what you should remember is that the project is not being bankrolled by Russia, its being driven by Indian money. India is planning to buy several hundred two seat versions of the PAK-FA, and the driving force is the arms race now in full swing between China and India. So yes it will be deployed, and if they make them for India, do you really think that they won’t be sold to others?

On the topic of capability, I am not saying that the PAK-FA is more capable then the F-22, We simply don’t know enough at this point to hazard a guess. In looking at the design we can say a few things for certain:
1. It is very fast, with the capability to supercruise.
2. Its level of stealth appears to be closer to the F-35 then the F-22 (from the front profile).
3. It will have a very large combat radius due to its huge internal fuel capacity.
4. It has unusual moving leading edge extensions that when combined with advanced 3D TVC (thrust vectoring) will make it a nightmare in a dog fight.

The Raptor at this point has something like a 130–0 kill ratio against US/allied fighters in mock combat. If we make a conservative guess as to how effective the PAK-FA is vs. the F-22, and say its only 50% as good, this fighter if built in large numbers will change the balance of air power in the coming years.

And what happens when a USN Carrier flying Super Hornets and F-35’s is deployed to a hot spot in the world populated by PAK-FA’s in the coming years? Neither the Super Hornet or the F-35 have the A2A performance capabilities to take on the PAK-FA. Will we have to fly in F-22’s to fly cover for all USN carrier operations in the future? Do you still think that 187 Raptors are enough now?

]]> By: Byron Skinnerhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19749 Byron Skinner Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:59:53 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19749 Good Evening Boomer,Your right I wasn't an REMF, I was a RA (11B) rifleman. I would guess that's something you wouldn't have any first hand knowledge of.ALLONS, Byron Skinner Good Evening Boomer,

Your right I wasn’t an REMF, I was a RA (11B) rifleman. I would guess that’s something you wouldn’t have any first hand knowledge of.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

]]> By: Byron Skinnerhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19748 Byron Skinner Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:55:24 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19748 Good Evening Guys,I'm lovin' it. You personal attacks is just making it easier to ride the DoD of these parasites. The readers of this site and there are many understand the lengths that these peculiar institutions will take to keep feeding at the public trough, but that through is getting smaller and smaller. now its tank eat tank for the remaining morsels.Corporate cannibalism.Since I'm posting under restricted rules of engagements, I can't respond to you vile personal attacks, but hey that's OK. So come on folks, help out more personal insults, did you forget I'm a liberal, that should be worth something.ALLONS, Byron Skinner Good Evening Guys,

I’m lovin’ it. You personal attacks is just making it easier to ride the DoD of these parasites. The readers of this site and there are many understand the lengths that these peculiar institutions will take to keep feeding at the public trough, but that through is getting smaller and smaller. now its tank eat tank for the remaining morsels.

Corporate cannibalism.

Since I’m posting under restricted rules of engagements, I can’t respond to you vile personal attacks, but hey that’s OK. So come on folks, help out more personal insults, did you forget I’m a liberal, that should be worth something.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

]]> By: BOOMERhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19743 BOOMER Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:44:30 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19743 Hitch Hiker - you are absolutely correct, and for the most part I take all he posts in stride. But some times he says things that really get me going. So do some of the others, like I said politicians are the reason behind this mess but you cant go pointing fingers at one party the way he tends. I'm sure he is a good guy and I give him credit for serving in NAM as he has claimed. Hitch Hiker — you are absolutely correct, and for the most part I take all he posts in stride. But some times he says things that really get me going. So do some of the others, like I said politicians are the reason behind this mess but you cant go pointing fingers at one party the way he tends. I’m sure he is a good guy and I give him credit for serving in NAM as he has claimed.

]]> By: Hitch Hikerhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19741 Hitch Hiker Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:27:10 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19741 Congratulations Boomer and thank you for your service. I don't know if Byron has stated his quals in previous posts and don't know why he loathes FFRDCs like my employer, my stay-involved activity after my military career (and a revolving door job) but it can't be because they're all conservative suck-ups like he infers. I can vouch for that. Maybe if I knew his background I'd cast him as something more than the left coast antagonist he is. My advice to you and others here is to quit paying attention to Byron. You already understand his point of view and his biases or predisposed positions so there's very little to be learned. I admit I agree with him on a few issues, very few though and he's obviously very intelligent but he doesn't write to inform, he'd rather inflame. Don't let him get to you. He's a nag and too predictable for the most part so let him be. All of you. Congratulations Boomer and thank you for your service.

I don’t know if Byron has stated his quals in previous posts and don’t know why he loathes FFRDCs like my employer, my stay-involved activity after my military career (and a revolving door job) but it can’t be because they’re all conservative suck-ups like he infers. I can vouch for that. Maybe if I knew his background I’d cast him as something more than the left coast antagonist he is.

My advice to you and others here is to quit paying attention to Byron. You already understand his point of view and his biases or predisposed positions so there’s very little to be learned. I admit I agree with him on a few issues, very few though and he’s obviously very intelligent but he doesn’t write to inform, he’d rather inflame. Don’t let him get to you. He’s a nag and too predictable for the most part so let him be. All of you.

]]> By: Concerned taxpayerhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19738 Concerned taxpayer Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:50:04 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19738 According to the President's budget request , OSD operations will cost $2.245 BILLION in FY 2011. There are 2300 civilians, 400 active-duty military, and a handful of reservists in OSD. Total civilian compensation will be $418. 7 million. ( The average OSD civilian salary will be $171,156.) To help them get all their work done, OSD will also will spend $242.7 million on "Management Professional Support Services," $130.8 million on "Studies, Analysis, and Evaluations," $147.2 million on "Engineeering and Technical Services," $277.1 million on "Other Contracts, " and $189.1 million on "Other Costs." ( The remaining $840 million or so will be spent on other stuff.) Looking at the QDR and other kinds of products OSD produces, I don't think we're getting our money's worth. According to the President’s budget request , OSD operations will cost $2.245 BILLION in FY 2011.

There are 2300 civilians, 400 active-duty military, and a handful of reservists in OSD. Total civilian compensation will be $418. 7 million. ( The average OSD civilian salary will be $171,156.) To help them get all their work done, OSD will also will spend $242.7 million on “Management Professional Support Services,” $130.8 million on “Studies, Analysis, and Evaluations,” $147.2 million on “Engineeering and Technical Services,” $277.1 million on “Other Contracts, ” and $189.1 million on “Other Costs.” ( The remaining $840 million or so will be spent on other stuff.)

Looking at the QDR and other kinds of products OSD produces, I don’t think we’re getting our money’s worth.

]]> By: BOOMERhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19735 BOOMER Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:23:46 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19735 BYRON - Of course any organization that speaks out against the short falls of the administration is put on thier hit list. At the same time they are really spreading the money to anyone who backs them regardless of how corrupt they are abd how much it hurts the tax payers. If you would simply ignore political remarks rather than take them personaly and attack the individuals that posted them, people wouldnt bother to attack you. No wander you recieved a purple heart in NAM, because you dont invoke common sense half the time. If wisdom comes with age you must have been dumber than a rock when you were in NAM. By all means post your opinions but remember they are only your opinion and not gospel, and stop talking down to people you dont even know, stop and think before you submit. We all know politics is a big issue in all of these posts but a bigger issue is the people calling the shots are not in tune with modern combat, what works and what is just hype, and the true needs of the troops, just as you seem at times. I'm not always right myself, but I retired from active duty a couple of years ago and was very involved in what went on over there and still am from going back in my current position and talking daily with the troops back state side, so when I say something is junk is because I saw it myself or have it reported to me by our troops, I dont google info for my remarks. BYRON — Of course any organization that speaks out against the short falls of the administration is put on thier hit list. At the same time they are really spreading the money to anyone who backs them regardless of how corrupt they are abd how much it hurts the tax payers. If you would simply ignore political remarks rather than take them personaly and attack the individuals that posted them, people wouldnt bother to attack you. No wander you recieved a purple heart in NAM, because you dont invoke common sense half the time. If wisdom comes with age you must have been dumber than a rock when you were in NAM. By all means post your opinions but remember they are only your opinion and not gospel, and stop talking down to people you dont even know, stop and think before you submit. We all know politics is a big issue in all of these posts but a bigger issue is the people calling the shots are not in tune with modern combat, what works and what is just hype, and the true needs of the troops, just as you seem at times. I’m not always right myself, but I retired from active duty a couple of years ago and was very involved in what went on over there and still am from going back in my current position and talking daily with the troops back state side, so when I say something is junk is because I saw it myself or have it reported to me by our troops, I dont google info for my remarks.

]]> By: Byron Skinnerhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/09/qdrs-author-pushes-back/#comment-19733 Byron Skinner Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:20:37 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12977#comment-19733 Good Morning Folks,It appears that none of you wingers have picked up an a couple of very arguable points that Ms. (hi to my friends in China who just let me know they are connected to the buzz) Hicks left on the table accidently or with intent I don't know. Since none of you fund them, well since I basically agree with her I will just leave them be.I so much enjoy all the silliness here form you wingers. I was posting earlier today with some one who follows those peculiar institutions and I've been told they are hurting and badly. It seems that the DoD under Mr. Gates has cut off a lot of their access and the word has gotten out to career officers that any association with Heritage, Cato, American Enterprise etc. would not "look good".Maybe the thirty year run of these parasites who such off the tax payers hard earned money will end. The best past is they are in self destruction mode Hope springs enthrall.Some credit for this remarkable success has been given to all of you and you inability to address issues and only do personal attacks. Keep it up folks.ALLONS, Byron Skinner Good Morning Folks,

It appears that none of you wingers have picked up an a couple of very arguable points that Ms. (hi to my friends in China who just let me know they are connected to the buzz) Hicks left on the table accidently or with intent I don’t know. Since none of you fund them, well since I basically agree with her I will just leave them be.

I so much enjoy all the silliness here form you wingers. I was posting earlier today with some one who follows those peculiar institutions and I’ve been told they are hurting and badly. It seems that the DoD under Mr. Gates has cut off a lot of their access and the word has gotten out to career officers that any association with Heritage, Cato, American Enterprise etc. would not “look good”.

Maybe the thirty year run of these parasites who such off the tax payers hard earned money will end. The best past is they are in self destruction mode Hope springs enthrall.

Some credit for this remarkable success has been given to all of you and you inability to address issues and only do personal attacks. Keep it up folks.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

]]>