Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can you think of smother large company that has similar recruiting, retention, development, maintenance and logistical challenges?
Right, this is what I mean. I don't think running the military can be compared with running a large company. And don't forget--in addition front-line operations, recruiting, retention, development, maintenance, and logistics, DoD runs a very large health care system.
I don't want to know how the military's G&A compares with Walmart or Exxon or Toyota. Those aren't valid comparisons IMO. How does it compare with G&A in our military's past? What were we spending on G&A (percentage-wise) in the 1940s? In the 1960s? How does it compare with G&A in other large military systems? (I realize there is no military anywhere that compares with ours, but it's a better comparison than Walmart.)
Anonymous wrote:Can you think of smother large company that has similar recruiting, retention, development, maintenance and logistical challenges?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I have not read the report or the articles about it, but just want to comment on this graphic and what it tells us. The fact that there is a "back-office" bureaucracy at the Pentagon and that there are 1 million people employed there is not, ipso facto, evidence of "bloat." It sounds bad and doesn't play well on TV, but is it bad? Better information for this discussion would be how this level of bureaucracy compares with, say, other government agencies or the military in previous years so we could consider the question of what is the optimal level of bureaucracy in the military.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The Republicans will never cut the defense budget.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Republicans will never cut the defense budget.
No one will. The military-industrial complex employs half of greater Washington.
Anonymous wrote:The Republicans will never cut the defense budget.
