Can we have an "honest military"? Is it even possible to separate Defense from corporate profit?
The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer has concerns about a House-approved plan to terminate a missile defense system Washington is working on with Italy and Germany.
A section of the House-approved Pentagon policy bill would place limits on federal funds for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program until it is terminated or restructured to provide technologies that could be used in other weapon programs.
The measure would reduce MEADS funding by $149.5 million in 2012.
The MEADS is a joint missile defense program between Washington and two European allies. Work on the system is done and financed in by Lockheed in United States, MBDA in Italy, and by EADS in Germany.
The Pentagon announced in February that, due primarily to delays and cost breaches, it will not buy and field the system. ...The Hill
The name of the Pentagon's "top weapons buyer" is buried in the article. He's Ashton Carter. Part of his bio, posted at the Department of Defense's website, shows a distinguished academic and professional background. And this:
Dr. Carter was also Senior Partner at Global Technology Partners and a member of the Board of Trustees of the MITRE Corporation and the Advisory Boards of MIT’s Lincoln Laboratories and the Draper Laboratory. He was a consultant to Goldman, Sachs on international affairs and technology matters. ...Department of Defense
If you're in charge of a hugely costly program paid for by American taxpayers, are these affiliations inevitable? acceptable? Or do they indicate that we are now living in a society in which buyer is simply expected to accept the power of the relationship of government and industry no matter whether the buyer -- American taxpayer -- even wants the program or is willing and able to pay the freight?
Ashton Carter, the DOD acquisition chief, doesn't like the idea of ending the program. "Our partners," he says, "have no interest in a mutual termination of the MEADS program and the options open to use are: (1) terminate unilaterally in accordance with our agreement, or (2) restructure the program to … a demonstration..."
Who are our partners? Just the European allies involved in this program? Or is Lockheed a "partner" and not just a supplier? Here's a clip from the Hill's report again:
The MEADS is a joint missile defense program between Washington and two European allies. Work on the system is done and financed in by Lockheed in United States, MBDA in Italy, and by EADS in Germany.
This isn't just a complaint against the Hill reporter. It's a question about whether the lines between partners and suppliers are clear or whether and to what degree DOD has an interest in fudging the relationship between itself -- as an agency of the taxpayer -- and its suppliers as the very costly providers of goods and services. Boring? Absolutely! Important? You bet.
Just askin'.
Comments