Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a call on Thursday for a substantial increase in the spending on the military.

December 15, 2000

Military Chief Seeks Money, Saying Forces Are Strapped

By STEVEN LEE MYERS

ASHINGTON, Dec. 14 — Gen. Henry H. Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned today that the military faced "an unsustainable burden" caused by aging equipment, shrinking forces and the pace of military operations.

General Shelton's warnings, which echoed those he and other senior commanders had made in recent weeks, underscored the increasingly public campaign under way at the Pentagon to increase military spending as a new administration takes office.

The timing of General Shelton's remarks — at the National Press Club here the day after Gov. George W. Bush of Texas became president- elect — was coincidental. But his wide-ranging speech amounted to an outline of the strategic and fiscal problems that Mr. Bush will face as he juggles campaign promises.

General Shelton, who will continue to serve as chairman until next September, said there was a growing imbalance between the nation's military strategy and the forces and equipment the armed services have.

Although he stopped short of asking for a specific budget increase, he generally endorsed recent studies that advocated significant rises in the Pentagon's budget, which this year totals $309 billion. He cited a study by the Congressional Budget Office that called for increasing spending on new weapons and equipment to $90 billion a year, from roughly $60 billion today, saying the armed services needed to replace weapons built a generation ago.

"Flush from historic victories in the cold war, Desert Storm and most recently in Kosovo, the extraordinary capabilities of our forces are in great demand," General Shelton said. "We were just unable to anticipate how high that demand would be. And the results are that our men and women in uniform are busier than ever before. And the wear and tear on our equipment is significant, leading to what has been termed as a fraying of our force."

The themes of General Shelton's remarks — and even some of the language — were similar to those of Mr. Bush's campaign. Mr. Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney, a former secretary of defense, complained that the armed forces had withered under President Clinton and vowed to rebuild the country's military might.

In his address to the nation on Wednesday night, Mr. Bush restated that pledge, vowing, "We will have a military equal to every challenge and superior to every adversary," a phrase General Shelton cited today.

But the scale of the increases in military spending embraced by General Shelton and other senior commanders far exceeds the $4.5 billion that Mr. Bush's campaign outlined in its proposals. And it could probably clash with the host of competing spending demands, like tax cuts and new programs, that will face Mr. Bush and a narrowly divided Congress.

In recent interviews, commanders of the armed services made arguments similar to General Shelton's. Gen. Michael E. Ryan, chief of staff of the Air Force, said on Wednesday that downsizing after the cold war led the nation to postpone modernization of its equipment. General Ryan said the need for new weapons like the Air Force's F-22 fighter meant the nation could no longer defer significant spending increases.

"We've taken a holiday from procurement and paid the peace dividend over the past decade," General Ryan said. "And now it's time to recapitalize the force, if you want it to be the premier, in my case, air force in the world."

General Shelton and the others agree that the Pentagon's upcoming strategic study, the Quadrennial Defense Review, would have to confront the increasing demands on the military.

He complained that the last review, in 1997, had been driven by budgetary constraints rather than strategic concerns. Although the new review has only begun, he made it clear that the Pentagon needed additional forces to do all that is asked of it, whether conducting humanitarian operations or preparing to fight two major wars nearly at once.

In making the case for increased spending, General Shelton cited the "changing nature of the international security environment," noting the potential threats posed by the rise of nationalism in Russia and the increasingly anti-American sentiment in China.

In unusually pointed language, he warned that China had a "distrustful view" of the United States and was "aggressively modernizing" its conventional and nuclear forces.

"I am firmly convinced," General Shelton said, "that we need to focus all elements of U.S. power and diplomacy on ensuring that China does not become the 21st-century version of the Soviet bear."

Now that Clinton’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), December 18, 2000

Answers

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Gen. Henry H. Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned today that the military faced "an unsustainable burden" caused by aging equipment, shrinking forces and the pace of military operations.

We were assured by Lieberman in the VP debate that this wasn't true. So, who do we believe?

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), December 18, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

U.B., don't know who to believe, but the good General does have an agenda. (As did Lieberman; just a different agenda.)

If I had to guess (and I do) the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 18, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Gen. Henry H. Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned today that the military faced "an unsustainable burden" caused by aging equipment, shrinking forces and the pace of military operations.

Hmmm...then maybe he can explain how we kicked butt in Bosnia a scant year ago with an unprecedented 100+ day air way with ZERO combat casualities...

-- General Mills (@ .), December 18, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Never forget that the first person who uttered the words "peace dividend" in the context of a post-cold war military reduction was Geroge Bush Sr.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 18, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

These folks would have plenty of money if they had not spent years spending $900 on hammers and $1,300 on toilet seats. Are we going back to those days? Have those days ever left?

The military has never run a tight fiscal ship-certainly not the way most of us have to run a household.

And once again this is a wonderful strategy-let the enemy know about supposed weaknesses. One can only hope that our good general is using a principle tactic in "The Art of War"-feign weakness to hide strength.

If not, he is just a bozo for exposing weaknesses.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 18, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Syd, for you to suggest that anything said by General Shelton is NOT already common knowledge confirms how adolescent your assumptions are. Leave the heavy news to the real pros and stick to more simplistic fantasies if you will.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 18, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

I'm not convinced that the total defense expenditure hasn't been adequate. The age old challenge with any large scale government operation has been for enough of the budget to reach the folks doing the real work, and that especially applies to the military. High tech weaponry and transport understandably get a lot of attention from the Pentagon and from members of Congress eager to bring jobs to their districts.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), December 18, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Barry:

Everything you say is either an insult or sarcasm, and you rarely if ever actually engage in debate with what is actually said. What is it with you? Why are you so mean-spirited? Do you hold in anger in your real life and then blow it out here on this board?

I will pray for you, since it appears you truly need it. All I see you doing is posting vitriol all day long against folks who see things differently than you.

You do not just disagree; no-you must punctuate everything you say with some kind of wise-ass remark. That is really sad.

Try smiling, Barry, That's it. Smile widely. Repeat to your self "I can disagree without being disagreeable". That's it. Now do you not now feel better?

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Syd, I’m a ‘wise ass’ in real time so why alter my approach on this forum? Just like the 18 months of Y2K hysteria, I react to what I perceive as bullshit in the same manner. You want sweet, go to the Barbie’s Friends forum. Unlike you sir, I provide a real email address should you desire to contact me personally. Of course, that would require that you ‘expose’ yourself and I doubt you have the courage of your convictions to do so.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ?s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

>> ...why alter my approach on this forum? <<

Please don't change. Stay exactly as you are, Barry. Please continue to throw acid remarks into everyone's face. Please continue to jape and sneer. Be righteous. Be angry. Rub people's faces in your contempt for them. Don't forget to express your bigotry - it is yours, so wear it proudly. Wrap yourself in the flag and denigrate minorities.

I think you are the perfect poster boy for your point of view - a healthy dose of aversion therapy from the far right.

I love you, man.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Barry:

I would not give my postal address to people I do not like, and I have an unlisted phone number for the same reason. I do not fear enemies, I just respect my own privacy. I have VERY good reasons for not putting my e-mail on line, which only I have to know.

But, of course, what you say does not address my point. So what's new? Do you care to debate, or do you just like to insult people?

For instance, do you think I am wrong when I say the pentagon wasted billions of dollars on overpriced inventory-probably enough over the last ten years to give our soldiers a significant pay raise?

You totally glossed over this point. Without real reform, giving more money to the military is pissing it away. As my mom always said, "why throw good money after bad?".

What IS your opinion on Pentagon waste?

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

'Flush It'!

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Barry:

With great charm and abundant grace, you have once again provided such eloquent prose on our board. We are deeply indebted to the words of wisdom with which you shed light on the darkness of our days.

Your way with words would make Shakespeare jealous. With one word you move mountains-Jesus himself needed more. I offer my sincerest thanks to you, great wordsmith, for making simple what all of us find most complex.

We urge you to continue in your quest to fill in the blanks of our dreary existence with your startling, serendipitous words.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Syd:

I had a few months of exposure to military procurement, back in my wasted youth. I was hired to do a study to determine how that kind of Proxmire-inspiring waste comes about. The experience was, uh, educational.

First, understand that most of these "$1700 pencil" stories are games with numbers for PR purposes. Nobody ever spent $1700 on a pencil or a generic hammer or toilet seat. Trust me. However, the military did (and still does) sign very large contracts to procure long lists of generic items on an ongoing basis, according to the best price currently available. These contracts include provisions for overhead, exceptions, administration, timeliness and you name it.

Now, how should all these costs be amortized over all the little items on the contract? Well, if we allocate them ALL to pencils, then we can make it look like we bought $1700 pencils, and *everything else* just showed up like the tooth fairy delivered it. Not realistic, but it gives great anecdote, know what I mean?

Second, understand that the military makes some purchases that must meet extremely specific and difficult needs. Sometimes this requires some R&D to meet the specifications. The end result, while highly specialized, can be called a hammer or a toilet seat, but it's nothing like what you can buy down at Home Depot. And for PR purposes, this never gets mentioned, and the public is misled into believing these are Home Depot type items. (For example, you don't buy light bulbs specially designed to enable heads-up displays only in Apache helicopters at Home Depot. Just imagine! $1000 for a light bulb! What waste!)

Third, understand that Federal procurements have to navigate through an amazing obstacle course of special requirements. Special attention and/or favor must be granted to small businesses, minority owned businesses, businesses in specific Congressional districts, businesses that employ the handicapped, ad nauseum. Further, low bids must be considered even if they are patently absurd, and treated respectfully (with full evaluations of suitability) lest there be complaints to Congressmen. Nonetheless, there are constant complaints to Congressmen by bidders who don't get contracts and think they should, and the costs of doing all these evaluatons and handling these complaints ALSO get added to the "purchase price" of the item.

Finally, there really is some waste, in terms of virulent inefficiency, built into all this. Large organizations often work at cross purposes, the left and right hands not communicating.

For example, some mucky muck sends down an "energy saving" policy that Federal buildings shall not exceed 68 degrees in the winter. So everyone brings in an electric space heater in the North, while in Florida and South Texas they ice up their air conditioners trying to get down to 68.

Or the engineers want to replace broken RPN calculators, but the "best price currently available" is for algebraic calculators. Are these the same items? The engineers rejected the algebraic calculators, reverse engineered the RPN calculators and sent out an RFP. TI sued because they would have had to spend a fortune designing to this spec, whereas the spec described the generic off-the-shelf HP calculator. Unfair! After a LOT of money pissed down the drain, the engineers got their HP calculators, all this money wasted because of the *goal* of saving money by going with the best price available!

Beyond inefficiency, there are sweetheart deals, and "loss leader" deals (to get the organization locked into a proprietary system, give them the razor and soak them on the blades, etc.), and deliberate underbidding deals, and "interlocking directorship" deals. In general, prices expand to fill the money available. Squeezing waste and inefficiency out of this system is a lot like squeezing a water balloon. It shrinks right where you squeeze, but the whole balloon becomes no smaller.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Syd:

I had a few months of exposure to military procurement, back in my wasted youth. I was hired to do a study to determine how that kind of Proxmire-inspiring waste comes about. The experience was, uh, educational.

First, understand that most of these "$1700 pencil" stories are games with numbers for PR purposes. Nobody ever spent $1700 on a pencil or a generic hammer or toilet seat. Trust me. However, the military did (and still does) sign very large contracts to procure long lists of generic items on an ongoing basis, according to the best price currently available. These contracts include provisions for overhead, exceptions, administration, timeliness and you name it.

Now, how should all these costs be amortized over all the little items on the contract? Well, if we allocate them ALL to pencils, then we can make it look like we bought $1700 pencils, and *everything else* just showed up like the tooth fairy delivered it. Not realistic, but it gives great anecdote, know what I mean?

Second, understand that the military makes some purchases that must meet extremely specific and difficult needs. Sometimes this requires some R&D to meet the specifications. The end result, while highly specialized, can be called a hammer or a toilet seat, but it's nothing like what you can buy down at Home Depot. And for PR purposes, this never gets mentioned, and the public is misled into believing these are Home Depot type items. (For example, you don't buy light bulbs specially designed to enable heads-up displays only in Apache helicopters at Home Depot. Just imagine! $1000 for a light bulb! What waste!)

Third, understand that Federal procurements have to navigate through an amazing obstacle course of special requirements. Special attention and/or favor must be granted to small businesses, minority owned businesses, businesses in specific Congressional districts, businesses that employ the handicapped, ad nauseum. Further, low bids must be considered even if they are patently absurd, and treated respectfully (with full evaluations of suitability) lest there be complaints to Congressmen. Nonetheless, there are constant complaints to Congressmen by bidders who don't get contracts and think they should, and the costs of doing all these evaluatons and handling these complaints ALSO get added to the "purchase price" of the item.

Finally, there really is some waste, in terms of virulent inefficiency, built into all this. Large organizations often work at cross purposes, the left and right hands not communicating.

For example, some mucky muck sends down an "energy saving" policy that Federal buildings shall not exceed 68 degrees in the winter. So everyone brings in an electric space heater in the North, while in Florida and South Texas they ice up their air conditioners trying to get down to 68.

Or the engineers want to replace broken RPN calculators, but the "best price currently available" is for algebraic calculators. Are these the same items? The engineers rejected the algebraic calculators, reverse engineered the RPN calculators and sent out an RFP. TI sued because they would have had to spend a fortune designing to this spec, whereas the spec described the generic off-the-shelf HP calculator. Unfair! After a LOT of money pissed down the drain, the engineers got their HP calculators, all this money wasted because of the *goal* of saving money by going with the best price available!

Beyond inefficiency, there are sweetheart deals, and "loss leader" deals (to get the organization locked into a proprietary system, give them the razor and soak them on the blades, etc.), and deliberate underbidding deals, and "interlocking directorship" deals. In general, prices expand to fill the money available. Squeezing waste and inefficiency out of this system is a lot like squeezing a water balloon. It shrinks right where you squeeze, but the whole balloon becomes no smaller.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Oops, sorry for the double post. Not sure what went wrong there.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Flint…

You have addressed some important aspects of providing ‘mil-spec’ products for authorized government purchasing. As you said, a toilet seat that ‘meets or exceeds’ a pre-defined specification from a government procurement agency will generally bear no resemblance to the Home Depot variety. Of course, the costs involved in manufacturing this seat will also bear no resemblance to the HD variety. Another area of interest is the GSA purchasing program. For over 30 years, I have been involved in getting the ‘magical’ GSA number for a wide range of high-tech products.

In this scenario, a supplier of security cameras wants to sell to the government. The first step is to have a particular government agency put in a formal request for this product. An example would be the purchasing department at an Air Force base. This ‘trigger’ event would allow the manufacturer/supplier to apply for a GSA number for that item(s). Once you are listed, any government-purchasing agency can order your product. This can be extremely lucrative over a period of time due to the non-traditional ordering habits of our government, especially the military. Now that most PA’s are enabled with credit cards the entire process is accelerated.

Because you are selling an existing product at fair market value, the costs are competitive and not subject to the outlandish pricing structure of the ‘mil-spec’ world. The real waste in government spending is when they avoid ‘off the shelf’ purchasing in lieu of special specs.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Barry:

For quite a few of these items, there just isn't an off the shelf version. For new weapons systems, the parts all need to be invented. I'm sometimes involved today in inventing them. And for often good reasons, there really IS a right way, a wrong way, and the military way, which bears no resemblance to either. And the military way ensures that you get what you ask for, but also ensures that you get no more than you asked for, and you get it very slowly, and you pay a LOT for it.

Once you combine military custom stuff with GSA requirements with "fairness" procedures with "favored vendor" requirements matched against low bidder requirements balanced against "suitability for purpose" requirements, you are well into the twilight zone. Things only get stranger and more complicated from there. And all of this doesn't come cheap!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Barry:

Thank you for your substantive post. I knew you had something more to share than potshots.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

Flint, I know exactly where you are coming from. The previous posts seemed to gravitate towards more common supply items rather than IR Smart missiles. Most of the military weapon hardware is bid to spec and only the losers will be offering anything ‘off the shelf’, so to speak. Your ‘involvement’ wouldn’t happen to be with the Navy Department…being in Alabama and all? I predict an escalation of business for the Weapons Systems contractors in the very near future… just a wild guess.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 19, 2000.

Response to Now that ClintonÂ’s leaving Gen. Shelton discovers US military is depleted

But Syd, the pot shots are not time consuming to craft and require little thought, which I’m certain you will agree to. Besides, I am a real busy dude and this forum is but one of my many social vices. You should never take anything that I say too personally because it’s NOT really personal. My close friends hear the same crap, but the delivery holds up real well in person. Remember, it’s only entertainment.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 19, 2000.