Category Archives: miltary

A New Tool for Looking at Federal Cybersecurity Spending

Standard
cyber Spending

Image:  “Taxpayers for Common Sense”

“THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT”

“A new database and visualization tool that breaks down unclassified federal spending on cybersecurity over the past decade—giving the public a peek at how each major federal agency is devoting resources toward protecting computer systems.”


“More and more of what the federal government does relies on complex computer systems and networks. This high tech infrastructure makes the government work better by making services more efficient and accessible.

But that digital revolution also comes with big risks—just think back to the massive data breach at the Office of Personnel Management disclosed in 2015, when hackers compromised sensitive information about tens of millions of Americans. Last year, there were at least “30,899 cyber incidents that led to the compromise of information or system functionality” at federal agencies, according to a White House report released in March. The number of attacks on federal computer systems have risen sharply over the last decade.

So how much is the government spending to protect itself (and us) in this brave new world?

Unfortunately, the answer is “we don’t really know.” But a new tool from nonpartisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense provides perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of federal cybersecurity spending.

Last week, Taxpayers released a new database and visualization tool that breaks down unclassified federal spending on cybersecurity over the past decade—giving the public a peek at how each major federal agency is devoting resources toward protecting computer systems.

Taxpayers used public budget documents to build the database, but it wasn’t easy. “There is no government-wide standard definition or method of accounting for what qualifies as cyber funding and, therefore, no way to fully track it,” the organization explains on its methodology page. Agencies also use a variety of different approaches to tackle the issue, making it even harder to pin down their spending. Then, there is the government’s murky “black budget” of classified spending. So Taxpayers “settled on providing the best picture [it] could develop from extensive research of government programs” that are unclassified, spending two years searching through thousands of budget documents for terms like “information security” and “information assurance.”

Taxpayers found the amount spent on cybersecurity has quadrupled over 11 years. The group was able to tally $7 billion in unclassified cybersecurity spending in 2007, as compared to $28 billion in 2016. But some of that growth could be attributed to improvements in how the government tracks cybersecurity funding.

The resulting snapshot isn’t perfect, but it’s an impressive start—and a necessary one. After all, you can’t figure out what bang the government gets for its cybersecurity buck if you don’t know where those bucks go.”

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2017/08/a-new-tool-for-looking-at-federal-cybersecurity-spending.html

 

 

 

 

 

General Mattis and Special Inspector General Sopko Agree on “Spoils of War”

Standard

Mattis and SIGAR

“THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT”

“When the head of an agency actually listens to the findings of an Inspector General (IG), great things can happen.

June 2017 report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) prompted Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis to acknowledge and denounce the Department of Defense’s (DoD) dismissive attitude towards reigning in its overspending of taxpayer dollars, and to highlight the good work done by SIGAR.

The official memo to DoD leadership, dated July 21, discusses SIGAR’s report on camouflage uniform misspending in Afghanistan, while also pointing out and decrying DoD’s “complacent mode of thinking” when it comes to spending in general. Mattis found that SIGAR’s report highlighted two truths about DoD work:

1) Every action contributes to the larger missions of defending the country

2) Procurement decisions have a lasting impact on the larger defense budget

Mattis uses these truths to reinforce the importance of effective spending at DoD, and wants to use SIGAR’s report and the instances of misspending it found as a “catalyst to bring to light wasteful practices – and take aggressive steps to end waste in [DoD].”

While this is potentially great news and a marked shift in DoD rhetoric, it is important to note that stating a problem exists is not the same as taking concrete action to fix it. Just last year, DoD was working to discredit SIGAR over a report on a $43 million gas station in Afghanistan, rather than working to fix the problem. Moreover, the $28 million in misspending that this most recent SIGAR report focused on and that drew Mattis’s attention is nothing compared to the waste, fraud, and abuse occurring in the larger defense budget (over $300 billion of which was spent on goods and services in 2016). It is important to remember that DoD is not known for its willingness to proactively address its spending issues, but is rather known for actively resisting efforts to increase transparency and accountability. (See, for instance, POGO’s work on DoD’s reluctance to examine its contracts for improper payments & DoD still not being able to pass an audit.)

It will take more than this memo for DoD to change the way it spends taxpayer money, but publically acknowledging the truth of SIGAR’s findings and trying to leverage that work for change—rather than fighting against and resisting the IG at every turn—is an important first step.

It is even more important, however, that DoD truly works towards achieving effective spending on an agency-wide scale.”

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2017/07/secdef-mattis-commends-ig-efforts-highlights-dod-shortcomings.html

U.S. Army Is Growing By Thousands of Soldiers

Standard
ALLIED SPIRIT V

(Photo Credit: Markus Rauchenberger/Army)

“ARMY TIMES”

“The Army has used a suite of force-shaping measures and incentives to retain and recruit enough soldiers to bring the force back to over a million.

[Measures] including five-figure enlistment and retention bonuses, as well as major opportunities for National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers to go active.

The Army is on track to reach its end strength goal of 1,018,000 soldiers by the end of September, and that will mean enough manpower to fill holes in existing combat units, save some units from planned deactivations, and man some new ones.

Units throughout the Army will feel the benefit of adding 28,000 troops to the active and reserve components, according to a Thursday release from the Army, reversing a drawdown that had planned for just 980,000 soldiers this year.

“These force structure gains facilitated by the FY17 end strength increase have begun, but some will take several years to achieve full operational capability,” said Brig. Gen. Brian J. Mennes, director of the Force Management Division, in the release. “Implementation of these decisions, without sacrificing readiness or modernization, is dependent upon receiving future appropriations commensurate with the authorized end strength.”

The Army has used a suite of force-shaping measures and incentives to retain and recruit enough soldiers to bring the force back to over a million, including five-figure enlistment and retention bonuses, as well as major opportunities for National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers to go active.

In addition to filling existing manning gaps in brigade combat teams, the release said, the plus-up will save several units that were slated for deactivation. They are:

  • 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, based Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.
  • 18th Military Police Brigade Headquarters based in Grafenwoehr, Germany.
  • 206th Military Intelligence Battalion at Fort Hood, Texas.
  • 61st Maintenance Company at Camp Stanley, South Korea.
  • 2nd Combat Aviation Brigade at Camp Red Cloud, South Korea.

Soldiers retained during the end strength build up also could end up joining the recently announced Security Force Assistance Brigades and their training school, as well as an aviation training brigade at Fort Hood.

More soldiers will also help with the Army’s increased manning in Europe.

The Army is planning to station the following units overseas, according to the release.

  • A field artillery brigade headquarters with an organic brigade support battalion headquarters, a signal company and a Multiple Launch Rocket System battalion (MLRS).
  • Two MLRS battalions with two forward support companies.
  • A short range air defense battalion.
  • A theater movement control element.
  • A petroleum support company.
  • An ammunition platoon.

Further, the Army plans to convert an infantry brigade to an armored brigade and add 1,300 new staff to Training and Doctrine Command, in an attempt to increase training and recruiting capacity, the release said.

“The end strength increase will augment deploying units, and units on high readiness status, with additional soldiers to increase Army readiness and enable us to continue to protect the nation,” Mennes said.”

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/the-army-is-growing-by-thousands-of-soldiers-heres-where-theyre-going-to-go

 

 

Wars to Keep the Military Industry in Demand

Standard
defensehikes.jpg.w300h214

Image: Batr.org

The defense industry in America has utilized the threat of war and self-fulfilling prophesies to promote engagements by our country in several countries over the last 15 years. They pay more in lobbying costs each year than they pay in taxes.
There have been two major factors in the U.S. approach to undeclared warfare:
1. The motives of the U.S. and International Military Industrial Complexes, USAID and other western USAID counterparts in fostering continued warfare during this period, netting billions in sales of weapons to the war fighters and massive construction and redevelopment dollars for international companies who often operated fraudulently and fostered waste, looting and lack of funds control.
It is common knowledge that many of these corporations spend more each year in lobbying costs than they pay in taxes and pass exorbitant overhead and executive pay cost on to the tax payer in sales, thus financing their operating personnel riches while remaining marginally profitable to their stockholders.
I watched this from the inside of many of these companies for 36 years. Here is my dissertation on that subject. You can read it on line at:
Here is an example of how the lobbying and behind the scenes string pulling worked:
2. The complete lack of cultural understanding between U.S. and Western decision makers and the middle east cultures they were trying to “Assist” by nation building.
The only real understanding that existed during the period was in the person of General Schwarzkopf who spent much of his youth in the Middle East with his father who was an ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He was fascinated by the Arab culture, commended their respect and like Eisenhower led a coalition during the Gulf War. He then astutely recommend no occupation of Iraq, went home and stayed out of government. Norman, like Ike, knew the power of the MIC and he wanted no part of it.
The U.S Tax payer has funded billions in USAID and construction projects in Iraq and wasted the money due to a lack of cultural understanding, fraud and abuse. POGO documents many:
There is history repeating itself here – much like Vietnam the above two factors are deeply at play with the lack of astute learning in our government as we look back over our shoulder.
We must come to the understanding, like a recent highly respected war veteran and West Point Instructor has, that military victory is dead.
“MODERN WAR INSTITUTE AT WEST POINT”
“Victory’s been defeated; it’s time we recognized that and moved on to what we actually can accomplish. “
Frank Spinney is an expert on the MIC. He spent the same time I did on the inside of the Pentagon while I worked Industry. You may find his interviews informative.

Innovating Federal Contracting: Be Careful What You Wish For

Standard
media dot licdn dot com

Image: “media.licd.com”

“FEDERAL TIMES” By Michael P. Fischetti

“We’re all aware of — and perhaps have participated in — the criticism of today’s model of contracting with the federal government.

However, when  change is forthcoming, criticism and second-guessing is swift in response and often before the results of such innovation are yet known.

Recent examples include lowest price technically acceptable selection strategies, transactional data reporting or other transaction authority. All of these initiatives have resulted in constituencies warning, criticizing or outright objecting to their use for numerous reasons. The mantra “damned if you do; damned if you don’t” comes to mind.

So what’s the contracting officer or program manager to do? Everyone wants innovation in acquisition, but not really? Take risks, but make sure everything works out well? Leadership has your back, as long as [insert favorite oversight authority or trade association here] is supportive. Buy more commercial, but make sure [insert favorite administration, agency, industry priority, or compliance and socioeconomic statutory and regulatory requirements here] is adhered to and included.

Under a new administration, there is a sense of unpredictability. Everything is on the table across multiple government policy areas — acquisition included. Thus, along with optimism that true “reform” could actually occur, there is conversely fear as well that, yes, true “reform” might actually occur! Perhaps the many subsets of today’s government contracting community should be cautious and prudent in criticism of today’s acquisition system, and thus be careful of what they ask for. One is reminded of the line from Charles Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities”:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness … [I]t was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way.”

The credibility of today’s professional pundits and promoters of acquisition change is under threat. What if change really occurs? What if the innovation we all say we want actually happens? While there will always be individual winners and losers in such a scenario, one winner might be empowering those innovative acquisition professionals in government and industry interested in program results; those invested in improving what is acquired versus how it’s acquired. Another winner might be the American taxpayer.

Time will tell. Hang on to your seats and let’s see what happens. ”

NCMA ED

Michael P. Fischetti is the Executive Director of the National Contract Management Association.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defense Acquisition Requires Simplicity, Collaboration

Standard

 

collaboration-media-dot-licdn-dot-com

Image: “Media.licd.com”

“NATIONAL DEFENSE MAGAZINE’

“The organization and function of the Defense Department is so antiquated that it may well prove unable to deliver the changes that the nation needs.

So, even as it focuses on potentially existential threats to the nation, somebody must address the conversion of the “horse and buggy,” which is the present-day Pentagon, to make it perform like a modern turbocharged vehicle.

The challenges are many, but if there is focus on simplicity the department could be improved while dramatically reducing the problems faced by small contractors. The payoff for even modest improvement could be felt most by the smaller contractors, as they are most at risk under the current system. The focus should be to enlarge and modernize commercial interaction done by the department to make it less adversarial, more collaborative, transparent, accountable and sensitive to business cash flow needs.

There is a remarkable asymmetry between the government and industry with respect to fundamental contractual and administrative execution.

The first problem is one of predictable communication and consistent government performance. As an example, when processing a government contract for a simple procurement action inexplicably takes nine months versus the three months promised, the impact at the company level is complex and potentially devastating. This problem is exacerbated when the contracting entity does not provide any communication regarding revised performance timelines. Delays such as these put small businesses in a no-win position. Many businesses live in a world without adequate cash flow and little to no backlog. So, in this situation, waiting until contract award means that long-long lead production items from the manufacturing base will not be on hand when work should start. Production lines that go dormant do not come back to life easily or quickly. Workers trained and available today can’t be stored on dry ice for the six month delay; they are either laid off or employed elsewhere.

So, for many small firms in this situation, there is no choice but to take risk and begin committing precious resources on an un-awarded contract. This in turn intensifies the dependency of the small contractor on the government who now truly controls their fate.

The government must establish and live with reasonable performance standards and timelines. When it fails to do so, it should pay compensation promptly, just as the contractor is now required to pay “consideration” when he/she fails to meet government performance standards.

When both sides have leverage on the other it will drive improved communication and partnership. Presently the burden is entirely one-sided and gives the department unfair power.

In the current calculus people don’t count — either inside or outside of government. The Defense Department should institute modern relationship metrics to measure how individual teams align to their respective missions.

Major consulting firms with international portfolios such as Gallup and Korn-Ferry assist Fortune 500 firms in executing individual employee surveys measuring internal engagement, leadership and performance annually. The first year results of such a survey done on the department’s corporate structure — to distinguish it from the operational force — would probably stun its leaders. They would be given the opportunity to confront the reality that organizational alignment, leadership, teamwork, sharing and collaboration are all capable of major improvement when compared with global norms for like-sized entities. Gathering these results on an annual basis will afford defense leaders the opportunity to evaluate leadership development programs, workforce business processes, software and a host of other factors directly relevant to improving performance. Probably as important as anything, leaders who cannot accept candid feedback on issues will be forced to confront the reality that they must either embrace the input or leave.

In a parallel initiative, there needs to be lateral entry from business to government service at the mid-tier levels. This would bring an infusion of additional talent to a limited entry profession and augment the experience and knowledge base in the bureaucracy.

In addition to internal feedback, there must be measurement of relationships with contractors. The contracting process has to be made more collaborative and timely. A lot can be learned by comparing the business experience of two recent contracting processes. One was a standard government request for proposals to make a $80,000 piece of utility equipment for delivery over a 10-year period. The other was a commercial RFP for a similarly priced comparable item for multiple-year performance. Both were competitive contract awards with multiple competitors. The differences between the two processes could not have been more obvious. The defense-related RFP was 70 pages; the commercial RFP was 27 pages. The commercial RFP was readable and straightforward; the other was complex and contained endless references to additional government standards. The commercial RFP encouraged innovation by outlining desired characteristics and inviting new approaches, the other set specific standards for performance.

The commercial process encouraged continuous dialogue and explanation of performance priorities while the DoD process was terse and regulated by legalistic formality. The dialogue with the commercial partner enabled the prospective partner to educate its customer on new and evolving technology and materials. The government’s enforced silence did nothing to generate shared understanding. But most importantly, the commercial process timeline from initiating contracting action through prototype production was 10 months whereas the government’s was two years.

In a world where collaboration and speed are essential to success, the antiquated government process is increasingly costly and inefficient.

The process of transforming major enterprises and complex relationships requires courage and persistence. The difficulty of implementing change in an organization as large as the Defense Department should not be the argument for failing to start. It is already one or two decades behind leading-edge commercial businesses and is falling further behind.

Nothing recommended above is new, revolutionary or suspect — it’s just good practice.”

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2017/March/Pages/DefenseAcquisitionRequiresSimplicityCollaboration.aspx

These College Students Invent Things for the Pentagon And Maybe Find a Business

Standard

invention-accellerator

“WASHINGTON POST”

“After a test run at Stanford University last spring, the accelerator is starting similar courses at least a dozen universities.

A Pentagon-funded unit called the MD5 National Security Technology Accelerator, gives students a modest budget to try to solve military problems using off-the-shelf products.

The Defense Department’s Hacking for Defense program (which, despite its H4D handle, does not focus on cybersecurity) is a graduate school course designed to let students invent new products for the military. Students without security clearances — including some foreign nationals — are put to work on unclassified versions of real-world problems faced by military and intelligence agencies.

The University of Pittsburgh, University of California at San Diego, James Madison University and Georgetown University are among those trying to replicate Stanford’s success.

To spearhead its effort, Georgetown hired a former Special Operations Marine with a deep Rolodex and a long history of doing business with the Pentagon.

Chris Taylor’s first career had him jumping out of airplanes and serving on hostage rescue teams as part of the Marine Force Recon unit, an elite intelligence-gathering team tasked with “deep reconnaissance” missions in dangerous combat zones.

He became an instructor in the unit’s amphibious reconnaissance school, where he taught enlisted Marines skills such as how to covertly approach military installations from the sea and survive undetected in the wilderness.

“He’s been good at teaching, leading and just selling ideas for a long time,” said Bob Fawcett, a retired Marine who worked with Taylor at the Force Recon training program.

Taylor spent evenings studying accounting as he worked toward a college degree, the first step in a lucrative career on the business side of the Bush administration’s military buildup.

He became a top executive at Blackwater Worldwide, the private security firm that was at the forefront of a booming mercenary industry working in Iraq and Afghanistan, until its reputation took a turn for the worse over a deadly shooting involving its employees that launched a congressional inquiry and was eventually ruled a criminal offense.

He served at private security firm DynCorp and founded a small but profitable company called Novitas Group, which handled job placement for Veterans.

His next challenge: helping Georgetown’s students navigate the Pentagon.

One team of students in Taylor’s class is working for the Army Asymmetric Warfare Group, a Pentagon sub-agency, to find new ways to track social unrest in crowded foreign cities by mining Twitter and Facebook. Another group of students is trying to combine augmented reality technology with advanced facial recognition software, hoping to build something that would allow U.S. forces to constantly scan crowds for individuals known to be a threat. Another team is looking for ways to counter the off-the-shelf drone fleets that the Islamic State claims to employ.

“This is like the greatest educational experience you could possibly have if you’re interested in national security,” Taylor said.

The program’s managers in the government say the main point is to familiarize techies with the Pentagon’s mission, but their trial run at Stanford also showed a degree of success in spinning off businesses.

In Stanford’s trial run, four out of eight student teams raised additional money, either from the government or from private investors, to continue their work beyond the course.

One is a satellite imaging company called Capella Space. The company’s founders had initially hoped to sell satellite imaging services to government space agencies, but pivoted toward the private sector after interviewing more than 150 industry experts as part of Stanford’s course.

“We realized that if you really want to work with the government in what you’re doing, they want you to be a commercial company — with commercial revenue — and they want to be a subscriber to your service,” said company founder Payam Banazadeh.

Capella Space has a satellite launch planned for the end of year, which it hopes will be the first step in sending 36 ­shoebox-size satellites into space. The company is funding it with an undisclosed amount of venture capital raised from Silicon Valley Venture investors including Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang.

It remains to be seen whether efforts at other universities will have the same success.

Even before Georgetown’s class launched, for example, the university’s strengths and limitations were already on display. Georgetown is known for deep connections to the Washington establishment but is overshadowed by other elite universities in certain technical disciplines. It does not have an engineering school, for instance.

One of the problem sets that the government sent for Georgetown students to work on would be on an unclassified basis for the National Security Agency, following in a Stanford team’s footsteps.

Taylor touted the opportunity to work with the NSA in seminars advertising the course, but couldn’t find a group of students that he thought had enough technical knowledge to take on the challenge.

But those who did join Taylor’s course are making early progress. Just a few weeks into the program, students looking for a way to track terrorists using social media had come up with a prototype that they coded on their own.

The group spent the class working through ways of quickly translating posts from Arabic and more easily geo-locating individual tweets and Facebook posts. Taylor wondered aloud whether the system might be enhanced if they paid social-media users small sums of money for what details they knew about the posts.

Next, he wants to open the course to other Washington-area universities, poaching engineering students from rival colleges around the region.

“Imagine what we can achieve when [national capital region] universities band together with a unity of effort toward national security problem solving,” he said in an email.

“It. will. be. awesome.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/business/capitalbusiness/these-college-students-invent-things-for-the-pentagon-and-maybe-find-a-business/2017/02/19/558ac8f0-ea25-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html

 

Pentagon New Background Check System Won’t Be Ready for 2 More Years

Standard
background-check

US Army Photo by Staff Sgt. William Reinier

“DEFENSE ONE”

“System to securely store  information collected by the National Background Investigation Bureau.

The Obama administration launched NBIB in January in the wake of the Office of Personnel Management data breach, which compromised background information of 21.5 million current and former federal employees and their families.

It will be roughly 18 months to two years before the Defense Department completes building out a next-generation computer system to house federal background check data, the director of the new agency that manages the clearance process said Thursday.

Information shared by law enforcement could form the basis for programs to continuously evaluate cleared federal employees for red flags rather than conducting full re-investigations every five to 10 years, he said.

There are several continuous evaluation pilot programs in the military and intelligence community, but the practice isn’t yet widespread.

While NBIB waits on its updated system, the agency plans to update its public-facing, and notoriously onerous, Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing, or e-QIP, system, Phalen told members of the National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee.

“This is our front face to our population that we’re clearing, and we’ve got to do a better job of how we’re presenting ourselves,” he said.

The Obama administration launched NBIB in January in the wake of the Office of Personnel Management data breach, which compromised background information of 21.5 million current and former federal employees and their families. The agency’s reputation was previously damaged by a data breach at background check contractor USIS, which OPM cut ties with in 2014.

The new agency effectively retains responsibility for conducting most background investigations inside OPM, but transfers responsibility for securing the networks that hold that information to DOD.

Long backlogs created by the end of the USIS contract and the OPM breach continue to plague the government, Phalen said, though the government is getting back on track.

Contracts with a quartet of background check contractors are set to kick off this year. That will bring the total number of contractor background investigators to roughly 6,000, Phalen said, plus 2,000 federal investigators, 400 of them hired in 2016. NBIB plans to hire an additional 200 federal investigators in 2017, Phalen said.

Average wait times for various background investigations range from 95 days to more than 200 days, according to the most recent quarterly report.”

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/11/pentagons-new-background-check-system-wont-be-ready-nearly-two-more-years/133111/?oref=d-river

 

 

Dempsey Warns Fellow Generals & Admirals, “Keep Politics Private”

Standard

 

 

General Martin Dempsey

General Martin Dempsey

“DEFENSE ONE” By General Martin Dempsey

“Because we will serve whoever is elected.

We must not compromise our military’s special role in democracy, nor hinder those who come after us.

The relationship between elected leaders and the military is established in the Constitution and built on trust.

As a matter of law, we follow the orders of the duly elected commander-in-chief unless those orders are illegal or immoral. This is our non-negotiable commitment to our fellow citizens. They elect. We support.

From my personal experience across several administrations, the commander-in-chief will value our military advice only if they believe that it is given without political bias or personal agenda.

Generals and admirals are generals and admirals for life. What they say carries the weight of their professional judgment and the credibility of their professional reputation.

More than an individual reputation, retired generals and admirals enjoy a collective reputation earned by having been part of a profession. It is therefore nearly impossible for them to speak exclusively for themselves when speaking publicly. If that were even possible, few would want to hear from them. Their opinion is valued chiefly because it is assumed they speak with authority for those who have served in uniform. And their opinion is also valued because our elected leaders know that the men and women of theU.S. military can be counted upon follow the orders of their elected leaders.

This is where the freedom of speech argument often invoked in this debate about the role of retired senior military officers in election campaigns fails. Unquestionably, retired admirals and generals are free to speak to those seeking elected office. But they should speak privately, where it will not be interpreted that they are speaking for us all.

Publicly, they can speak to their experiences with the issues. Not about those seeking office. Not about who is more suited to be elected. That will be decided by the voters, and they have an obligation to learn about the candidates before casting their vote.

But not from us.

Because we have a special role in our democracy, and because we will serve whoever is elected.

So retired generals and admirals can but should not become part of the public political landscape. That is, unless they choose to run for public office themselves. That’s different. If they choose to run themselves, they become accountable to voters. In simply advocating—or giving speeches—they are not.

One of the two candidates is going to be elected this November. They each now have reason to question whether senior military leaders can be trusted to provide honest, non-partisan advise on the issues and to execute the orders given to them with the effort necessary to accomplish them.

Moreover, if senior military leaders—active and retired—begin to self-identify as members or supporters of one party or another, then the inherent tension built into our system of government between the executive branch and the legislative branch will bleed over into suspicion of military leaders by Congress and a further erosion of civil-military relations.

Worse yet, future administrations may seek to determine which senior leaders would be more likely to agree with them before putting them in senior leadership positions.”

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/08/keep-your-politics-private-my-fellow-generals-and-admirals/130404/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

 

 

 

US Leads Military Weapons Technology Exports

Standard

Mammoth Military Exports

“MILITARY AND AEROSPACE ELECTRONICS”

“Overall global defense trade reached a record-breaking $65 billion in 2015.

The United States remains the world’s top exporter of military weapons and technology in 2016, controlling more than one-third of military spending for defense technology sent to outside nations.

That’s the word from analysts at market researcher IHS Inc. in Englewood, Colo. Global defense trade numbers do not include purchases for internal military use.

The U.S. will export military weapons and technologies worth $24.4 billion in 2016, followed by Russia at $7.7 billion; France at $6 billion; Germany at $4.8 billion, the United Kingdom at $4.4 billion; Canada at $4.3 billion; Israel at $3 billion; Italy at $2.5 billion; Spain at $1.8 billion; and China at $1.6 billion, analysts predict.

The global defense trade market is small compared with internal defense spending among the world’s most developed nations. The U.S. Congress, for example, is formulating a fiscal 2017 Pentagon budget that will exceed $600 billion.

The U.S. share of the global defense trade market will grow by 6.3 percent in 2016, rising from $23 billion to $24.4 billion, analysts say. This dramatic growth may exceed $30 billion as deliveries of the F-35 combat aircraft begin to ramp up, analysts say.

France, meanwhile, has doubled its backlog of orders from $36 billion in 2014 to $55 billion last year, meaning that $55 billion worth of defense equipment has yet to be exported. This increase means that France will overtake Russia as the second-largest global defense equipment exporter, IHS experts say in the annual Global Defence Trade Report released this week.

The report examines trends in the global defense market across 65 countries and is based on 40,000 programs from the IHS Aerospace, Defence & Security’s Markets Forecast database.

“The global defense trade market has never seen an increase as large as the one we saw between 2014 and 2015,” says Ben Moores, senior analyst at IHS. Markets rose $6.6 billion, bringing the value of the global defense market in 2015 to $65 billion. IHS forecasts that the market will increase further to $69 billion in 2016.

Saudi Arabia will lead the world’s military importers in 2016 with $10.1 billion in military purchases. Following Saudi Arabia among the world’s top military importers in 2016 will be India at $4 billion; the United Arab Emirates at $3.1 billion; South Korea at $2.5 billion; Iraq at $2.3 billion; Australia at $2.1 billion; Egypt at $2 billion; Taiwan at $2 billion; Algeria at $1.8 billion; and Qatar at $1.7 billion.

In 2015 the Middle East was the largest importing region, with $21.6 billion in deliveries of defense equipment, IHS analysts say. Total defense spending accelerated in Asia-Pacific last year as states bordering the South China Sea boosted defense spending.

The largest global exporter, the United States, saw another 10 percent increase in exports over the past year, bringing the total to $23 billion (35 percent of the global total). There was significant change in the top five importing countries last year, with Taiwan, China, and Indonesia all dropping out of the top five and Australia, Egypt, and South Korea replacing them.

The IHS report indicates that U.S. trade flow to the Middle East has been driven by sales of military aircraft and associated mission systems. Russia, meanwhile, is likely to increase its trade in the region as post-sanctions Iran begins to replace its exhausted aviation assets.

The value of military imports throughout Western Europe rose from $7.9 billion in 2013 to $9.6 billion in 2015. from Norway, pan-European programs and the United Kingdom. United Kingdom imports nearly doubled as imports of MARS tanker ships from South Korea and CH-47 helicopters from the United States have begun.”

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2016/06/military-spending-defense-technology.html?cmpid=enl_MAE_WrapUp_2016-06-17&eid=297842363&bid=1436197