When es to spending on national defensethe political debate is oftenpresented as a simplistic, binary contest between those who want to spend more and more (often conservatives, who want a strong military) and those who want to spend less and less (often liberals, who want to use the money for social welfare purposes).While those discussions are important, they are also plete. Conservatives, inparticular, should be more cognizant of the way cronyism can undercut military readiness.

In an article today atThe Stream, I argue that weneed abroad-based agreement about the most effective ways to spend defense funds based on the true needs of the military:

A recent AP storyabout government cronyism saddling our special ops withflawed software is actually just the tip of the iceberg. The bigger story begins withColonel John Boyd (1927-1997), an Air Force fighter pilot, a Pentagon consultant and quite possibly the greatest military theorist since Sun Tzu (496 BC).

In the 1960s Boyd developed the E-M theory of bat, which transformed the U.S. Air Force, and in the 1980s developed maneuver warfare, which transformed the U.S. Marine Corps. But the reason youmaynever have heard of Boyd is because he also developed, in the 1970s and 1980s,the theoretical foundation for the “defense reform movement” (DRM). This movement valued people and their moral content above all other things. As Boyd was often quoted as saying, “Machines don’t fight wars; people do, and they used their minds.” Certain Washington power brokers weren’t keen on this movement and did their best to marginalize Boyd.

Boyd emphasized that “weapons that don’t work or can’t be bought in adequate quantity will bring down even the best people and the best ideas.” Commonsense, yes, monsense is at times in short supply in the U.S. plex. Boyd was especially critical of the expensive and substandard aircraft of his era, both the fighters (F-14, F15, F-111) and the $100 million per aircraft B1 Bomber program.

Read more . . .