By Tom Shoop | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 | 05:55 PM
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards gave a big foreign policy speech today at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Here are a couple of interesting proposals included in the speech, according to a campaign fact sheet:
Repair the Tremendous Damage Done to Civil-Military Relations: The past few years have brought the biggest crisis in civil-military relations in a generation. The mismanagement of the Pentagon has been so severe that many of our most decorated retired officers are speaking out. As president, Edwards will institute regular, on-on-one meetings with top military leadership. He will also reinstate a basic doctrine of national security management that has been demolished by the Bush Administration: military professionals will have primary responsibility in matters of tactics and operations, while civilian leadership will have authority in all matters of broad strategy and political decisions.Root Out Cronyism and Waste and Increase Efficiency in the Pentagon: The Government Accountability Office has found that of Pentagon’s 26 biggest acquisition programs, 40 percent are above expected costs and 20 percent are behind schedule. The top five weapons programs have increased in costs by average of 29 percent, or $122.4 billion. As president, Edwards will launch a comprehensive, tough review of fraud, waste, and abuse, such as missile defense and offensive space-based weapons, that are costly and unlikely to work. He will also overhaul the rules governing privatization, to punish mismanagement, and reform DOD compensation policies to reward performance.
Comments
I believe Michael has it nailed and agree wholeheartedly with his opinion.
Jeff | Thursday, May 24, 2007 | 01:54 PMI agree there's a problem with DoD program management. But the main source of the problem isn't fraud, waste and abuse. It's politically driven, unrealistic' cost, schedule, and performance estimates.
If we have 3 programs, each of which realistically would take $3Million to accomplish - but we only have $6Million to fund them - instead of eliminating one, we cut $1Million from each of them, and say we still "can do" them all. And then people wonder why the projects go over-budget. The same thing applies to schedule and performance.
Instead of giving accurate information and making the "hard-decisions," all our executive (and, for that matter, legislative) "leadership" is interested in is "spinning" things to protect their own turf and their own pet projects.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor Tom Shoop takes a look at news and events affecting the federal bureaucracy, from the perspective of a longtime observer of government.
SEARCH THIS BLOG
ARCHIVES
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
CATEGORIES
- Comings and Goings
- Congress
- Defense
- Factoid of the Day
- Fedblog
- General News
- Government Operations
- Headline of the Day
- Homeland Security
- Intelligence
- Management
- Oversight
- Pay and Benefits
- Photo of the Day
- Political Appointees
- Press Release of the Day
- Procurement
- Quote of the Day
- The White House
- The Workforce
- The Workplace










