Exactly.
I also think only buying from domestic vendors compounds the stupidity of a massive new gov't program.

Good points. When exercised properly, in the right circumstances, by well-trained people, proven methods and approaches are most often the best solution. However, too often the process is mistaken for the solution. I found this the worst in defense contractors, which had committees to establish processes for approaching every problem, and if you pointed out that maybe this shouldn't be applied to all situations, they suggested that maybe we needed a better process for developing the processes. What was disturbing was the response from upper management and the government customer to a problem was to ask "do we have a process for that?" If the answer was yes, then they considered the problem automatically solved.

Lobbyists are the worst cats in the canary cage. It disturbed me, when I was overseeing the development of new space systems, that the competing contractors were my best source of information on what budgets I should expect in coming fiscal years.

Hi DrZ,
The administrative mindset , not rocking the boat,
An upper rank fraternity that is self serving is not a
Fertile ground for innovation or for fiscal prudence.
The defense industry revolving door lobby, all figuring out how to extract all they can legally with laws they and their friends create.
Thinking out of the box is appropriate when a real desire for an answer or solution is the goal and everything else is tried and not working.

Yes, it sounds great to say "Medicare for everyone," but here's how the numbers break down: we spend $1.5T to provide govt. medical care for 70 million people, and that only covers 80%; if you increase the numbers to provide 100% coverage to those same 70 million, the number rises to $1.8T; expanding that to cover all 325 million U.S. residents requires a total of $8T. The current federal budget in total is $4T today, so a $6.5T increase would mean the new budget would be about $10.5T, unless we made drastic cuts to other things. Bluntly, unaffordable.

Likewise, reverting to strictly domestic sourcing (MAGA) ignores over $7T invested by foreign firms in American-based production centers. It's not about the companies, but the jobs, and many American jobs are provided by foreign companies. Bluntly, delusional.

Populism sounds great, whether socialist or nationalist, but neither is rationally good for the people.

"I have a feeling that if Sanders had won, we'd be seeing many of the same stories about how frustrating it is for him to see how hard it is to enact many of his promises."
Yes. And we'd seen spending growing a few percent, and the deficit increasing by roughly $150 billion, the same as now, and the same as if Clinton were president.

I do not think Trump supporters really want to reduce the size of gov't. They want gov't to do something to bring back old jobs that paid a living wage. They have a simplistic view that jobs and wealth are a fixed pie that gets distributed based on "the economy" and gov't policy. Sanders supporters want basically the same thing. It's rare to find people who actually want to close military bases, stop paying medical assistance for their parents' nursing care, close prisons, stop federal grands for constructions projects, stop insurance subsidies for their aunt who's fighting cancer, stop unemployment payments. Whichever ones of those they benefit from, they want those expanded. They want gov't to do more for good hardworking people like them and people they know and less for people who are different, scary, and/or undeserving.

I'm really concerned about this for the long-run. Not only is the spending not sustainable, but the spirit of wanting government to solve your problems, of being a victim, and of seeking to make other Americans feel uncomfortable are all corrosive. It's also related to the denial of reality, not just disagreeing on the facts but seeing the world as opinion only and reality a function the social/political models in the viewer's mind. The US is amazingly prosperous and free, but we have this Roman Empire decadence.

You've hit the nail on the head with the commonality between Trump and Sanders supporters. Both have a populist view, feeling the establishment has forgotten about the people, but their solutions are radically different: Trumpists think that reducing the size of the government foot on the neck of individuals will make for more effective use of taxpayer dollars; Sandernistas think that government can somehow be forced to redirect taxpayer dollars toward programs that provide more direct help to individuals. Both show the lack of understanding of how entrenched the "Deep State" (unelected bureaucracy) is, and how viciously it will defend its firmly rooted interests against any flavor of populist leader.

I have a feeling that if Sanders had won, we'd be seeing many of the same stories about how frustrating it is for him to see how hard it is to enact many of his promises.

I probably dealt with a few more flag officers in my day than you, and my dealings with the Pentagon and the intelligence services stretches over a 40+ year career in and out of service. The competition among officers in the lower ranks develops and attracts a good many that I was honored to serve with, but once the O-6 level was reached the politics and cronyism took over.

There were some generals that were a real pleasure to work with. The first commander of Space Command, General Hartinger, a four star who started as an A-20 rear gunner in WW II was a crusty soul who terrified the underlings who were worried about their careers, but he and I had great relations. Major General Neil Beer, my direct boss and a PhD nuclear physicist, was extremely sharp and gracious, but he made the mistake of advocating for a separate space service, and was "promoted" to an out of country three star position that would prevent his advocacy. Beer had the integrity to resign. Major General Tom Sawyer (no kidding), commander of space operations, was always ready to say to me (a Lt Col) "shut the door and let's forget about rank" when discussing contentious issues. True to his word, he never pulled rank to back away from a position he committed to in those closed door sessions. Sawyer was also considered for higher command, but he was considered to be too much of a "boy scout" (translation: not ready to protect the elite).

I also had the pleasure of serving under a Canadian two star under my "other hat" in NORAD, and he was a delight. I had contact with several admirals, with about an even split between the good and the bad, with one truly ugly, despicable individual.

I'd comment in more general terms about my discomfort with the intelligence community leadership, but most of that will remain undisclosable indefinitely (a rather neat way to cover your tracks, over-classification). I will say that no one should trust a single word out of former DNI Clapper's mouth.

My experience is different from yours. As an E-4 and E-5, the officers I served with were overwhelmingly good leaders and good role models. Yes, there were exceptions, but they were just that. I learned that lieutenants need looking after: when they ran out of coffee, they stopping drinking coffee. But a major helped me fix that with a coffee kitty. And the elltees were nonetheless dedicated to becoming better leaders themselves. In my 50 years of professional life with good organizations, those 13 months last year made the best assignment I ever had.The LTC who ran our office should have been a community college instructor, but America went to war and he was trained to command armor. So he went to Bosnia, and Iraq, and Afghanistan. He was a good leader and I respect him fully and without reservation. Among our captains was an MBA. He looked like it. He might end up in a bank after he retires from the military. But that military career included three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan in infantry. "Ever since I was five years old, all I ever wanted to be was a soldier." I would follow him into the gates of hell.

I never worked closely with "chair force" people, but from what I have seen - and there were downsides for me when I attempted to task a colonel - they are smart, conceptual, multi-dimensional thinkers.

On my blog, I reviewed a book,The Leaders Bookshelf co-edited by Adm. James Stavridis with contributions by other four stars. (Discussed in the Gulch also here: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... Among the books recommended was The General by C. S. Forrester. "Perhaps the clue to Curzon's development during this time [between world wars] is givern by his desire to conform to type." The book is, of course, a warning of what not to do to be a leader.

Once an Eagle is perhaps better explained here as a Keating-Roark story about two very different officers. "Massengale will never make an enemy and he'll never have a friend."

From my vantage point, I could disparage the higher-ranking sergeants above me, the staff sergeants and first class who got their rockers with time in grade, never actually leading anybody at anything. I have an air command chief who lost his fire for the job long ago but who holds on to it and I cannot get it. But it all would just be me making myself big by making them small.

We here like to believe that you are a cool guy and we like to put down politicians. But your story is just confirmation bias.

This entire comment is what I think.
"it's almost like multiple personality disorder with Trump. He seems to have a knack for making statements that create more opportunities for his critics,"
I think he doesn't know or care much about policy, but he likes attention. He'd rather say something that makes him look possibly guilty of crime or possibly racist/sexist than to lie low.

I realized this when he made a statement that I found questionable in response to the violence in Charlottesville. He corrected it by releasing a more traditional statement condemning bigotry and violence. He clearly should have lain low and let his critics look bad by trying to milk the violence and death for all they're worth. Instead he opened his mouth and said something that sounded offensive. He didn't care that it wasn't the smart thing to do. People were talking about Trump again.

"it's being naive about expecting too much out a Congress led by a Republican majority at war with itself."
I get a strong sense of that. He wanted to deliver on his promises and really didn't realize Congress would actually oppose him and he would have to play politics to get even basic things to pass. I don't think he ever thought he'd win. I think he was going to use the campaign attention to build his brand and start a new TV network or something and by some fluke he won.

"Democrats are having much the same civil war between the socialist-leaning and the conventional more moderate liberals"
I truly think socialist-leaning Democrats have more in common with Trump supporters than with moderate Democrats. They both want to increase borrowing, slightly increase spending, and spend the money helping Americans. They both think there's a cabal of bad or corrupt people causing the problems in their lives. I hope I'm wrong or that they're a minority if I'm right.

I heard someone from the NYT The Daily podcast this morning telling the liberal side of tax cuts. It's all about figuring how what percentage of "available income in the economy" are steered to which groups, the economist said. It makes me afraid socialists are the majority.

In some respects, it's almost like multiple personality disorder with Trump. He seems to have a knack for making statements that create more opportunities for his critics, but if you look objectively at the direction of his actions, he is one of the few politicians who is making an earnest effort to do exactly what he said he would while campaigning. If I fault him on anything, it's being naive about expecting too much out a Congress led by a Republican majority at war with itself. Sometimes, being a "big tent" party becomes counterproductive. The Democrats are having much the same civil war between the socialist-leaning and the conventional more moderate liberals (like Northam, the new Virginia governor).

" a non-traditional face "
This and what DrZarkov99 says below makes sense. It's unfortunate the military leadership has politics in it. I get what you're saying about the politics rejecting the non-traditional and outside-the-box ideas. Not all outside-the-box ideas are good. They can be outside-the-box because they're intelligent but reject orthodoxy or they can just be wrong. My impression is President Trump is any apparently radical foreign policy ideas are more a case of lack of knowledge and experience than due to him understanding and rejecting the prevailing views.

Yes. And he gave Congress time to do it. I strongly agreed with him on stopping looking the other way on immigration. I am for more open immigration, but it should happen legally rather than by looking the other way. I'd rather have less immigration, which I think is bad for the country, than get the immigration we need by looking the other way. Looking the other way destroys the law.

It would be a more powerful demonstration of his belief in the Constitution if he acted the same way on issues that didn't politically work for him.

He's been demanding Congress do its job of legislating. The DACA action is a prime example. Obama's executive order on DACA has been ruled unconstitutional in federal court. Trump could have just let this play out, but when he rescinded the executive order, he made it up front and public that while he favored the intent, Congress had to take the action to make the DACA rules legal. Unfortunately, while he's been pushing Congress to do its job, it's becoming more obvious that with lazy reliance on an imperial presidency to do their job, they seem to have become incompetent

"[President Trump] is forcing the resurrection of the separation of powers"
How is he doing that? During the campaign and in office he keeps making statements disregarding the law in favor the Executive Branch, which has been long trend since at least WWII and maybe since the Whigs disbanded, and President Trump seems to be even more open about it.

Yes, I thought of him the very moment I clicked on "reply". He's an amazing figure. I loaned out my '83 copy of "Tesla: Man Out Of Time" a long time ago and never got it back. I recall reading he was thrown out of a college in Germany because he insisted an "impossible" AC induction motor was possible and wouldn't shut up about it. ...and the rest is history, oh well.

There's a very nice bronze of him near the Niagara power plant I've driven by numerous times and when I point it out to others that may be with me, I find very few knew who he was or the fact he made the plant possible. Tesla's ideas and Westinghouse's money. Great combination!

I'll be looking forward to the movie.

You might also look into Nikola Tesla, creator of alternating current technology. There's an upcoming movie, which I think is called "The Current War" that dramatizes the contest between Tesla and Edison over whether direct current (DC) or alternating current (AC) would be best for American electrical systems. Tesla was very creative and unconventional, but less a master of politics and business intrigue than Edison.

Thank you for your note, Dr.

Decades ago, as a young teenager, I read a biography of John Paul Jones. He became my first example of out-of-the-box real life heroes. Then came the likes of Thomas Edison and Michael Faraday and many more.

I find that our pragmatist, populist President is distasteful to many classic conservatives, who tend to prefer order and convention, even when little is gained. As an officer coming from southern blue collar roots I often disagreed with superiors more obsessed with protocol and decorum than getting the job done.

Trump has a brash, sometime embarrassing demeanor, but more than any of the past several Presidents he is forcing the resurrection of the separation of powers, and seeking to restore the power of the states. In that sense he represents a return to original Federalism, which should be a dream come true for conservatives. Unfortunately, modern conservatives are too obsessed with appearance than achievement.

Accurate on many counts. There are "outsiders" in the military who don't abide by the fraternity rules (I was one), which primarily involve making sure those most esteemed fraternity members are protected. I had more in common with the female officers, who could never be part of the fraternity, and were free to exercise common sense in their decisions.

Thinking "out of the box" is generally discouraged, despite admiration for historical figures who were victorious because they exercised unconventional strategies or tactics. For all the praise heaped on figures such as Admiral Halsey or General Patton, those officers would not survive in today's politicized military.

Eisenhower is the icon for the modern military: a pure administrator, with no combat experience, he became the ultimate politician, negotiating between conflicting interests in the alliance, often to the detriment of the mission. His decision to give priority to British Marshal Montgomery's failed assault on key bridges in the Netherlands (retold in the well made movie "A Bridge too far") prevented General Patton from driving through a diminished German defense, and allowed the Nazi offensive remembered as the Battle of the Bulge to take place. That decision was strictly political, meant to restore British pride, when an American armored assault toward the Rhine was the obvious best strategy.

My hope is that Secretary of Defense Mattis will look to clean out the chicken coop of the politicians in uniform, but I'm not holding my breath. Those vermin have developed an uncommon skill for survival. When Donald Rumsfeld tried to root out the self serving upper rank fraternity, they very effectively used their substantial media and lobbyist connections to undermine him.

Saw the same in the Army in the early 1960s; the consequences showed in the late 1960s. BT

+++++++++++++++++++++++ BT

You have me smiling and chuckling here:

"... have always been politicians in uniform." and "As an Air Force officer...". I never had the opportunity to serve in the military, but I'm betting we may know at least one AF General in common. LOL! Your post made me think of a rather funny incident having to do with politics that raised a lot of laughs with the guys, but GOD the General was PISSED! LOL!

Our government is part of the swamp for sure. Trump was elected as a reaction to citizens revulsion with the swamp

I wonder if those polls would show they supported Clinton, bush, Obama’s, or Clinton. That would be very disturbing and indicate their level of understanding. Trump will go down in history as a very effective president. Too bad the establishment swamp Congress is so ineffective and fight him continually

This ties in with the earlier post here, "Do You Know Your Military?"
Gen. Mattis, Col. Urben, and LTC Dempsey all found that the officer corps is generally more conservative than the enlisted ranks. Educated conservatives tend not to support Pres. Trump and his policies. It cannot be blamed on liberal brainwashing.