jority of defense spending—yet many fall below standard reporting thresh- olds, shielding them from scrutiny. For years, the Government Ac- countability Office and the DoD In- spector General have issued reports exposing cost overruns, program delays, and gross mismanagement. Yet nothing changes. The response remains the same—more money, no accountability. Instead of fixing failures, the Pentagon rewards pro- grams that miss deadlines and go over budget with even more funding.
Congress and the American people rarely get clear answers, while weap- ons systems arrive late, cost billions more than planned, or fail to meet performance expectations. This is not a debate about whether the DoD is underfunded or over- funded—that kind of emotional rhet- oric misses the point. My pet peeve is the way politicians frame defense spending in percentages rather than outcomes. The issue isn’t how much is spent compared to past years—it’s how that money is spent, how little
oversight exists, and how failures are allowed to continue without conse- quences. The assumption that throw- ing more money at the Pentagon auto- matically strengthens the military is a dangerous myth. The Pentagon should rein in waste, demand accountability, and enforce consequences for failure. If we keep confusing massive budgets with real strength, we will end up with a bloated, inefficient, and unprepared military— while our adversaries, unburdened by our bureaucratic inefficiencies,
America can no longer afford an acquisition system that prioritizes process over results. The future of war demands speed, adaptability, and financial discipline. To maintain dominance in an era of Great Power Competition, the Pentagon should break from bureaucratic inertia and embrace a more aggressive, results-driven approach to acquisition.
May-June 2025 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION | 25
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker