Center for a New American Security

Oh, for goodness sake. Nathan Hodge starts by asking some fair questions about where defense and foreign policy think tanks get their money. (And has a kind word or two for this blogger. Back at you, Danger Room!) But Matthew Yglesias takes things a step too far. If he thinks this blogger -- or anyone else advocating the U.S.

Seriously, the president and the secretary deserve some credit for this:

When the Obama administration proposed canceling a host of expensive weapons systems last spring, some of the military industry’s allies in Congress assumed, as they had in the past, that they would have the final say.

 

I like it:

From today's Washington Post:

He bluntly warned Lockheed Martin that he would slice funding for the more modern F-35 jet if the contracting giant lobbied to build more F-22s. Lockheed Martin's chief executive, Robert J. Stevens, told employees he supported Gates's call "to put the interests of the United States first -- above the interests of agencies, services and contractors." That left the powerful lobbyists to sit on their hands.

Yesterday's New York Times carried a needed editorial on spending more tax dollars to support the F-22, an aircraft whose production run has been capped at 187 by the Department of Defense but extended by the Congress. Today's Washington Post helps us understand why, with this story on the way in which small towns rise and fall with weapons programs.

The Washington Post:

Dana Milbank, in today's Post:

This meeting of the Senate Military-Industrial Caucus will now come to order.

 

The chair recognizes the senator from Northrop Grumman for a question.

 

"We've noticed the increase in the amphibious ship fleet needs that go beyond traditional military missions," said Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). "Do you see a continuing need for shipbuilding in the amphibious area?"

Regular readers of this blog will know that I start each day with the paper edition of the Washington Post and always note the massive, full-page ads by defense contractors hawking their wares to Congressmen and their staffs.

As the Pentagon's internal budget negotiations begin to wind down, the future looks bleak for the Army's Future Combat Systems, the service's ambitious $160 billion modernization effort that is widely expected to become a casualty of the FY10 budget.