Doesn’t it make more sense to invest in technology that will keep those soldiers/marines out of the line of fire?

Only if you believe that eventually invalidates warfare.

I also don’t think that we disagree nearly as much about government contracting as you think we do. Remember, I am a government contractor in manufacturing.

Why would we invest in the infantry and use them to their fullest when it is losses in that area that are reported 24/7 to the American people to declare the conflict a quagmire? Doesn’t it make more sense to invest in technology that will keep those soldiers/marines out of the line of fire?

On the outsourcing issue, I’ll just thrown in that I disagree, but I don’t have the time to form my full opinion on that. There are places where I think it is a really bad idea (most of the areas where the government is contracting today instead of doing the work themselves) but other areas that it makes a lot of sense (manufacturing comes to mind).

Which is not to say, of course, that I think defense spending is bad, or what contractors are doing today in the R&D world is necessarily a bad thing. Missile defense seems to me to be the best thing a large target nation like the US can develop, although even that has more of a focus on national conflicts than, say, small pockets of crazy people doing stupid things with bombs and planes.

[But then maybe one day we'll realize that terrorists are really just criminals with better public relations and treat them as such, thereby neutralizing their martyrdom, etc.]

The main concern I’ve had about defense spending over the last, say, two decades is a decrease in spending money on infantry skills. Despite all the technological advances of the past five hundred years, nothing beats a guy with a gun on patrol at the end of the day. Blow all the ordnance you like, but you can’t hold territory without the infantry.

But just as contractors are doing positive things, they’re also doing negative things, as government outsources things like intelligence analysis and logistical applications to the private sector. Don’t get me started on how outsourcing is really fucking this country up, because I might never stop.

For full disclosure here, my father and wife are both work as contractors and my brother is a member of the USAF.

And as for what folks from the M-IC are more dangerous, it’s purely because they have an economic incentive for war, which gets people killed. All other things equal, I’ll take sacrificing human life as the worst thing we can do.

Federal Government Contractors

Federal government contractors may not make contributions to influence Federal elections. For example, if you are a consultant under contract to a Federal agency, you may not contribute to Federal candidates or political committees. Or, if you are the sole proprietor of a business with a Federal government contract, you may not make contributions from personal or business funds. But, if you are merely employed by a company (or partnership) with Federal government contracts, you are permitted to make contributions from your personal funds.

When Jessica first mentioned this to me, I was very concerned. When was free speech rescinded for citizens who happened to work on government contracts. Why are they singled out when so many other groups that receive public funding would not be (such as recipients of so many earmarks coming out of congress these days). It looks as if the restriction is a bit more limited than that.

In doing my search, I found an article mentioning the flow of money coming in from contractors here:
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/print/23_08/32774-1.html

There are apparently PACs setup for pretty much all of the major contractors/businesses (Lockheed, Northrop, AT&T, etc.)

I wholeheartedly agree that this influence by the contractors could be dangerous to our country. But how are these groups any different from the unions backing politicians who will pass favorable bills to them (while ignoring the political beliefs of many of their members).