Latest news with #post-Vietnam
Axios
13 hours ago
- Business
- Axios
Tech's dance with the Pentagon speeds up
Silicon Valley's on-again, off-again cycle of engagement with the U.S. military is swinging hard toward defense work. The big picture: The Trump administration has opened the door to spending, the Pentagon is pushing modernization and a new era of instability and flash wars has engulfed the world just as AI is remaking the entire tech industry. Driving the news: The Army announced earlier this month that four tech executives would become lieutenant colonels in the new Reserve Detachment 201: Meta CTO Adam Bosworth, OpenAI product head Kevin Weil, Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar and Bob McGrew, a Palantir and OpenAI veteran. The Detachment 201 project, whose genesis predates the second Trump administration, aims to fast-track the introduction of Silicon Valley expertise into the vast defense bureaucracy. These new commissions put a human face on an epochal shift of tech industry energy into defense work. Hardware firms are pushing aerospace projects, satellites and drones, autonomous vehicles and VR and AR headsets. Software providers bring data collection, management and analysis tools for everything from Defense Department supply-chain management to cybersecurity to real-time battlefield decision making . Meanwhile, everyone is promoting AI as the all-purpose answer to taming the Pentagon's vast unwieldy systems and unlocking a competitive edge for the U.S. in its global conflicts and rivalries, most urgently with China. Last week DoD awarded a $200 million contract to OpenAI to "develop prototype frontier AI capabilities to address critical national security challenges in both warfighting and enterprise domains." Google and Anthropic are also working with the Pentagon. Industry critics have painted this shift as a MAGA-fueled power grab by a new generation of contractors — like Palantir, Anduril and Elon Musk's companies — and investors like Andreessen Horowitz and Peter Thiel. Yes, but: While those players are definitely making hay as their allies (former venture capitalist Vice President Vance, White House tech adviser David Sacks) have assumed power, tech's new defense mania is part of a decades-long oscillation by the industry. Today's Silicon Valley got its start 75 years ago thanks to a flood of postwar defense contracting work that flowed toward Stanford and the nascent Santa Clara Valley electronics industry. That engagement ebbed during the 1970s with stagflation and post-Vietnam cuts, surged again in the 1980s under Reagan's Cold War defense ramp-up, then dropped once more in the 1990s as the Soviet empire collapsed and the internet blossomed. Post 9/11, many tech firms rushed to join the "global war on terror" — only to disengage once more as the U.S.'s Afghan and Iraq wars faltered. Our thought bubble: Tech's reputation as a left-leaning industry — inspired by its San Francisco Bay Area roots and the counterculture heritage of both the personal computing and internet revolutions — is largely a myth. Any time the federal government has been willing to throw dollars at defense technology, the tech industry has been eager to sell. Between the lines: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's emphasis on a " culture of lethality" might once have raised hackles in tech boardrooms and among staff. But AI companies — even those that put "safety" at the heart of their missions — are now rushing to compete for deals, as a call to patriotism has replaced an insistence on caution along the road to "superintelligence." OpenAI, Google and other AI leaders who once had policies barring certain kinds of military and weapons work have removed or loosened those rules over the past two years. What to watch: Support for the tech-Pentagon alliance — both inside firms and among the broader public — could splinter if AI, autonomous vehicles and other advanced tech plays a high-profile role in Trump administration immigration enforcement efforts or military deployments in U.S. cities.
Washington Post
01-05-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
As a midwestern Republican, I oppose gutting national service
Don Bacon, a Republican, represents Nebraska's 2ndCongressional District in the U.S. House. He co-chairs the bipartisan National Service Congressional Caucus. As a small-government conservative who supports a leaner and more efficient federal bureaucracy, I have cheered President Donald Trump's efforts to identify and eliminate fraud and waste in Washington. We've been spending ourselves into oblivion and getting remarkably little in return. But there's a difference between common-sense cuts to underperforming or bloated agencies and haphazardly eliminating every program a software engineer fails to appreciate, as the U.S. DOGE Service, or Department of Government Efficiency, is attempting with national service. AmeriCorps has been one of the most effective public service initiatives of the post-Vietnam era. It allows young Americans to serve their country — many for the first time — through efforts ranging from disaster recovery and food-bank staffing to teaching and tutoring students and supporting our veterans and senior citizens. The program fosters civic pride, develops life-changing job skills and strengthens communities in every corner of this country. I was honored to serve for nearly 30 years in the U.S. Air Force, and I recognize that not everyone is suited for the military. But many of those patriotic Americans still wish to contribute to our country. AmeriCorps is a way to do that. These young men and women don't serve for accolades or headlines — they simply believe in making a difference. And their work, often behind the scenes, brings hope and practical support to thousands of Americans every day. AmeriCorps is national service at its best: voluntary, community-based, impactful and efficient. If DOGE were genuinely focused on creating a more efficient federal government, it would model everything on AmeriCorps. Unlike most federal agencies, AmeriCorps is almost exclusively directed by state governors, who are always better positioned than Washington to decide where and how to spend and deploy resources. It is a public-private partnership that marries nominal federal investment with matching private contributions. Every federal tax dollar invested in its programs generates a $17 return to society at large through increased earning potential (both by AmeriCorps members and those they serve) and reduced reliance on state and federal government support. I know of no other federal agency that generates that kind of taxpayer return on investment through positive, measurable outcomes. For these reasons, I am profoundly troubled by the recent wave of national service cuts directed by DOGE. Not only are we stripping Americans of a chance to serve, but the communities these services support are left scrambling. Teach for America, Habitat for Humanity, City Year, Boys and Girls Clubs, Big Brothers Big Sisters — each of their budgets, workforce and impact will be gutted by these cuts. At the same time, disaster response efforts and AmeriCorps Senior programs that connect senior volunteers with second-act opportunities, including foster grandparents and senior companion programs, are similarly being shut down. These cuts are being implemented without a clear strategy — just an arbitrary push to meet a numeric goal. It's a sledgehammer approach when a scalpel is what's needed. We can and should focus on eliminating waste, but we must also protect what works. AmeriCorps is not a bloated bureaucracy — it's a lean, high-return investment in service, leadership and community resilience. With every dollar spent, the return in lives changed and communities improved is undeniable. At a time when division dominates our headlines, AmeriCorps brings people together around a common purpose. That's something worth preserving. I urge my colleagues and the administration to pause and consider the long-term implications of these decisions. If we want to build a stronger nation, we must continue supporting service, not sidelining it.
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
DOGE could do more harm than good at Department of Defense
Feb, 26 (UPI) -- Despite the best of intentions, unless the trajectory of the Department of Government Efficiency is reversed as it descends on the Pentagon, it will not achieve its goals of reforming the system and saving large amounts of money. How do I know? My record of sensing bad outcomes is sadly accurate. In 1967, with two other junior officers summoned back from Vietnam to brief President Lyndon Johnson on the state of the war, I was asked to speak directly and replied in blunt terms we were losing. And in 2002, despite my friendship with Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, I failed to convince them Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The prior Central Command commander, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, had convincing evidence of the absence of WMD that was ignored. And senior foreign intelligence heads warned me that "Curveball," an Iraqi lieutenant general, could not be trusted as to his assertions. Three years later, on a trip to Afghanistan as part of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe Advisory Board, when we visited the opening of a junior officer-senior enlisted training facility, the first training lesson was how to use indoor plumbing. What did we learn about cultural differences? DOGE might consider this approach. The executive branch has the authority to improve efficiency. But regarding spending, only one branch has that mandate: Congress. The reality is that this year's federal budget will be about $7 trillion, with revenues of $5 trillion. If savings are to be made, that must be the target. But the executive has no authority there. DOGE has embarked on a plan of ready, fire, aim, seeming to cut programs based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of the Pentagon. A proposed 8% annual cut for five years based on no analysis will make the future force a shadow of the post-Vietnam "hollow force." The reason is self-evident. Just to sustain the current force requires about 5% to 7% annual real growth. Add the effects of continuing resolutions and no passed budgets will lose another 5% to 10% in purchasing power. The president has the authority to choose his chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The chairman delegate, retired Lt. Gen. Dan Caine, has an interesting background and is well-regarded. But this is largely in special operations. He has no experience in commanding at the three-star, let alone at the four star level, and will be at a decided disadvantage to his more operationally and politically experienced other chiefs. And the way the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Navy head were terminated will not help morale and disrespected their honorable service. To work, DOGE must start with the strategy and correct its flaws. The secretary of Defense asserted that the strategy is to deter, fight and win. But the strategy has not stopped Russia from twice invading Ukraine or deterred China from its military expansion. Thermonuclear war cannot be fought or won; and only those of us over 80 can recall the last real war we won. A more appropriate strategy is a porcupine defense, based on so damaging any initial attack to make it unacceptable to the aggressor. In Europe, this is a more muscular version of Ukraine's valiant stand. In Asia, Taiwan could easily mount such a defense if it wanted to prevent an invasion. But elements of the Kuomintang Party may see a future union with China as possible. If war were to come in Asia, the porcupine would keep China to the first island chain and roll up its extensive Belt and Road Initiative globally, in essence, strangling China of resources as we did to Japan in World War II. This active duty force would number between 900,000 and 1 million, down from1.3 million, and be divided in three. One tranche of 300,000 would be deployed or deployable divided between east and west; one tranche would be in training and readily deployable in crisis; and the last would be at rest and in long-term training. The annual cost would be about $700 billion to $750 billion and would need annual increases. But make no mistake: On the current trajectory, if left unchecked, DOGE could do more damage to the U.S. military than 20 years of war in Afghanistan. However, if DOGE listens and leads, it is in DOGE's power to achieve its goals. Will it? Harlan Ullman, UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, has advised a number of heads of government and the most senior political and military leaders on these and other issues. A Vietnam-era Swift boat skipper with over 150 combat patrols and operational missions, his next book, co-authored with The General Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of Defense, is The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.
