Dem
47
GOP
53
Actually, to be precise, DOGE itself is not responsible in all of these cases. But it's certainly the "cut costs at all costs" philosophy, which was the impetus for DOGE, that IS responsible. Even if Donald Trump was a pretty mediocre businessman, it's really amazing that he never seems to have picked up the lesson that the cheaper option in the short term is often more costly in the long term. Like, did he never have to choose between installing toilets that cost [X] but last for only 3 years vs. toilets that cost [X+30%] but last for 10 years?
We've actually been trying to get to this item for a couple of weeks, but it's not as time sensitive as the things that have pushed it aside. In any event, the big story (among several related stories) involves the Iranian school that was bombed by the U.S., resulting in the deaths of 165 students. Initially, the Department of Defense claimed that the missile that struck the school was fired by Iran. That turns out to be a falsehood. Then the DoD admitted it was an American missile, but said it went off course. That turns out to be a falsehood, as well.
The truth of the matter is that the missile landed exactly where it was supposed to land. The Trump administration did not desire to kill schoolchildren, per se. However, there was a team within the Pentagon, of about 200 people, called Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR). That team came into being in 2022, and its job was to do real-time mapping of potential bomb targets, so as to minimize the risks to civilians. (As a sidebar, this is more evidence that Joe Biden—the fellow who also ended the Afghanistan war, and ended indiscriminate drone attacks in Syria—was almost certainly the most humane president of the past half century.)
Anyhow, being careful about where you fire your bombs tends to limit lethality. It also tends to increase accountability. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth does not like either of those things. So, he gutted CHMR, and now we know the result of that decision. That deadly missile was fired based on out-of-date maps. American officeholders are not subject to international law, as the U.S. is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. However, even American law will declare someone to be a murderer if: (1) they killed with intent, or (2) they showed a reckless indifference to human life. Are we crazy to suggest that Hegseth looks to be guilty of 165 counts of murder, and could plausibly be tried in an American court for such? It won't actually happen, but not because the law is on his side.
Indeed, there is some reason to believe that Hegseth sees the death of Iranian citizens, even if they are schoolchildren, as a feature and not a bug. He hosts regular prayer services at the Pentagon, where attendance from staff is expected, separation of church and state is disregarded, and a very Protestant Christian version of Christianity is proselytized. Specifically, a very violent Protestant Christian version of Christianity. Hegseth often talks approvingly about the Crusades, and how those heroic Christians killed all those violent Muslims (presumably he doesn't know that the Christians who fought in the Crusades were Catholic). And at the most recent prayer service, Hegseth prayed for violence "against those who deserve no mercy." All of this is what leads to our conclusion that he's not too upset about those dead schoolchildren. We are also reminded of our general observation, which is hardly unique, that people who need to constantly perform how very Christian they are have much in common with people who need to constantly announce how high their IQ is.
Moving along, the bombing of the school is a past crisis. And even that may be overselling it, because it faded from headlines pretty quickly. The current crisis in Iran, of course, is the Strait of Hormuz. And guess what? That has also been made worse by the DOGE approach to governance. Over the past several years, and in particular during the Biden years (note the recurring theme), the State Department developed a sub-section called the Bureau of Energy Resources (BER). Among the tasks of the BER was to stay on top of the world's oil economy, by keeping track of available petroleum and storage capacity and remaining in close contact with both oil companies and with the energy bureaus in foreign countries. There were also number crunchers who could project when [COUNTRY X] would start having to reduce production if [EVENT Y] (like, say closing the Strait of Hormuz) were to take place. There was also one employee responsible for tracking the world's oil tankers, and another whose job was to serve as liaison to the International Energy Agency, which coordinates releases from the international community's oil reserves in times of need.
DOGE, of course, got rid of virtually all BER staffers, other than a few with expertise in minerals. The small number of BER employees who were left were merged into a new Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. Do you think that expertise in things like projecting production in countries about to be bottlenecked, coordinating releases from strategic reserves, keeping track of the world's oil tankers, etc., might be useful right now? We do.
But those experts are gone, and they're not coming back, as they've pretty much all landed much higher-paying and more stable jobs in the private sector. Which means all that the administration can do is deal with the situation on the ground, as best as possible. That includes, of course, the possibility that the Strait of Hormuz has been mined. Under those circumstances, it would be awfully nice to have some minesweepers available, right? The answer is "yes." And for that reason, the U.S. Navy has had four minesweepers stationed in Bahrain for many years. But 6 months ago, to cut costs, the Navy decommissioned those ships. Note that this was AFTER the Trump administration had already bombed Iran the first time, and so had at least some reason to know that there might be a war in that part of the world at some point in the near future.
What will fill in the gap? Well, ideally, minesweepers from allied nations. However, none of the allies who have such ships are interested in helping out. So, instead, the U.S. will turn to littoral combat ships (LCS) with anti-mine capabilities.
We are hardly on top of every nuance and subtlety when it comes to the modern American military establishment. But even we know that LCS have... quite the reputation. Meanwhile, reader A.G. in Scranton is a fair bit more dialed in, both by virtue of service as a U.S. Marine, and expertise in machinery. Here are some comments A.G. sent us:
If you want to read about the black hole of tax dollars over at the Pentagon, congresspersons requiring the military to buy bad weapons systems built by the people in their districts, and shi**y weaponry, the drama around the design, development, procurement, construction, and failed deployments of the littoral combat ships is the subject upon which you should read.
They were so unsafe and performed so poorly that most of them were already in something akin to an inactive mothball fleet less than a decade after being commissioned. Most of the class is sitting at berth in San Diego right now (from what I understand).
Over half of the proposed vessels were canceled.
That money coulda been spent on high-speed rail, better roadways, taxpayer funded college for those who should attend college, a down payment on single payer healthcare, a hefty shoring up of the Social Security trust fund, invested in advanced manufacturing or clean energy, but instead was dumped into red states in a pointless attempt to buy votes from a**holes.
It is certainly possible that we, and A.G., are too pessimistic here. However, there are two facts that are undisputed. First, as reader M.M. in San Diego, who also has access to expert information, points out, LCS are lightly armored, and will be much easier targets for drones and missiles. Second, nobody really knows how well the LCS will perform as minesweepers, because... this has never been tried before.
And finally, let us close this item by noting a somewhat minor scandal that was only in the headlines for a day or two, because among the bad things this administration has done, it doesn't even make the Top 100. The scandal we refer to was labeled "Lobstergate," because the Department of Defense had nearly $100 billion in its bank account last September, and had to spend it by the end of the month (and, thus, the start of the new fiscal year) or lose it. Much of it would have been spent in the normal course of DoD operations (like, say, paying salaries) but not all of it. So, Hegseth and his team went on a spending spree that would put Imelda Marcos to shame. That included a purchase of over $6 million in lobster tails for active-duty troops to gorge themselves upon. Hence the "lobster" in the name of the scandal.
Undoubtedly, most or all Americans are OK with serving the troops some fine foods; they've certainly earned it. And obviously, $6 million is a small fraction of the almost $100 billion the Pentagon burned through; the lobster is only the focus because it's much more clearly a luxury than, say, the $225 million spent on new furniture. We mention it because it says something very interesting about the administration's cost-cutting. After all, that extra money would have been more than enough to fund the minesweepers, or the experts in the oil economy, or the people who make sure the maps of bomb sites are correct.
There are some budget fetishists—Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Rand Paul (both R-KY) leap to mind—who seem to really believe what they are saying, and who seem to practice what they preach. Perhaps we are being naive, but we believe that if either of those men was serving as secretary of defense, they would have returned whatever funds were unneeded to the U.S. Treasury, and would even have added "Clearly, this money does not need to be in the budget."
Hegseth, on the other hand, spent the money like a drunken cabinet secretary sailor. It's just more evidence
that DOGE, and the other "money saving" cuts are not really about budget austerity, they're about getting rid of things
that Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Hegseth, etc. don't like, and then using belt-tightening as cover for their choices.
(Z)