Who's the real friend of the military?

The following piece of spam somehow got into Trevor's hands:

Subject: John Kerry on Defense

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Aegis anti-aircraft system
He voted to Kill the F-15 Strike Eagle
He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to Kill the B-1
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the Patriot Anti Missile System
He voted to Kill the FA-18
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the F117

In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988, to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs. He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the US. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%. But then, he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N. operations by 800%!!!

Is THIS a President YOU want?

Trevor, a former Air Force officer, knows something about acquisition/appropriation of military equipment. Here's his articulate reply. I hope it gets back to the one who sent it. (Sorry, Trev. It's too good not to be shared with the masses)

Can anybody name one of those weapons systems that helped during the World Trade Tower attack? Just curious.

Bradley fighting vehicle? I completed the first phase of training as an acquisitions officer for the Air Force. Some of you may find it interesting to hear that this program was held up as an example of how to completely screw up an acquisition and waste huge piles of tax money on junk (again, this was a course taught by military officers for military officers). I won't give a point-by-point rebuttal to the original e-mail, but I will offer a different perspective.

First, Congress members who limit military expenditures are not the enemy of the military. Military representatives will always supply creative ideas for improving combat effectiveness. That's their job. But a creative idea is not necessarily a good idea. If Congress were to fund every idea from soldiers or weapons contractors, our arsenal would become the materiel equivalent of a cancerous tumor--bloated, chaotic, and non-functional. Hence, Congressional restraint not only reserves funds for other important programs, but actually benefits military combat effectiveness.

Second, Congress members who vote to fund military appropriations are not necessarily the friend of the military. Instructors from the aforementioned training program were not shy about listing off stupid ideas pushed by Congress on a bewildered military. Weapons sytems tend to generate enthusiasm in government officials in proportion to the income they provide to home-state constituents and corporate friends, not necessarily in any relationship whatsoever to the desires expressed by the military itself.

Obviously, military appropriations are a complex affair, requiring considerable sophistication and practical experience for proper handling (good enough reason for me to leave the career field). Of course, Congress approves military funding--not the President--but perhaps a combat-experienced vet in the White House could exert some constructive influence on the process. Would that be Bush or Kerry? Hmmm.... you decide.