Military procurement
We should be more selective when criticizing what Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex.” As America’s young and impressive Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, tried to explain to “media” recently, most of the waste can be plainly attributed to political interference in the weapons-buying process; to “chopping and changing” on orders for tanks, jets, missiles, &c, thus adding substantially to delays and then to cost overruns. But as usual, under progressive socialism, the people and companies that make these useful things are blamed for inefficiencies in their production.
For, once politicians are involved, “democratically” representing the financial interests of the people who paid to get them elected, and making their own embarrassing, amateur guesses about what the technology might be good for, corruption and ignorance become the general rule.
Alas, without capital punishment, the courts cannot hope to control this aspect of criminal behaviour. Let the people who know what they are doing make all the craft decisions, unhindered by the corrupt. (And may the supply of politicians be whittled down.)
Good administrators will be poor but honest. The soldiering class should seek honour, not wealth; and conquest in preference to kickbacks. We need to maintain a force that is terrifying, but cannot be terrified too easily.
War, of course, can be a lot of fun, once one is committed to it (read some military memoirs!); but like any participant blood sport, its purpose should be victory. To which end, military expenditure must be as grand and wasteful as necessary. (“No price too high!” was the phrase that got Canada through the last World War.)