Daniel Driscoll: Army Secretary and the Defense Industry's "Con" – What Reddit is Saying
Army Sec. Driscoll Says Defense Industry "Conned" Us? More Like We Let Them.
The "Con" Heard 'Round the Pentagon
So, U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll is running around saying the defense industry "conned the American people and the Pentagon"? Give me a freakin' break. It's like blaming the casino for taking your money when you're the one sitting at the roulette table spinning the wheel.
Let's be real: nobody forced the Army to buy overpriced, purpose-built solutions when perfectly good commercial options were gathering dust on the shelf. This ain't some elaborate heist movie. It's a case of gross mismanagement and a complete lack of vision on the part of, well, everyone involved.
Driscoll's out here talking about flipping the script to "90 percent being commercially available and 10 percent being specific." Okay, great. But where was this thinking ten, twenty years ago? We've been throwing money at these primes for decades, letting them dictate the terms, and now suddenly we're waking up and smelling the overpriced coffee?
And the "conned" language? It's insulting, frankly. The defense industry saw an opportunity and exploited it. That's capitalism, baby. The real problem is the lack of oversight, the revolving door between the Pentagon and these companies, and the general attitude that anything "military-grade" automatically justifies a 1000% markup.
The Blame Game: Who's Really at Fault?
Driscoll even admits the Army has been a "less-than-perfect customer." Well, duh. It's like he's just now realizing that demanding bespoke solutions for every little thing creates a system ripe for exploitation.
He says he tells the primes, "their system has changed, and you will no longer be able to do that in the United States Army." But what's actually changed? A few organizational charts and some tough talk? Until there are real consequences for cost overruns and missed deadlines, this is just more empty rhetoric.
This whole acquisition structure rework sounds like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Six "Portfolio Acquisition Executives" reporting to… more people? How is that cutting bureaucracy? Sounds like adding another layer of middle management to me. And this "Pathway for Innovation and Technology" (PIT) office? Seriously? Another committee to study innovation? According to Army Overhauls Acquisition Structure, this is a major change.
It's like they think innovation can be mandated from the top down. Newsflash: it doesn't work that way.
I mean, offcourse, I want the Army to get its act together. I want our soldiers to have the best equipment at a reasonable price. But I'm not holding my breath. This feels like another round of promises that will ultimately lead to… well, more of the same.
The Drone Dilemma and the Silicon Valley Solution
Driscoll also wants a million drones in the next few years. A million. Where are they going to get them? How are they going to manage them? And are they going to fall into the same trap of over-engineering and overpaying?
He mentions Ukraine manufacturing four million drones a year and China churning out 12-14 million. So, what's our plan? Invest in "sensors and brushless motors and circuit boards" and then "empower the private sector to purchase from us?"
Again, sounds great on paper. But what about the regulatory hurdles? The security concerns? The inevitable bureaucratic delays? It's a complex problem, and I'm not convinced this is a real solution.
Maybe I'm just cynical. Maybe I've seen too many of these "revolutionary" plans fall flat. But let's be real: the Army's acquisition problems aren't just about being "conned" by the defense industry. They're about a fundamental lack of accountability, a risk-averse culture, and a system that's designed to reward mediocrity.
So, What's the Real Story?
It ain't a "con" if you're a willing participant. The Army wants to pretend it's the victim here, but they're just as complicit in this mess as the primes they're blaming.