[poof131]

So glad to see this. Military IT has been atrocious. I viewed the Navy Marine Corp Internet (NMCI) as damn near treasonous levels of awful when I got out a decade ago and assumed little improvement with the way contracts are done and the entrenched vendors. Happy to see Google win this not just because I prefer the solution now to MS, but that some change is happening. I still can’t believe we spent $7T on the global war on terror and no one is asking questions.

[drewpc]

I agree that military IT has been atrocious. I disagree that NMCI was "damn near treasonous levels of awful." NMCI was a large, Department of the Navy (DoN) -wide contract that had incredibly challenging tasks it needed to complete to be successful. The first few years were bad but it got better over time and, by the time the next transition was set to happen, it was running pretty smoothly.

When people complained about not getting the things they wanted, what they were really railing against was the fact that they didn't get what they wanted all the time anymore; the military grew accustomed to telling someone "I want X" and it happened, regardless of cost, lifecycle sustainment, security, etc. NMCI forced the DoN to develop and articulate requirements properly, write good contracts, budget for software and hardware sustainment, and generally operate professionally.

In short, I would take an NMCI computer and enterprise services from 2010 versus a Marine Corps Enterprise Network computer and enterprise services from 2022 any day of the week.

Disclosure: I have been a Marine Corps Communications Officer for almost 20 years; starting before NMCI. I worked at the regional and enterprise levels to transition ownership back from the NMCI program/contractor to government owned.

[alexjplant]

> . I disagree that NMCI was "damn near treasonous levels of awful."

In 2018 I was issued an NMCI laptop with a hard disk drive in it... with platters and a spindle and everything. Each time I powered it on I spent 20 minutes being serenaded by its deliciously clicky retro soundtrack as I waited for a desktop with a working Start menu (and I use the term "working" loosely since it took 5 seconds to appear when clicked). If I didn't have work to do it might have been comforting - it kind of reminded me of my old Presario V2555 from the late 90s. Constant McAfee updates and poorly-designed bespoke MFC management apps completed the aesthetic nicely.

"Treasonous" might be hyperbole but it isn't entirely unwarranted.

[drewpc]

I have had similar experiences, however, it's important to be specific: the NMCI contract ended in 2010 and DoN moved to the Continuity of Services Contract where we bought services piecemeal until we could fully take it over. The Navy and Marine Corps tried to transition to NGEN during this time but mostly failed and each service ended up taking different paths. Now, the two services operate their networks differently: the Marine Corps, for example, runs it as a government owned and "shared operations" model where it's mixed government and contractor.

I imagine that the laptop you were given in 2018 was not an NMCI laptop, but instead a laptop from either the Navy or Marine Corps' new ownership/operations model which is incredibly flawed. Also, HBSS was poorly implemented in the 2010 time frame and Tanium was introduced (at least in the Marine Corps networks) around 2017. Both are major contributing factors to the issue you're describing.

In short: the current state is that computers are barely usable and that is not NMCI from yester-year.

[navbaker]

This was 100% my experience. It was a standing joke in our Navy command of ~1200 people that the morning routine was to get into the office, type username/pw, then go get coffee and BS with co-workers for 30 minutes and by the time you got back, Outlook would just be finished coming up.

[sure_about_that]

== I still can’t believe we spent $7T on the global war on terror and no one is asking questions.==

Everyone who asked before we started that “war” was called a traitor.

[faeriechangling]

Not to put a fine point on it, but if you want to know what it was like back then, just say something like "I don't think we should finance the war in Ukraine. What is happening in Eastern Europe isn't our problem. Neutrality is the best policy" and see the rhetoric you'll hear. Usually blind allegations of shilling, being a Russian stooge, being a sock puppet, and so on.

It was several times worse in the early days of the GWOT. Sikh's were getting killed for looking too Muslim. The stuff you see now where people want to include mandatory "Fact checks" in internet searches sort of paled to the crap we saw in the GWOT of Extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation, the Bush doctrine, destroying privacy laws in the name of patriotism, and so on.

We've already started forgetting what happened.

[petersellers]

> Not to put a fine point on it, but if you want to know what it was like back then, just say something like "I don't think we should finance the war in Ukraine. What is happening in Eastern Europe isn't our problem. Neutrality is the best policy" and see the rhetoric you'll hear

What's happening now is not remotely comparable to what the US did in response to 9/11 - if anything, it's the opposite (we are defending a country from being invaded for BS reasons vs invading another country for BS reasons)

[somenameforme]

At the beginning of the Iraq War, and for sometime thereafter, we were led to believe that Iraq was actively developing WMD. We weren't invading a country, but saving the world from imminent catastrophe at the hands of an unhinged and crazy dictator.

The proof included claims by dozens of different intelligence agencies, testimony from high level insiders in the Iraq government, surveillance photos of mobile biological weapons laboratories, definitive proof of purchase of Uranium for nuclear weapons purposes, under oath testimony, and of course endless propaganda:

---

Washington Post - "Irrefutable" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...

NYTimes - "Irrefutable and Undeniable" : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u...

---

To imagine all of this was fabricated or based on lies would make even the most enthusiastic conspiracy theorist look at you a bit funny. These events played a major role in shaping my worldview. And what we're going through today is even more extreme.

The one bright side of this is that if we can manage to avoid nuclear annihilation, I expect an even larger chunk of the population will join the jaded and cynical asshole family. It's not a pleasant worldview, but probably necessary for the survival of humanity in the age of mass media and mass weapons.

[esailija]

It was all based on lies and fabrication without any conspiracy. You are assuming it requires a conspiracy to pull it off, but why would it? These agencies, media and companies are all interested in the same thing which is US hegemony and profits not the truth, that automatically makes them do this without need for any conspiracy.

And why wouldn't they? What exactly has been the punishment for so called reliable media for spreading lies over and over again? If anything they are considered more reliable than ever. Which means people consuming it are not interested in truth either.

[michaelt]

> You are assuming it requires a conspiracy to pull it off, but why would it?

Some might find it implausible the media and legislators were so credulous.

I mean, Saddam did allow UN weapons inspectors in before the war, and nobody could direct them to any WMD. Even at the time, it took some serious mental gymnastics to believe spy agencies had all this evidence of a huge programme, and yet couldn't direct weapons inspectors to anything.

[faeriechangling]

Looking into the history of it, I don't think there was any sort of systemic conspiracy, but a loose collection of incentives.

If you wanted to sell papers, you needed to sell stories about AMERICA STOPPING TERRORISM! How did you get access to stories of marines busting down doors and shoving the foreign looking faces of murderous terrorists into the dirt? Well you had to be known as a news source who said the right things, had the right attitude.

At these news organisations there were some editors who were mostly there before 9/11 happened who decided that supporting America was the crap and were pushing stories from any reporter who had "sources" that gave evidence of what was going down. Readers LOVED reading stories about heroes who kicked the ass of murderous terrorists. It was a feedback loop, the more hawkish you were the more you succeeded, the more dovish you were the more irrelevant you were.

[elefanten]

You can't seriously compare the assertions pushed through the media after 9/11 to the multitudes of sensory and social evidence that Ukraine was attacked.

I opposed GWOT / going into Iraq after 9/11, I have not forgotten the collective national mania.

But the comparison you're drawing to Ukraine is nonsense. If you're at the point where you believe all the reports, images and interviews detailing the millions of refugees crossing out of Ukraine have been faked... I'm not sure how to help you.

[tchalla]

> If you're at the point where you believe all the reports, images and interviews detailing the millions of refugees crossing out of Ukraine have been faked...

Clearly, that's not what the OP is saying.

[faeriechangling]

I'm not comparing the worthiness of the two wars, I'm comparing the public excitement around the wars. I definitely am far more supportive of a defensive war than a pre-emptive war on general principle.

[jlawson]

>Sikh's were getting killed for looking too Muslim.

I'm sorry but this sounds like an activist fever dream/urban legend. Are there actually two (or even one) known incidents like this from that time period?

I'm not defending the GWOT or opposing it here but that's an extreme characterization you're making; I was there and it doesn't match anything like my memory.

[hiddencost]

Here's a few murders: Balbir Singh Sodhi, Waqar Hasan, Adel Karas, Saed Mujtahid, Jayantilal Patel, Surjit Singh Samra, Abdo Ali Ahmed, Abdullah Mohammed Nimer, and Vasudev Patel.

[closewith]

Presumably he's referring to Balbir Singh Sodhi.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Balbir_Singh_Sodhi

[Godel_unicode]

Or one of the 16 others in Muneer Ahmad’s 2004 paper. Although they were not all Sikh.

[qubex]

I often find myself wondering what latter-day “common sense” will be viewed uncharitably as jingoism in a few years hence.

[throwaway6734]

Supporting Ukraine is much closer to supporting the UK during WW2.

[eastbound]

Yes, but remember that the UN Security Council has a habit of fabricating evidence. Colin Powell was never trialled for showing “proof of WMD in Irak” and he died in 2021, with no penalty for his lies.

That happened with every recent war. It’s a habit of fabricating evidence, not mere clerical errors.

[sofixa]

> Yes, but remember that the UN Security Council has a habit of fabricating evidence

The UN Security Council is not a singular entity, it's composed of permanent and rotating members, so it can hardly have "habits". A member can come with fabricated evidence, which can be accepted by other members for whatever reason, but that's not the UN Security Council fabricating evidence.

[throwaway6734]

What's the relevance?

Has Russia not been illegally Ukraine, trying to steal it's territory, and trying to destroy its culture since 2014?

[somenameforme]

Crimea is almost exclusively ethnic Russian. This [1] is from the 2013 Wiki page on Ukrainian demographics. The annexation polls in Crimea from 2014 were not fabricated or coerced, and their results were subsequently validated by numerous Western polling agencies, including Gallup [2].

That's the entire question of this war (and the one entirely absent from Western media). After the Russian leaning government in Ukraine was overthrown in 2014, those heavily Russian territories declared their independence, starting a civil war. Numerous efforts were made to resolve this were made (the Minsk accords), but went nowhere. Russia blamed Ukraine, Ukraine blamed Russia.

So who gets to decide the fate of a people within an area? The people within that area, or the government with historic claims to the land of the area? That's not a rhetorical question because the traditional answer has always been the latter - generally changed only by war or collapse.

But I think it's an important and fundamental one that must eventually be answered on a global scale if we ever want a peaceful world. At what scale does the right to self determination and rule begin? Obviously a household shouldn't be able to declare itself independent, but a city? County? State? Region?

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_U...

[2] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-a...

[gadders]

As a Brit - no.

[jorvi]

Yours is an absolutely terrible analogy.

How did “not my war” turn out in the 1930s?

> We've already started forgetting what happened.

The cherry on the ironic top.

[somenameforme]

I would go back to the root cause there. World War 1 ended up with Brits and Germans killing each other because a Bosnian Serb assassinated an Austro-Hungarian Royal.

The Treaty of Versailles was nothing short of sadistic in the penalties it imposed on Germany which, shockingly, didn't result in Germany rejoining the modern world order (of the time) but growing to despise it even more. It is this which set the stage for the rise of a vegetarian artist who had a knack for oratory and riling up crowds.

WW2 was likely necessary, but WW1 was not. And WW1 created WW2. The worst part is also always the propaganda. When WW1 was being carried out it was being framed, at the time, as 'The War to End All War.' What cause could possibly be more noble? Of course it not only didn't end all war, but even directly led to even more war. And the fundamental cause of the conflict which initially triggered the war persists to this day!

[sofixa]

> World War 1 ended up with Brits and Germans killing each other because a Bosnian Serb assassinated an Austro-Hungarian Royal

Russians and French died in much higher numbers on the Entente side than the Brits (who only joined due to Belgium's neutrality being violated anyways).

However, you probably know that the assassination of the morganatically married heir presumptive of the Austro-Hungarian throne was not the real reason for the war, only the spark that ignited the powder keg. There were many reasons and a lot of tension building for decades, starting with, funnily, Germany beating Austria which forced them to expand south, towards Bosnia, and also Germany beating France making the latter want revenge. The former pitted Austria-Hungary against Russia in the Balkans, on top of the many problems between the different Balkan countries. The latter made France eager for revenge and desperate to not be alone next time, hence it's cozying to Russia and the UK. Sprinkle an agressive German naval build-up that pushed the UK towards the Entente, German fears of Russian rearmament, Austrian fears of irrelevance, etc. and you have a powder keg with clearly defined lines just waiting for a spark.

[faeriechangling]

>How did “not my war” turn out in the 1930s?

For the Americans? I'd say their policy of being a "neutral" arms dealer mostly made the Americans a ton of money and rocketed them to global superpower status. Now Japan did attack them in a hostile action but America kind of pounded them after so I'm still not sure "neutrality" worked out so badly for them. If anything the Americans started doing worse and worse the more and more they got involved in wars halfway across the world.

For the Brits? Yeah appeasement was kind of a policy failure, Hitler turned out to not be the most trustworthy chap. I dare say Hitler was an unscrupulous chap.

[jti107]

dont forget the tax cuts and bailouts for big business that is added to the US national debt. currently at 31 trillion...but investing in education and healthcare for normal people is socialism

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[exq]

Student load forgiveness is socialism, but hundreds of billions in PPP loans with no obligation to repay is "stimulating the economy"

Classy.

[User23]

Both are direct expansions of the M1 money supply, which generally speaking will increase demand. Although sustainably stimulating the economy requires sustained investment on the supply side of the demand equation.

[_-david-_]

The government shut down businesses so it makes sense to compensate them. The government didn't force people to go the college or take out loans to pay for it.

[hashin]

Actually government does. It makes sense to nudge people towards acquiring more skills and they routinely do that. Also, the economy is punishing for those who don't have a college degree (it always was, but perhaps not at this level.)

And how did we reach here? Government policies. I am not saying that these policies were bad. But there can be no denying that government is the major reason why more and more people are going to college. And definitely, if college is not free or subsidised, they will be forced to take loans. Again, because economy is punishing for those who don't have a college education.

[_-david-_]

I agree the government does nudge people to go to college. The problem is there is a difference between nudging people and arresting people. Nobody is putting a gun to your head requiring you to go to college.

I agree the economy is set up against non college educated people. We should work to change that. Promoting trade schools as legitimate alternatives to college might help. I am not sold that would solve much though. A lot of young people don't want to get into the trades. How many 18 year olds who just graduated high school want to be a plumber?

One thing I will say is that I don't think it is solely the government to blame. Companies require degrees for jobs that don't need it. They probably do it since there is a massive amount of people with degrees so they may as well get one of them to work for the company. We need companies to step up and stop requiring degrees. At the company I work at there are people with degrees who are working in data entry.

[hackyhacky]

The government has an interest in educating its citizens. Just like how every other Western country subsidizes education.

[_-david-_]

Has nothing to do with my point. The government required some businesses to shut down. They didn't force you to take out college loans.

If you want to say there shouldn't be loans for college or whatever that is fine. The fact is, the US is not in that situation.

[refurb]

The government in the US does subsidize education.

Nobody was forced to take on debt they can repay because their were no job prospects.

[sure_about_that]

== The government shut down businesses so it makes sense to compensate them.==

Not all loans went to businesses that were forced to shut down.

[_-david-_]

Correct. The subsidies were supposed to go for retrofitting builds, covering employment costs due to lower demand, and to cover costs due to being shut down. All of which were due to government policies.

[QuarterReptile]

It's quite possible that NMCI works just as poorly now. In my office we have desktops running Windows 10 on 8gb RAM and HDD (spinning drives.) It should surprise no one that Windows 10 has bloated beyond the capability of slow hard drives to keep up; I maintain maxed out disk read utilization at all times, and consequent here maximum number of browser tabs before lag kicks in is none. Outlook is even worse than Chrome (new official browser of DoD websites.) The fastest way to check email at work is to go out to my car and connect laptop via Hotspot for OWA. Next best way is to go home and use OWA there, with using the work computer the slowest option by about 10 minutes.

[thelittleone]

War on terror or war on anything. It's a complex thing. To hold on to power, a country must be constantly training their war machine. Wars are the best training for war. So say $7T is the cost of retaining power. What would the cost be of losing that power?

Despite this grim perspective, I have hope for the future of humanity.

[exq]

Causing the deaths of 40-200 thousand civilians, thousands of our own armed forces and tens of thousands returning home wounded was just the cost of working that military muscle? Sorry but that's even more f'd up than the official reason we got told.

[redanddead]

7T is a nice chunk of all the money in the world. What the fuck. Scammed to the sun and back.

[UtopiaPunk]

Yikes

[throwaway892238]

Questioning military spending (or anything the military does) is still evidence that you're a traitor who hates America and the troops.

[bruce511]

There is the false connection linking the Military with People. It is deliberately engineered to prevent criticism of the military.

There is also the idea that the "military" are not to blame for wars, wars are created by politicians not the military. The truth is of course that generals want to go to war because it keeps their budget allocation high.

These myths make it hard to both support Joe who's back from the war, and yet be anti the war in the first place. It's hard to mention that the overall military budget seems like a lot, without sounding like you're anti-joe.

Even something as simple as "thank you for your service" is in some ways a propoganda. To ask an ex serviceman about the point of the Afgan war, to ask them if 100 000 dead Afghans makes up for 3000 on 9/11, to question the logic of signing up to serve in an army currently fighting an unjust war, would seem antagonistic.

To question how Afghanistan is different to Ukraine would be unthinkable. [1]

In truth one can (and should) support veterans, but perhaps can also raise questions about the scale of US military spending, and question the wisdom of having an enormous standing military which needs to get involved in conflicts of dubious value, simply to justify its own existance.

[1] they are of course very different in a lot of ways, but in effect are the same in more ways we'd care to admit.

[Godel_unicode]

Have you ever actually tried to have such a conversation? You might be surprised at how many veterans feel about their time in Afghanistan or who they think really disrespected their service.

[bruce511]

An excellent question.

The short answer is "not a lot" - primarily because I think it's a conversation best had in person, not via forums. It's hard to create the nuance such a discussion would need when typing.

But, perhaps more to the point, it's not veterans that worry me. I suspect (as I think do you) that many are disillusioned with the real outcomes of the war. Just like those who served in Vietnam etc.

No, the people who worry me are the "politicals". Those who see _any_ criticism of the military as being anti-troops. (As noted above, this is expressly the outcome the military-industrial-complex has been working on forever.) And the messaging is so successful that, on either side of the isle, it's basically political suicide to "vote against the military".

While reducing the spending on the military may garner some support from those who have actually served (although I doubt in significant percentages) - it's the blow-back from those not actually in the military (military families, and everyone else) which is most concerning. There are not so supportive as those who are not actually doing any of the work or in any of the danger.

[flakyfilibuster]

i have to admit it felt weird as a non-us person, when the airplane pa system mentioned, that someone from the armed forces was also riding along and calling out that person by name and the subsequent clapping...

[User23]

I can, off the top of my head, think of seven trillion reasons why.