Opinion: Military leaders buy equipment, then get hired by the manufacturer. What could go wrong?

To the editor: The op-ed article on military procurement failed to mention that there is a high-ranking officer in charge of each of these expensive programs and that they often retire from the military to go work for the same contractors from which they were buying their products and services. (“America’s military is built to help defense contractors, not troops,” Opinion, May 24)

This is one reason why the Marines delayed purchase of mine-resistant vehicles for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and kept instead buying Humvees, allowing soldiers to continue to die needlessly as a result. The whistleblower who exposed this, Franz Gayl, was fired as a result of his efforts to get the 10-times more protective vehicles in use.

Soldiers, despite the rhetoric about warriors and heroes, are often treated by their leaders as cannon fodder. They have always been more at risk from their own officers — and this includes the officers pushing weapons and supply programs for personal advancement and monetary gain.

Bruce Stenman, Prundale, Calif.

..

To the editor: I’m a retired Army officer who believes that Department of Defense is getting too much money. This problem did not start with President Trump, but he is exasperating the situation.

Back in the 1980s, I visited a friend who was working at an Army research and development lab near Boston. He showed me around. One of the things they were working on was a quick-release strap.

At the time, when a paratrooper jumped carrying a heavy load, he would attach that load to his harness. Prior to landing, the quick-release knot that was used would be pulled so that the box landed before the trooper hit the ground (coming into contact with the ground carrying 100 additional pounds would be tough).

So here was this big research project to develop a quick-release strap when a piece of rope worked just fine for paratroopers. So why research something new? The answer, of course, is because the military is given so much money that those in charge must think how, and not why, to spend it.

Karl F. Schmid, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook