The services are fighting over unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and whether the Air Force should be responsible for them, according to this interesting piece in Government Executive. It carries echoes of past battles over military aviation (should the Marines have their own air force, should the Navy, etc.), tactical aviation, the continuation of the A-10, etc. etc.
A footnote in an era when good government types are blasting earmarks--Sen Shelby, whose state has a big Army UAV post, is fighting to protect it by inserting language in the appropriations bill. Is this a negative earmark? (Doesn't "earmark" originally go back to notching the ears of cattle to assert ownership? )
No comments:
Post a Comment