Response to the "Implosion at the Pentagon"

See these links:

1. http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mavwX2rzg4
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26310-2004Jul3_2.html
   

Our way of war nowadays demands a restructuring of the U.S. department of war. I agree! We have the presence of too much expenditures on our wars and our military activities. When we are spending on military salaries, outsourcing military logisitics to contractors, fueling and supplying huge warships, and attack and fighter aircraft, we are indeed over-spending, and way beyond our means. We are the Roman Empire at its peak. And we are the Empire in Star Wars fighting insurgent rebels. Basically we are at this point in time, too large a force, that is strictly ineffective defending ourselves.
In conjunction to this, we are spending money that must keep moving, or consistently be spent without stopping, or the money is lost, that has been already alloted to the armed forces. Son one of two things can happen, the Pentagon will go ahead and put the planning forth to spend that money, so it doesn't go to waste, or what else? Does the American citizenry know where any unspent dollars for our military are going? In one case, the Washington Post, wrote, "The U.S. government has spent 2 percent of an $18.4 billion aid package that Congress approved in October last year after the Bush administration called for a quick infusion of cash into Iraq...". Why did the government ask for it all, if they didn't use it all, and how does the U.S. government explain where all that leftover money has gone? The pattern of money that was loosely accounted for, was "$500 million for Iraqi security forces, $315 million for electricity repairs, $460 million to rehabilitate the oil industry and $180 million to fund a property-claims commission". So if you analyze these spending patterns, you see that these are measures in securing energy proprietorship in the Middle East, by the U.S. Also, if you consider who gets this money, other than the armed forces, security spending goes to private security contractors, and the other three expenditures go to what seems to represent the private energy sector (i.e. energy infrastructure, oil infrastructure, and the international legal processes of land claim).
This seems to me, that war is not funded, but is used as an avenue to funnel dollars to private business interests,that could be possibly tied to Washington's political figureheads. What the New America Foundation is noting is that we are wasting money on the large military presence, when politicians are telling us we need funding to supply out troops, and to keep our huge Cold-War machines running. Instead the U.S. military system needs to change, to maximize on its spending, and to adapt to the new ways of fighting on battlegrounds that are contrary to those we faced in World War II and some in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. It could be a valid explanation for why Vietnam was such a failure. With the expensive equipment we use now we are not an effective fighting force. Jets from carriers drop less than one percent of there on-board armament. Our foot soldiers enter cities en mass, an offensive that is too exposed, and gives off too much presence, against a handful of insurgents, who hide among buildings, and bystanders. This is not efficient warfare, and seems to take more than it gives, so to speak.