Subject: Re: Project 2025...
Yes, military procurement can be problematic.

For one thing, officers involved are then allowed to retire and go to work for the civilian contractors from which they used to receive bids/proposals.

Another, don't forget Congress. They're all talk about cutting the military budget, until some cut affects some business in their district. I know of at least two examples of that (i.e. the Osprey: Pentagon didn't want it, but the contractor actually landed on near the Capitol building as part of a marketing campaign to approve it; the other is the recent plan to convert several B52s from "bomb trucks" to nuclear-capable, even though the Pentagon doesn't want it or see a need for it).

And then there is over-spec'ing a project, though even that is a two-edged sword. (I recall people complaining about the $100 wrench, so the military was forced to use a $5 wrench that damaged the nuts, which then needed to be replaced more frequently, which ended up costing more than if you bought the correct $100 wrench designed for those nuts.)

As for Project 2025, I saw part of an interview in front of Congress (specifically, a black congresswomen...forget her name) with one of the architects of Project 2025. He was actually proud of the document, and fully supported the plan (obviously), which included removing Schedule F protection so inconvenient employees could be replaced at-will. He did not argue the point, tacitly admitting that was the goal. It's not "your interpretation", it is the obvious (and tacitly-admitted) goal.

I won't say there aren't democrat "party loyalists" in government, just as there are republican "party loyalists". People are people, and they have whatever views they have. But the hiring process -for the most part- is blind. Applications are screened by computers to spit out lists of qualified candidates for any given position. I've dealt with OPM, I know -more or less- how they work. The hires then go on to do their jobs as best they can.