Weapons Cuts Faces the "Iron Triangle"

This refers to Congress, which has greatly resisted major cuts to weapons programs, according to this from NYT:

Mr. (Ryan) Henry, whose official title is principal deputy under secretary of defense for policy, said the Pentagon's spending binge of the last several years - its budget has increased 41 percent since 9/11 - cannot be sustained. "We can't do everything we want to do."

...The issue, however, goes beyond tightening budgets. Mr. Henry told the contractors that the Pentagon was redefining the strategic threats facing the United States. No longer are rival nations the primary threat - a type of warfare that calls for naval destroyers and fighter jets. Today the country is facing international networks of terrorists, and the weapons needed are often more technologically advanced, flexible and innovative.

Then comes the trouble:

But already there are signs of trouble ahead. In the last few years, Mr. Rumsfeld has tried to kill some weapons systems he saw as Cold War anachronisms and to push a military modernization plan. But his efforts were thwarted by what Washington calls the Iron Triangle of Congress, the uniformed military command and military contractors.

But I agree with this quote:

"Osama is happy for us to spend billions on and F-22A fighter jet systems that can do him no harm," (said Winslow T. Wheeler, a military analyst at the Center for Defense Information in Washington). "It's hard to conceive of a larger gap between words and decisions."