If that's the democratically decided priority and it can be achieved without cutting other budgets, raising taxes or running a deficit, then that's a good thing.
Conversely, fighting a bloated military by wasting money on IT boondoggles is not a strategy with a whole lot of long term potential IMO.
Tell what to the people being bombed? That you're hard at work changing their fortune by refusing to reform the IT procurement process of the US government? They will be eternally grateful.
As a USian, sometimes it seems like the high cost of war is the only reason we haven't invaded yet more countries. The vast cost is certainly one of the few arguments that has resonance across the political spectrum.
Given the willingness of the US government to run huge deficits, I don't see how fighting waste in completely different areas of government would enable the country to go war.
Never mind that we're taking about saving millions, while the last two wars each cost trillions. Or 100,000 Census Bureau websites as discussed in the article.
There is a big difference between the act of allocating more money to a budget, and having the capability to do so because you're being more efficient. Which was my point.
Conversely, fighting a bloated military by wasting money on IT boondoggles is not a strategy with a whole lot of long term potential IMO.