<<Who do you propose we burden with the responsibility of these decisions if not smart people with experience in the field ? A group of bluntus maximus that can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground? Don't bother looking that one up in your Latin dictionary, just take a look in the mirror.>>
I don't think any person or group should take on these decisions blindly and without reference to what other people may say or think, merely because they believe that they have the "qualifications".
I think it is extremely valid to argue (in the case of the Oz JSF deal) that the picture has changed since the competition was terminated and the commitment was made to JSF. JSF is more expensive; some of the alternatives (not the F-22) have become more credible; there may be value in the Super Hornet as a stopgap, and pushing the competition down the road to the point where it is needed (two to three years ahead of IOC).
I would suggest also that some people don't want to revisit the decision because the consequences could be negative (more political faffing around, for instance).
However, "if you're not a [insert qualification here] your statements are invalid" is a logical fallacy. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Now, if you want to argue that the best thing for Australia to do is to persist with JSF with no fixed price, on a schedule which means buying a lot of aircraft out of LRIP at $100m a pop, and that above all this decision must not be re-examined, go ahead.
And whatever your secret desires may be, the Mr Jones comment had nothing to do with anything of the sort, but maybe you do have many contacts out there among the lumberjacks.