Friday, December 12, 2008

Military Morons-2

"Although it is currently fashionable among many ivory tower academics to deemphasize the impact of armed conflict as a major factor in shaping world hisotry (in favor of more benign influences such as social and economic factors), simply ignoring war won't make it go away. This attitude is not only intellectually dishonest but also downright dangerous", Jerry Morelock (JM) at Armchair General, January 2009.

"I regret that the Frank Borman Commission (1977) lessened the role of science and mathematics in [West Point] education. Literacy in mathematics is the door to many of the skills that lead to currency in today's military. Too many senior officers simply do not have the background to understand in a causal way what is going on around them and how to maximize the capabilities of their weapons systems. Soldering is far more technical than it has ever been; in my view, we are not preparing our young officers to deal with that environment", my emphasis, Rob Wilkens interview of Montgomery Meigs (MM) at Armchair General, January 2009.

"The U.S. armed forces have fought many modern battles on foreign soil, but one of their most important engagements at present is an ongoing contest within the walls of the Pentagon concerning the nature of future war. ... The central debate within the U.S. defense community involves the question of the kind of military this country needs to protect its citizens from ongoing and emerging lethal threats. ... However, next-waritis is not always a bad thing. ... Defense expert George Friedman, writing in last June's Geopolitical Weekly, stated that the U.S. Air Force in particular needs F-22s and other conventional technology, including space-based weapons, as the key hardware of the next generation. ... Indeed, both Army and Marine Corps officers have complained that unmanned drones can accomplish jobs much more efficiently than manned bombers. ... History has shown that the best way to avoid a costly and destructive conflict is to be ready for one, and to make sure that our potential adversaries are fully aware that we are well armed and thoroughly prepared. Open criticism of defense planners, especially by the secretary of defense, serves little purpose and is indeed harmful to the morale of those charged with keeping America safe. Regardless of how detrimental it would be for our armed forces to lose or to withdraw from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outcomes of such actions would not pose an existential threat to the United States. However, being unprepared to face the dangers of a heavily armed China, Russia, or other nuclear nation-state (including India or Pakistan, although they are not presently hostile toward us) would have dire consequences for our country. ... Next-waritis is no disease; rather it is a method to prevent our nation's demise", my emphasis. Caspar Weinberger Jr. (CW) at Armchair General, January 2009.

Apparently JM knows his Trotsky.

MM is a retired US Army general. I agree with MM, our officers are becoming lawyers. See my 22 December 2007 post: Suggestion for Obama: subsidize hemlock as opposed to ethanol production.

When does that fool, that's my most positive spin on SecDef Gates, figure out his job? It's not: spin and spin and support Bush or Obama's preconceived notions about the state of the world. It's to recommend defense policy and equipment procurement to keep the US safe. You read it here first: Robert Gates is the Defense Department's Robert Rubin! When does Gates think the US will build its next generation of equipment if we engage China or Russia in war? After the war starts? Gates at best is a reckless fool, at worst, a traitor. I agree with CW, no result of anything we do in Afghanistan or Iraq poses "an existential threat to the United States". So why are we there? What's our Defense Department doing to protect us?

No comments: