posted
Before this gets totally out of hand, I need to step between you two.
Depending on certain things, military personel (depending on Clearance Level) definitely know certain things before anybody else. Here, we have the option of attending weekly intel briefings that tell us certain things about our actions around the world. One thing that should be noted, is that as soon as war breaks out those avenues are sealed and only those with a 'need to know' are notified about those things. I watched Bagdad blow up with the rest of you.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
NPR had an interview with two of President Bush's security advisors. They's recently written a book.
When asked about the size of the military, there statements were basically:
1) The military is too large. 2) The military works best with small, heavilly trained special forces type units that are able to reach objectives quickly and efficiently. 3) Support troops, from those running the motor pool to those swabbing the decks, are better off as sub-contracted non-military personell. 4) The era of big armies marching into enemy territory are over.
Their proof was the fact that our special forces did a fantatic job in Iraq. We invaded with half of the troops we wanted, and still succeeded far faster and easier than we hoped.
The question I had wanted asked was, "What about after word?"
While we have enough troups to meet the goals of force projection, we seem to be woefully short of troops for long term deployment. In other words, what should we have done, if we had this leaner, lighter, faster army, after the hostilities ended?
Do we try to patrol all of Iraq with a few Rangers and Seals and what ever MP's we can dig up?
We have the army to crush any enemy in the world, with the possible exception of the Chinese. Yet what do we do once we've succeeded?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: So now you're qualified to judge which things a soldier says are worth listening to and which aren't?
What? When did i say that?
What I was trying to get across was that the civilian oversight of the military, coupled with the general decency and morality of our soldiers is what gives me the opinion that what soldiers say is worth listening to. I made no indictment about distinctions between Column A: Worth Hearing. Column B: Not Worth Hearing
posted
I think i used too many words in the post in question to make my point, and ended up fumbling them. So i'll try it again, this time more succinctly:
quote: If we only listened to the military on military issues, we'd quickly (that is, within a decade or two) have a military dictatorship. Ambitious people would join the military and use their influence as "superior sources" to expand military power and take over. Civilian oversight of the military is one of the founding principles of this country.
quote:And the Maginot Line was stupidly ignoring a threat that should have been obviously real. If someone is sufficiently motivated to attack you that you are willing to build a defense like that, then you better be prepared for the fact that they will surely try to get around that defense.
Ahh, the clarity of hindsight. In another sixty years, what would people be saying if we structured our military to the minimum legitimate single threat?
quote:Iraq didn't know that, and they got destroyed because of their miscalculation. China conquered Tibet during the Cold War, long before the present order came about.
But Iraq didn't know that during the time of this so-called "New World Order" you speak of. They got destroyed because our military was so vastly overpowering against that particular threat, remember?
Without even mentioning China, you've just hamstrung your own argument, Tresopax.
As for China, you're saying that invasion for national gain is obsolete-mostlyh because the big players won't let it happen, and they've got nukes.
Does that ring a bell?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
"What they feel is neccessary" = What the soldiers feel is neccesary.
Is that where the confusion came in?
"They" does not equal "Crazy People like me"
"Which is why crazy people like me have the luxury of listening to our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, and taking what those servicemen and women feel is neccessary to heart."
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
