This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Rethinking The Art Of Military Planning
Submitted by Gregory R. Copley at Oilprice.com
It is often assumed that what preoccupies military planners is their attempts to define the shape of future warfare so that they can adequately prepare equipment and doctrine ideal to meet the threat. Evidence, however, shows that what most occupies their attention is how to adapt existing force structures and systems to react to emerging conditions.
The vast bulk of their attention, inevitably, is on the massive capital investment in weapons systems which last, often, a half-century — longer than the span of most political eras — and force structures and doctrine which have accumulated over decades, or longer. There is little scope for innovative, clean-sheet thinking, and even when that occurs, there is little ability to bend the vast bulk of the military and national machinery to the emerging requirements.
Anyway, absent a firm and demonstrable capability change from a threat area, any planning for change, unless it is with offensive weapons, is based on supposition and guesswork. Inevitably, then, change occurs almost entirely as reaction.
The International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), undertook studies in recent years into how US forces failed to adequately anticipate, and even to react to, emerging patterns of warfare against them by irregular forces in Iraq. The use by these forces of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and later guerilla rocket attacks, should have been anticipated from warfare patterns in Chechnya and in the Arab-Israeli wars, but the US was unwilling to learn lessons from these theaters for a variety of cultural reasons.
The result of these unexpected opposing tactical methodologies by Iraqi (and later, Afghan Talibani) irregular forces, was to be of strategic importance. US military planners initially responded to the threat — which they had not fully anticipated — by up-armoring light vehicles. The result was that the full, two stages of blast were not addressed. Slam-down (ie: the second stage of a blast event) caused a significant proportion of the deaths, even though up-armoring the vehicles had protected occupants from some of the first-stage blast. But the severity of injuries of those who survived slam-down was unprecedented in terms of numbers and outcome, and the cost of injuries to taxpayers was even more than the cost of deaths.
Worse, mission success was minimized, and the political cost of the deaths, injuries, and slow mission achievement caused US voters to oppose the war. The Coalition’s adversaries merely needed to wait for political pressures at home to undermine the entire war effort. Thus did the outcomes of poor tactical reaction, and lack of vision, have strategic consequences. US approaches to mine-protected vehicles, despite their failure, began to dominate international thinking. Failure on a grand scale became the model for modern militaries.
The ISSA research, however, began to seep through the US Congress, which began putting pressure on the US Defense Dept., and some changes gradually began to occur. Energy-absorbing (EA) seating and restraint systems began to find their way into US vehicles, but even so, the up-armoring of those vehicles still caused a massive distortion of their intended capabilities. Mission success continued to play a poor second priority to personnel survivability, and even that “priority” was poorly addressed.
What is being seen now, however, is that the same advances in seating and restraint systems can begin to provide substantial improvements in addressing passenger and driver fatigue. Troops can reach the operating theater in better condition, better able to achieve their mission. For logistical operations, as well, long-term injuries from strain and fatigue can be alleviated. Indeed, addressing the two stages of blast, and addressing the issue of fatigue, through the use of new forms of seating and restraint systems in vehicles can be the key to achieving mission success and reducing the strategically-important threat of high casualty levels and grinding approaches to battlefield victory.
Even so, the question of armor is only being slowly addressed. Some US light vehicles (HMMWVs) entering Afghanistan are, apart from being almost laughably unwieldy, have a life-span of only about 5,000 miles, despite a cost — with armor — of more than $150,000. Now, as with the seating and restraint solutions, new approaches to layering lightweight armor coupled with spray-on, or paint-on, special mastic, can dramatically reduce the spalling of bomb or projectile fragments while also reducing weight and cost.
Why is it, though, that these solutions for seating and restraint and for novel armoring approaches, are taking so long to permeate the minds of US military planners? Have the lessons of huge political cost and ultimate grand-strategy failure in Iraq — where, arguably, Iran has won the day — not been recognized or understood?
It is, of course, not too late for the US Army and US Marine Corps to learn and adapt their doctrine and vehicles to emerging battlefield realities. They have already been doing so. the M-ATV (mine-protected, all-terrain vehicle) being deployed to Afghanistan — at vast cost — is already better than the MRAPs (mine-resistant, ambush-protected ) vehicles hastily and expensively built for Iraq. The reality is, though, that neither set of vehicles — and the modifications to other US military vehicles — showed that the planners learned enough, or availed themselves of solutions which were ready for them. Indeed, off-the-shelf solutions were there for the asking within Coalition partner states, but no-one asked.
Other armies face the same challenges: Turkey, Pakistan, the PRC, the NATO states and Australia, and so on. They do not need to follow the US down the path of costly mistakes, with the attendant repercussions on mission success and therefore politically-determined outcomes on the battlefield. Perhaps the costly lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan should cause a re-thinking of how strategic planning as an art-form must itself be revisited. The cost of failure is now, in a changing world, dramatic.
This article was written by Gregory R. Copley for Oilprice.com who focus on Fossil Fuels, Alternative Energy, Metals, Oil Prices and Geopolitics. To find out more visit their website at: http://www.oilprice.com
- 5640 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Interesting. But I think this fails to take into account the entire contracting process and how corrupt it is. By not including the workings of the military industrial complex and how it interacts with congress, you can't possibly make a coherent analysis on the state of readiness in terms of troops or their equipment
Reams have been written about this. So I won't regurgitate it here except to say, I've seen this process up close. Once one understands that the process is what provides the profits, then you can also understand why desirable outcomes for the US may be at odds with the profit goals of contractors, the career aspirations of the program managers, the generals overseeing the programs and the congresspeople who assure that their districts get a piece of whatever is built to such a degree that the DoD is not in complete control of the equipment that they order.
More specifically, there have been plenty of demands for an IED detector. That has been going on since the first few went off in Iraq. A comprehensive detection system would have reduced the need for up-armoring existing vehicles plus the purchase of other new vehicles to such a degree, that they would have been hard to build at a profit.
The contract for a detection device was grabbed by John Murtha (D) , a high ranking PA congressman and former marine. It was handed to a company in his district in 2004 as a sole supplier no bid contract.
The company couldn't design it's way out of a paper bag. But it was in Murtha's district along with a myriad of defense and law enforcement companies that did little to contribute to the over-all security if the country but contributed heavily to his campaigns. In fact, it is said that Murtha single-handedly brought Johnstown PA's unemployment rate from 23.5% in 1982 ( when he was caught up in the ABSCAM sting) to 5% now at the expense of the rest of the country
The reason no one protested what obviously was going to be an EPIC FAIL; There were too many vested interests in the continuation of large scale purchases and manufacturing of these vehicles. That is a perfect example of what I suggested in the first part of the post. The death,destruction, financial waste and loss of prestige that this has caused is always secondary to the ability of the MIC to grow and prosper. If there is no war there is no MIC, if there is no MIC there is no jobs program that congresspeople can use for re-election.
Does this help?
I own part of a military contractor and the contracting and development process is totally bonkers and corrupt. Funding has become a game with the spoils given to those with the best lobbyist and the most generals on their boards. You think that the financial services industry is messed up.
+100
The F-22 had contractors in 44 states. That's how you get a 20 Year 100 Billion dollar aircraft through that doesn't have air to ground capability, can't land on carriers and when the production version was being ferried to Japan, the on-board computers hard crashed to the point where the pilots had to follow the tankers back to Hawaii, flying by sight.
It was built for dogfights? I don't know. It was a product of the 80s when people were concerned with the capabilities of the newest MIG fighters . Then when that threat disappeared the only plausible reason they could come up with is that they had sold so many of the current fighter jets abroad, they needed to have something that was superior to our own technology.
It's spectacular looking, unmatched in manuevering and it's canceled after 170+ of them had been built. With R & D factored in, they run 376 Million each. DefSec Gates refused a request to have them sent to Iraq. I guess he was too scared one would crash. Besides, without air-to-ground capability, what exactly would they do? Smoke some Pigeons?
a fantastic comment, Dburn. great share.
my worthless 2 cents on the topic, n to KISS it: the US Armed Forces, especially their egghead DoD / NSA / CIA / DoE planners are effectively all Clausewitz and no Sun Tzu.
innumerable iterations of "sinking the Maine" notwithstanding ... from ft. sumter to the maine itself to the gulf of tonkin to the oh-so-very-Pearl Harbor-esque Project for a New American Century ... the overarching doctrine du jour is simply mahan (al. thayer) principle overlaid upon patton tactics of forward, forward, (costs be damned) forward.
from wiki:
" In pointing out how unlikely his ascent was Kyle Whitney compared his chances of achieving prominence in the navy to that of "a cheerleader becoming president". "
Umm, anyone else care to take a humorous swing at that slow pitch softball. wow.
Dburn: Excellent post! Having seen the process up close from the military side where I was perpetually fighting for the best possible end product from a contract, I agree with your analysis completely.
Winston, when you say you were fighting for the best possible end product from a contractor, could you go into more detail? I'm curious if you saw what I did which was political cover given to certain contractors to produce below spec product.
I was watching the body armor saga up close. The e-sapi and x-sapi plates were made from a composite which was poured into a mold and then cooled. Depending on the mix of the composite the quality varied wildly to the point where a single shot could penetrate, even if the caliber of the round was under the specified tolerance.
I also saw a Barrett design for a replacement of the M-16/M-4. I thought it was incredibly well thought out and designed . He used a larger round with similar knock down power as a 7.62mm. It is a 6.8mm round . He also made the replacement rifle so it was almost impossible to say no too if the other party was rational and had troop welfare in mind. He produced it in two configurations: A full weapon and a upper stock receiver, which means it could slide into the M-16 stock and utilize the same magazines, and the accessories that have been built up over the years, like the 40mm Grenade launcher.
In addition to single round knock down power going out to 600 yards, where the AK-47 was only good to 400 yards, he made sure that the rifle was virtually impervious to the elements. That meant no one would be getting killed in a firefight because sand, mud or bad karma jammed the weapon up. He also had a very strong in with his sniper rifle. I think the Air Force used it to get the best weapon design of 2005 award. But that wasn't enough. Gen Brown of PEO soldier was sticking up for the M16/M4 and had the power to stop the M468 which I'm sure came from select congresscritters. He was also the one that stopped Dragon Skin body armor at the door having the end result of virtually bankrupting the company.
Pinnacle, the makers of Dragon Skin, had a Level 5 Vest that the Army Classified as top secret , which meant he couldn't sell it to anyone except the Army and they wouldn't buy it. Talk about a Catch 22.
The economics of each product were similar in that there was a huge replacement business following the initial sale. In Body Armor, which is high margin, there was 6 manufacturers. Each time a plate was dropped or one of the troops dropped hard to the ground to get to cover, the plate had to be replaced. In fact it had "Fragile, Handle with Care nomenclature stenciled on the front of each plate...for body armor that was rated to take multiple 7.62 armor piercing rounds? That comes from the design and the composite used to build it. If a manufacturer used less of a more expensive portion of the composite that meant more profit. They rarely had any service personnel do QC.
PEO soldier let out a contract for this year worth 6 billion dollars just for plates. Meanwhile the DragonSkin had a 6 year warranty. Purchased in quantity for say 100,000 combat troops might have had a one time cost of 3-4 Billion dollars. Not 6 Billion a year after the first 2-3 Billion was spent.
Then the M-16/M4, used 5.56 mm ammunition which was worth billions of dollars each year not to mention replacing the rifles that were lost , stolen or broken. There would have been a similar situation with the M-468, but troops wouldn't have to worry about it jamming and trying to do maintenance right in the middle of a firefight. It had one shot one kill capability where the m-16 seemed to require multiple hits to drop a target, especially the enemy that were hyped up and ready to dive into to a crowd to get their 24 virgins.
I also say a similar situation with a small vehicle to roll out of an Osprey , which there are still plenty of naysayers on the final final final production design. One vehicle was completely open with a Marine that would stand up with a 50 Caliber Machine gun. It rolled during testing at 22 MPH. The competitor that was knocked out had a mini tank that looked like it was right out of star wars. It looked like it had the potential for other applications too. General Dynamics and a ret Marine Col were behind the roll over dunebuggy. A small manufacturer was behind the 21st century design.
Then there was the NIH problem with the Trophy computerized 360 protection system for armored vehicles that the Israelis had perfected. So if a armored vehicle was stopped by an IED and it was just disabled the Trophy could ward off a ambush of RPG rounds with 98% success . Instead the DoD decided to give a huge contract to Lockheed Martin to build it for delivery in 2011. The trophy system was ready 2-3 years ago.
Plenty more stories, but those were some of the more egregious ones besides the IED detector. I have been involved in electronic design and there isn't any doubt that if this was the WW11 era that the finest designers would have been snatched from the various companies and put in a building until they came out with multiple solutions.
Not now. That's why I believe now that the wars will stop when the checks start bouncing. If a substantial amount of profiteering is allowed then the contractors who also have a fierce lobby, will under the cover of numerous AstroTurf organizations lobby for the continuation of hostilities. . People had all kinds of conspiracy theories. Mine is simple. Greed.
To bring this lengthy post home to what this site is about: Armor Holdings, the maker of the up-armored vehicles mentioned by the author had a market cap of 300 Million in 2003 right before the Iraq war. It was sold to BAE in 2007 for 4 Billion. The CEO pocketed 300 Million on the sale. One of the VPs made a bundle. He was the Ret Col that had flunked Dragonskin when he was still on active duty. 6 Months later he was retired and a VP for Armored Holdings which was sold 7 months to BAE after that for 4 Billion.
If Ike couldn't stop this shit, I don't see how anyone can.
One possible long /short stock is Ceradyne. (CRDN) Stock may head up as the surge continues. They are one of the bigger Plate makers. Once the checks start to bounce, they would make a terrific short candidate. May as well make some money to cover the waste of the tax dollars.
Goddamn inflation. I remember back when those guys were getting around 100 or so. Should'a got GOLD, then BITCHES!
dragonskin is overhyped because of "as seen on TV" from the bullshit discovery channel segment
scalar armor has different qualities than plates and should be tested based on the weakest link and aspects.
because every tile on scalar armor is angled, the correct test is to shoot the weakest point of the armor, perpendicular to the tiles (not the backing), where there is no overlapping of tiles
http://www.evolutionarmor.com/Rifletile.htm
Furthermore, the adhesive used to bind the tiles to the backing was found during army testing to disintegrate from heat and chemical/oil exposure, causing the tiles to fall out of place and leave holes in protection.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/files/dragon_skin_release_000121may0...
not all plate technology is fragile and subject to damage from abuse;
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-armor/videos/1729105-Max-P...
I recommend everyone do their own due diligence before passing judgement
You of course are referring to the 55 minute presentation given by Gen Brown as a rebut to the NBC news special that compared Dragon Skin against Armor Holdings Interceptor.
As you said , everyone should do their own Due Diligence. For example, on all the tests the army claimed that Dragon Skin failed including the adhesive. The tests where repeated at the Aberdeen proving grounds and the armor passed with flying colors. One should also note that , inexplicably, the army used HP white Laboratories, a for profit, testing lab that had an unfortunate accident. The lab that held all the video of the tests with no off-site backups, not just the key clips that Brown used to crucify the armor, coincidentally burned down soon after the NBC special and Gen Brown was called to testify on the hill. Amazing eh? Brown promised at that time that new testing would be held for all body armor including the flexible system of which there is only one, Dragon skin. Why, because they didn't buy the very same presentation you are linking too now. Those tests occurred but without Dragon skin, once the spot lights moved on in June of 2007 .
So it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that BAE bought HP White after it bought Armor Holdings. BAE then admitted this year that were going to have to write off most of their 4 Billion dollar purchase of Armor Holdings. I wonder why that is? As part of the Postscript of this clusterfuck: is that Point Blank Armor, the original supplier of the Interceptor, a company whose shares traded in the Pink sheets, saw it's largest shareholder and CEO sell over 100 million dollars worth of shares as it was run up on the pink sheets.
Point Blank somehow got an exclusive sole supplier contract that the army was legally bound to . Which is why many of the troops were forced to wear Vietnam era flack jackets in 03-04, as Point Blank couldn't deliver the body armor in sufficient quantity, presumably for lack of funds ( even though the CEO threw a 10 Million dollar party for his daughter featuring Aerosmith as the music provider) , as the insurgency started up in Iraq. Since the fall out with Armor holdings along with the Ret Col and his quick departure after helping Brown with that presentation you hold up as some sort of proof, A couple of Ret. Cols took over key positions in Point Blank armor and now they are an incumbent supplier since Armor Holdings no longer exists.
So as you dip into war by power-point for your evidence that has already been thoroughly discredited, I suggest you you go back to the balack board and write PowerPoint is Bullshit 1000 times. .
As far as shooting into the weak point of the overlapping armor, that's a little difficult to do , because the armor is epoxied into rubber that goes over the armor which is then inserted into a Kevlar vest. So finding "a weak Point" and shooting into it with any accuracy from even point blank ranges under extreme and even not so extreme conditions is a rather long stretch. The fact is, overlapping armor is significantly stronger than a single large plate that was a "feature" of the E-Sapi and X- Sapi plates.
That's why they were marked " fragile handle with care" Further , and not to belabor the point, you'll note that Brown repeatedly stressed that Body armor was tested to a set of standards. One of the standards was one penetration, one failure. That is confusing because within the next few minutes of the presentation, Brown claimed there was 13 penetrations in the Dragon Skin. That should have never happened if they were testing to standard. The Armor should have been failed on penetration one.
My personal opinion is that Brown and company, went for overkill as Armor Holdings was the incumbent and they wanted to be sure that no one doubted that Dragon Skin would never hold up despite it being the BA of choice for special forces operators. All of which is a tired argument, I hate to say, because we will never really know since the test lab has been burned and purchased by the company who might have had some legal liability if further investigation was pursued since it now owned the assets and the liabilities of Armor Holdings. Dragon Skin , with the help of the ever so eager to please Gen Brown, was put on the Debarment list for fraud for claiming that the armor had a 6 year warranty. When it was retested it was believed it would last no more than 5 years. Hence fraud. While the Interceptor warranty is one shot or one dropped box of replacement plates whichever comes first.
Pinnacle is in it's death throes now. The MIC always wins. That is the take-away, not the BS power point that you linked to which the only thing that proves is what I just said, the MIC always wins.
BTW, This is the Same Gen brown that claimed the M-16 was a fine rifle and new enhancements were coming at any time. He said that a few years ago and it was mentioned in the last few days as troops began to complain about the M-16/M4 again, perhaps in the mistaken belief that a new President, and a new civilian staff, would actually listen to what the troops on the front lines were saying instead of Generals who had never seen a shot fired in anger. By all means though, do your own due diligence. Have you done yours today?
since the finer details of shot angle apparently flew over your head, it is clear to me you are not an engineer, nor do you have any awareness of vector dynamics.
I suggest you take a class on vector forces before you comment any more on this..
Regardless, we're all gonna need some kind of armor soooooon...
This isn't from the the body Armor company that started up in Murtha's backyard in Johnstown? That name sounds awful familiar. Please tell me it ain't so
HAHAHAHA Allan D. Bain?
Lets just say ol Allan there doesn't like Murray much.
Hit the nail on the head!
dburn:
Thanks for the post. This message needs to be repeated, repeated, repeated.
Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex, so long ago, was prescient but ignored. Too much was at stake for the complex that had become very influential and powerful by the 60's. WWII was a two front war with prepared enemies; the threat was real. A population that had had hard times with occassional shootings over property rights, was mobilized with clearly idetifiable goals. The victory was glorious with a peace fashoned by mature men. The effect that experience had on public policy is still with us today.
Now our country is approaching bankruptcy, with a series of not so mature men in high office. Things that would not be believed possible two years ago are part of the daily reporting.
The one certainty is that it won't stay this way. Between the blogosphere and the still active electrial process things should eventually emerge with more honest disclosure on high.
And, IMO, most would agree that it isn't boring.
If you want a good book to read about changing military doctrine and practice to counter new threats you should read...Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam - By John A. Nagl. In the book he describes how the British Army was able to change their entire focus in Malaya from a conventional force to a counterinsugency. Basically they were getting their asses handed to them by the Malayans by fighting them conventionally. They shifted their strategy to a counterinsugency strategy and licked the Malayans in no time flat. Their advisors begged us to do the same in Vietnam. Of course, we didn't, and you know the rest.
Up armoring vehicles is ok, I guess. But,a very effective way to stop IED attacks is to strategically position sniper teams around any changeable routes that may or may not be taken. Don't say that we can't afford this or don't have enough of these men trained to do this. Since we went into Iraq, we have been cranking out these teams left and right. Also, don't make the claim that they have to be in the right place at the right time. These teams can be left in place for days.
These men are trained to take out any Hadji that is wielding a shovel, videotaping traffic patterns, milling around with radios, digging next to a parked car, etc. These guys are pretty easy to spot since they actually have to plant the IED before it goes off. Anyhow, if one of the teams kills an innocent Hadji, well then his family can take solace in the fact that they died for the cause.
Have a good one!
It's too bad all those 'insurgents' had to die defending their homeland. If only the British had this guy to fight the colonists. We'd all still have an accent you fucker.
Just when I thought the financial stories were getting a little predictable...
The Pentagon was caught with their pants down as usual, however they did anticipate some of the newer tactics - the "Three Block War", for example. IEDs are a difficult problem because the US doesn't control even 1% of Iraq - everybody drives from base to base, fearing for their lives. Eventually they'll have to pull out, since they are on their way to "Death By 1000 Cuts".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7brD0YO0PAg&feature=related
LMAO,
check this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0jgZKV4N_A&feature=related
The military needs to start thinking of global finance as the new battlefield.
We will not be able to support our military if our country's finances continue to deteriorate. It's that simple./
After my father retired from the Air Force, he was immediately hired by a major MIC member (M@nT3ch). After only a few months, he was so thoroughly disgusted with all of the non-military corporate shills inhabiting the joint that he left. Everyone jockeying for position in the company, attempting to look good; forget that they are playing with tax payer money and lives.
It would be actually be something if our military leaders were "all Clausewitz." I think people forget that Clausewitz advocated TOTAL WAR ON ALL FRONTS. It is a mistake to confuse Clauswitz with Sun Zu, as ON WAR is a fairly complete refinement of The Art of War for modern battle formations and the ART of total war (Not just battle).
Military leadership is effect an extension and portrayal of political leadership. If the PANTY WASTE that we currently have in Congress, the White House, and the press is any indication, than we get PANTY WASTE as generals as well.
No offense, MSM, since I admire your passion, but seriously your graps of the english language makes high school sophomores blush.
Before someone else calls me out, the SIC was part of the joke...
This article makes some accurate assertions, but I think it misses-the-mark overall. Specifically, I do not think that the narrative supports the title, in that the issues regarding IEDs and the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex do not have much to do with "military" planning.
You must consider that the overwhelming majority of Army officers who work in "planning," including those that have been trained at the Army's premier school for planners, the School for Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), work exclusively at the tactical level, with some working at the operational level. That is, they work in planning cells at corps, division, or brigade level. These guys have no more input into what weapon systems are fielded than Adam's house cat. Their job is to plan operations according to their commander's intent.
We do have some folks who do the long term strategic planning that the article seems to allude to. These guys are mostly senior officers and officers in Functional Area 59 (Strategic Planning). These are the people who wargame different scenarios and rewrite OPLANs over and over again; however, even they don't have direct input into what weapon systems will be fielded. The results of this planning process only indicate what capabilities may be needed. It is then up to other folks to translate those capabilities into what amount to requests for proposals that go out to defense contractors. Then the contractors submit proposals outlining what they would like to build.
I will stop there in the interest of being concise. Again, I would agree that there are plenty of people to blame for our mistakes, and I have seen or felt the impact of planning fuck-ups at every level from platoon up to national level. I think it is critical that when we AAR something like the national reaction to the IED threat that we speak clearly and specifically, else we risk not gaining as much understanding as we could have.
I think this is central planning, writ large, and that is why it fails. Anyways, the military is nothing but a money tree for various special intersts. If there was not such public outcry, the establishment would not concern itself with the deaths of a few of the bottom half of last year's graduating high school class. War is, and always has been, a racket first and foremost.
I would like to also mention the underwear bomber no sooner lit his balls on fire than the lobbyists were themselves lighting up the phones trying to sell those abominable full-body scanning machines that reveal embarrassing amounts of detail about each individual. Never mind that the whole multi-trillion dollar security apparatus failed miserably, if the government would just buy those scanners, all would be right in the world. And then that asshole Joe Lieberman immediately got those calls and then went to the media spewing his tripe about "I don't think it's that invasive of privacy and it's an important security device that airports need" thus completing the circle of lies. Now there' a bought and paid for Senator! And he never has to fly in the Greyhounds of the Skies, so it's all good for him.
"Worse, mission success was minimized, and the political cost of the deaths, injuries, and slow mission achievement caused US voters to oppose the war."
This statement is very enlightening because of the truths revealed. Regardless of the lies or manipulation used to engage a population in a war, they almost always will continue to support it if the perception is that we are "winning" it, regardless of how unjust or cruel it might be, particularly to non-combatants.
We all love a good fight when we're winning and someone else is doing the fighting. In fact, I feel that war is the ultimate herd activity, pushing all the right (un)concious herd mentality buttons. This is why people pile onto the fan bus of winning professional and amateur sports teams. The glory of winning without the pain of the loss.
Great comments! Great article!
In the context of the US military, it is patriotic to support our troops by thanking them for their sacrifices. It is also patriotic to demand that our troops not give up their one life in illegal wars of aggression. When our troops are losing a war that should never been fought, only congresscritters and their private sector ilk benefit. Death and destruction everywhere else.
There is only one solution: bring back our servicemen and women and make oil companies pay for their own endeavors. Anti-war does not equal pacifism. Let's make the Department of Offense back into one of Defense.
Like that will ever happen.
Better yet, have industry pay for its own decisions and mistakes. I know that is a radical idea. Radical in that individuals make decisions and individuals should be held accountable for the decisions they make, not just the organization or corporation they work within. Just because some folks think it would be great to test drive new weapons systems in a live situation does not alleviate their responsibility for what happens during that test drive. Especially when the transfer and testing of WMD is involved.
+no shit! War is kool if you don't have to look at all the mangled bodies.
"Let's make the Department of Offense back into one of Defense."
You do realize, of course, that the DoD, back in the days before political correctness was known as the War Department. It was only after Korea that the name was changed to the present euphemism. Frankly, let's call spades spades instead of "inverted heart shapes with a bifurcating vertical line".
That sentence stopped me too. The best thing we could have ever done for our military (and economic) "security" was to answer peak oil by building domestic renewable energy systems instead of invading foreign countries on criminal pretense to chase a rapidly depleting crude source. I wonder what we could have built with all the war and bailout money? And the less we burn to commute, produce and watch tv, the more we save to defend ourselves.
[I wonder what we could have built]
A future.
cougar
The military is always preparing for the last war. One day in the future we'll be in a real war with the very best unmanned drones and the ability to totally negate any IED's. The bad news will be that our opponent will have an air force that uses our drones for simple target practice and has an armored force that doesn't know a thing about planting IED's.
Millions of dead innocents, thousands of dead American soldiers, billions of dollars pissed away on hate, greed and intolerance. Anyone who wants to dissect this machine of death to try and game a profit is a sick fuck. The reality for the USA is we are done, over, simply because we are so arrogant to think we can be the world police. Fuck the police. And fuck the world police. Shame on war mongering fucktards.
Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Those really are the just the fringe benefits of creating an empire. Let's not forget the looting of their natural resources. Setting up of puppet governments. Creation of "terrorist organizations" so a military presence can be maintained to preserve freedom and democracy from those organizations that were created. Torture of limo drivers and children for important info (usually in a freedom friendly (not really) country that does it at cut rates for us). Maintaining media control to direct the herd of popular opinion. My favorite is the mock surprise when after 200 years of this from various empire wannabes they have the audacity to stand up to us and hope for a better future running themselves (the savages!).
It's a huge military and past favors are now returned in defense contracts as people retire to the private sector. There are a lot of mouths to feed - billionaires, bankers, politicians, military. That requires really expensive, crap designed $150k HMMWV's so there is enough left for campaign contributions, banker fees, retired general fees and billionaire pocket change. Keep the machine running and power structure intact. So what if a few grunts buy it, that's what they signed on for....
End rant.
It gets worse. The depravity is just begun.
The current wars are fought for control of oil. Oil is the Great Machine that does all the hard work that makes the world go round for the benefit of a bunch of lazy asses.
The oil will eventually disappear.
The next generation of wars will be waged to replace the free labor we enjoyed from the Great Machine. We will use human slaves to do all the hard work that makes the world go round for the benefit of a bunch of lazy asses. We will invade other countries for their "human resources" to replace fossil fuels.
And you just know I'm right.
cougar
Indeed you are. Serf wars.
This may sound brutal - chiefly because it is and is coming from a person who never served (chickenhawk)
There is too much capital spend in the army relative to the number of frontline soldiers -the tail is much larger then the head.
This has always been a problem for the US army at least since the second world war but they could get away with this flaw by flowing on a sea of oil and capital.
If the US is to remain a superpower it needs to reduce personnel consumption at home, turn the army back into a one person one gun army that is also much larger (Draft) and give the bulk of the remaining capital to the Navy and Airforce - in short it needs to make hard choices.
Personnel or personal? Hell, both probalby need a reduction...
Yes a freudian slip there or maybe a spelling mistake but parhaps reducing personal consumption is best before seeking more drastic options
The Swiss model is a good one to follow: every able bodied male (~2/3) is required to undergo military training and keep their fully automatic machine gun, and pistol, at home. This is required until their service is completed, unless they live near an external border. Although what works for them wouldn't translate as well here because our Constitution says the gov't doesn't own our bodies: a military draft is illegal.
The only reason I mention the Swiss is actually because we as an American society have completely forgotten our heritage of firearms and what it takes to protect freedom: teeth! The Swiss see the big picture when it comes to disarming your sane, non-criminal populace - part of that picture is knowing that an armed society is a polite society.
The Swiss are ready, at all times, to go toe-to-toe with any invader. They are not considered paranoid and are highly prosperous. No Swiss Jews went to Auschwitz - they were ready to fight alongside each other. Swiss banks are not revered without reason. Don't mess with those mothertruckers. Weapons are not the problem; a broken society is.
The key to peace is not pacifism, but a very good reason to keep invaders from thinking about it. No initiation of force - but hell to pay if you attack us.
"If you want peace, prepare for war." ~ Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ~ Sigmund Freud
This is a very rosy view of the Swiss. Among other things, Switzerland is seriously contemplating more "gun control" to be more like the more restrictive western European countries. And while they did scare the Nazis a bit (more than, say, Poland or Belgium), they would have been rolled over before too long if they hadn't gotten cozy with them and served as their bankers and in some other roles.
This is also very silly in its claim that our Constitution prohibits a military draft. You must be well under 30 to think that. Current law (changeable by Congress at any time) does not provide for a peacetime draft, but one formerly existed and could legally be reinstated. And a wartime draft was a feature of all wars through Vietnam. Nor was it entirely popular even in the supposedly popular wars like WWII.
I would re-read what powers Congress has. A forceful draft isn't one of them. Sure, we can just create new laws, who needs that old piece of paper anymore anyway? Following our heritage the militia was every citizen - no need for a massive military when the enemy knows this.
No anymore - inanimate objects are too scary for most people - yet they watch people get shot on TV everyday.
I agree that we can't put Swiss society on a pedastal - they had neutrality agreements. But to bring it back in line with the article I would say we need a National Defense, not offense. But our citizenry is no longer vigilant. They want somebody else to take care of their problems so they can get back to TV.
Sorry this is not true, the Swiss are as Germans duty bound to perform either military or community service. Where does this myth come from? Having worked and lived there I don't understand this comment.
I know all Swiss have to participate in mandetory intervals of military service and all employers there cooperate fully.
What myth? Are you agreeing with me or what? Since when did Schweitz adopt our Constitution? So what if you've lived there: that's why we have the interwebs: to look shit up.
You really must not understand my comment.
If you look at the military from the perspective of it being a giant jobs program, then the tooth to tail ratio makes perfect sense. A military geared for true defense, or true to whatever aims, would not look like the one the US has today.
Water Wings,
Seriously? A war we should have never been involved in? Are you kidding? Did you forget that these assholes killed 3,0000 + innocent people on 9/11, all to forward their bullshit agenda? Do you remember them dancing in the streets when this happened? Did it ever cross your hippie-dippie mind that the reason we haven't had any attacks, the "Panty Bomber" being the exception, in the US is becuase we took the war to our jihadist enemy's own backyard. Sell your pacifism, department of offense shit to someone else. I'm sure you think that if we all just hugged it out, everything would be fine. Well, go hug someone that has 80 oz of PETN strapped to their asshole and tell me how you make out. These asshole jihadists want to kill us, ALL OF US, period! Thant meens you as well. Well maybe not you becuase you would probably assimilate, buy a Koran, and start chugging Wahabbi junk at the local madrassa.
Hey Doom,
when you learn to spell, I'll go back to English class! "...but seriously your graps of the english language." It's GRASP, not graps, DINGLEBERRY!!!
Our military hasn't defended the constitution from our domestic enemies at the FRB and their bosses at JPM, GS,...
The real wars are economic now.
These conventional missions in the middle east are a waste of lives and treasure.
I am getting close to believing Swiss strict neutrality is the best course for US national security.
Doom,
When you learn to spell, I'll go back to English class! "...your graps of the english language." It's G-R-A-S-P, not graps, D-I-N-G-L-E-B-E-R-R-Y!
This article seems pretty far off-topic for ZH, but it's interesting anyway. Perhaps more importantly, it is quite possibly the most depressing article (including good comments) that I have read on ZH. (That is something of an achievement given the ZH focus.) Looks like Huxley and Orwell were both right.
Having an advanced military is the final hedge against all kinds of end-game outcomes, most of which begin as economic and political maladjustments.
That aside, there is little question that our military presence in the Middle East is aimed at protecting supply lines for oil, which in turn supports the US and global economies, which in turn keeps certain people in positions of power they enjoy and intend to keep.
The three-legged chair of politics+wealth+war has been around a very long time.
cougar
Wings,
Are you kidding? Do you remember that these assholes killed 3,000 + innocent people in the US on 9/11? Do you remeber them dancing in the streets after that? Has it ever crossed your hippie-dippie mind that the reason that we haven't been attacked in the US, the "Panty Bomber" being the exception, since then is that we took the fight to our jihadist enemies backyard? Sell your illegal war and department of offense shit to someone else. I'll bet you think everything will be okay if we dish out hugs to these jerkoffs. Try hugging someone with 80 oz of PETN strapped to their asshole! These Jihadists want to kill us! ALL OF US. That means you too. Well probably not you becuase when they get there you'll assimilate, buy a Koran, and start chugging Wahabbi junk down at the local madrassa.
Woah, calm down gov't shill. I ain't no hippie. You obviously read the news but I question whether or not it is as 'fair and balanced' as they tell you it is.
The problem isn't people that hate us - it's incompetence, corruption, and collusion - and how those three siblings make our 'national defense' laughable. How many people went to jail for gross negligence on 9/11? What about faked intel for our sandbox warz?
The "Panty Bomber" got on a plane to the USA, the NSA knew it, and he didn't even have a passport. Laughable. Will anyone go to jail? Shiiiiiiiit, we just had some couple walk right into the White House with the Head of State of India in town. They put three SS on leave for a little while, then everything goes back to normal.
Again, the problem isn't insane religious fanatics - it's our inability to defend ourselves with a $75,000,000,000 intelligence budget.
So, I'll give the guy a hug, while you stand under a smart bomb at an Afghan wedding, deal?
You see, when you say things like this I do wonder which side of the unconstitutional Patriot Act you are on. Did you do some research for that last comment? I can only imagine what 'Wahabbi' and 'madrassa' mean from the context. Rednecks that 'sound' like you would give you a blank stare, and then say 'fuck yeah, what he said'.
I think you're both wrong--you need to watch that whole-hog ideological meal you ate there. There is strong evidence that US foreign policy over the years has played a large part in the radicalization of Muslims. The massive underwriting of Israel being the top of the list. I wonder if they would be trying to bomb our planes if our nation had pursued a more hands-off policy in the Middle East?
And, per the Constitution that you supposedly took an oath to defend, any foreign invasion is an "illegal war." And even if you don't particularly support the American legal tradition, you have to admit that invasions of foreign nations, especially unprovoked ones in the case of Iraq, represent imperial overreach and will ultimately doom the US. So you can go on and on all you want about "bringing the fight to their doorstep" but it is all just a rationalization after the fact to drum up support amongst the weak-minded statists who do the fighting (and the dying) while the bankers and their friends in the war industry count the money.
+1
But I'm not sure when you were referring to moi. Not all foreign invasions are illegal, but all wars of aggression are. Ya feel me?
MSM, don't forget to watch the news later and vote early and often.
Talk about swallowing it whole!
Fair and efficient procurement procedures and bidding processes can help prolong our participation in a war of attrition (our attrition), of which we are currently fighting four (Iraq, drugs, terror, Afghanistan). War on terror, opening in Yemen this January! For every $300 bomb attack, we will spend $3 million to kill an insurgent. Or a poppy farmer. They all look alike from a drone.
It's more effective and cheaper to be on the right side. We helped the Taliban for chickenscratch, and the most American Americans could all root for the scrappy underdogs against the vast Soviet Empire. Even Rambo! Why did those nasty Russkies want to control poor little Afghanistan? Stop meddling you commie bastards! Serves 'em right!
Why the hell did we put ourselves in the Russian's shoes? Taliban decimated, mission accomplished, go home! We can bomb them at will if they act up again and they know it. Why stay?
No matter how cheap and effective our trucks and other war toys get, we will go home someday. And our "enemies" will still live in their godforsaken IraqAfghanipakiyemen wherever. How do you win a war like that?
Osama is laughing as we destroy ourselves. One $50 attack and we all shit ourselves, spend a few millions more for full body scans and take away a few more rights. No improved military procurement process will vote out our pathetic leaders. And don't fool yourself that there's a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Obama! I'll stop now, ran out of exclamation points.
Wings,
You are so full of shit, I can't believe what you're saying. The Swiss Have never been, as you say, "The Swiss are ready, at all times, to go toe-to-toe with any invader." Well, what the hell dide they do when the Nazi's were on their doorstep. They fucking rolled over and became their bankers! And don't prostrate yourself by talking about citizens with automatic weaposn. I agree that everybody has the right to defend themselves, but the government giving an M-16 to "every able-bodied male" in the US would be a profoundly bad Idea. Next time you roll through the ghetto, think about that. Take your communist utopia and cram it up your ass! It's progressive bullshit like this that cases our "leaders" to want to meet with Iran and assholes like Chavez with no conditions.
You are no typical basketcase. I can't even agree to disagree with all of your contradictory nonsense. At least you're signed in!
+!
The Swiss kept their territorial integrity during the 20th century for one reason and one only - they were the bankers of last resort for the elite of Europe whether they be German Jews or Nazis they took there custom - why would you want to invade your insurance policy?
Before that they were infamous Dogs of War so please please give me no starry eyed views on the power of Democracy to defend Freedom.
So then why did they put the gold in Switzerland? Why do the Swiss have dependable banks for gold if anyone can 'waltz' right in?
There is a difference between destroying the world, and controlling it. The Nazis could take the Swiss any time they liked, but that would be destructive and the arming of the Swiss ensured that destruction if nothing else. Better to control them. Can always destroy them later, you know, when they are no longer relevant.
In like manner, At the close of WW2 Patton put a lot of former Nazis back in control of key infrastructure to make sure post-war Germany and the surround would not fall apart before alternatives could be setup. He got a ration of politicial shyte back home for that, but fundamentally he understood the difference between destruction and control; I don't think he ever promised he wouldn't take those same Nazi out back and shoot them in the head later when they were no longer relevant.
cougar
sure the Swiss Gnomes have built a reputation for reliability that was much deserved until recently - there is perhaps 12 trillion dollars US equivalent on deposit there
I will not argue with you on that point and if you are a large holder they will welcome you I am sure.
The Swiss are the Swiss because they live in a bunch of freaking mountains.
(Just like the Afghanis.)
Not out on the plains, like the Poles.
(and Iraqis.)
There has been surfaced roads,rail and tunnels running through and over the Alps for over a hundred years -it has not been a Afghanistan for a long long time
Yet Germany could invade Norway which has a much more hostile environment and is much further from supply chains.
The Swiss defence has been its holdings of personel wealth for the elite
Uh, last time I checked a map nobody has successfully invaded Finland, either. Good phones, good firearms, and what a language. So unless somebody (Germany?) wants to take the scenic route or launch a Normandy beach invasion (fjords!) it ain't getting through the Fins!
MSM please! Are you really calling someone full of shit?????
You aren't Dick Cheney because Dick is too arrogant to use a monkey as an avatar.
Actually, the US Army attempted to prepare for the likelihood of the emergence of low intensity warfare in the 1980's in part as a response to the Vietnam experience. (Ya, that experience lasted until the mid '70's and the Army got the white papers written, TO&E developed and changes made all within 10 years) The idea was referred to as the Infantry Division (Light) and three Army divisions were restructured or constituted and patterned on this concept. The 7th at Fort Ord, CA & the 25th at Schofield Barracks, HI were reconstituted and the 10th Mountain at Fort Drum N.Y. was constituted. I should note that the Army also implemented a massive change to how these divisions were manned with the introduction of the COHORT manning and personnel management system.
The whole decision to bring a new division to life in the 1980's and the selection of Fort Drum as a location for this division are a case study in the process discussed within the military specifically and into Washington politics generally. After all, if we want the capacity of a lightly armed, highly trained, easily deployed (less than 800 aircraft to move the division rather than the 1,200+ it takes the 82d Airborne) low intensity warriors then locating these units hours from airlift capacity must have made sense to someone. Especially with the 10th and the effect of weather upon movement during the winter months in upstate New York.
Having been a part of that process I can assure you that the ideas are there within the military folks. The stumbling block for many warriors is one of the foundational aspects of our society. Civil control of the military. From the ranks it appears as though the goal of senior leadership both military & civilian is the continuation of the gravy train and not the fulfillment of ones oaths and the obligations that arise from them, just as it is everywhere else. Many within the ranks of the military wonder at how it is much of the leadership can be purchased so cheaply while the price paid by the ranks and those that love them is so high. This situation represents one of the places where the rubber hitting the road cannot be so easily dressed up or passed off as an incomplete picture that must not be reflective because of some sentimental attachment to a notion some may hold as to a decision maker, policy shaper or the institutions themselves. After all, we live in an era where loyalty to the institution has been conflated with loyalty to individuals or the money they represent.
Miles,
This is not an attack upon you. From my own research, I tend to agree with you that the average soldier is very distressed to see his/her leadership essentially as corrupt as civilians see in civilian leadership.
So why haven't we seen an internal coup of some sort in the military? We are all the soldiers still marching off into one senseless conflict after another? I'm curious to hear your answer, considering you bring a special insight few have, a wonderful mix of educated warrior who has the capacity to see beyond his/her immediate needs and see the big picture, something I don't come across often on my path of discovery.
CD - The ranks represent the society from which they are drawn. It is worth noting that the senior citizen veterans of the US are from the Korean conflict when conscription was a kinda sorta fact of life. The knowledge base relating to war being of such magnitude that it required an Act of Congress has drifted over the horizon. And what remains is what always has been. An Army that is drawn from the society it represents.
MSM, us having troops all over the world won't prevent anyone from attacking us. 911 was planned in, among other countries, Germany and the US. By Saudis. So, just tell us which of these countries to start bombing first.
How is a war in Iraq going to stop some dipshit with a $50 homemade bomb? Has DHS ever stopped anyone? It seems passengers are much more effective than our multibillion high tech security apparatus.
I do believe the facts presented in this article are wrong, and would like some sources for them.
Wings,
What nonsens would that be? The fact that Swiss rolled over in the face of a superior force, or that they will do it agian if another superior force was knocking on their door. Or maybe it's the nonsense about giving everybody automatic weapons and calling that a national defense strategy? You are a jackass, par excellence! Your jibe about me being a redneck is totally true, and I wear it like a fucking badge of honor!
What kind of jackass can't even reply to the comment to which they are referring, jackass? What part of 'able-bodied' do you not understand? If you think they will just roll over then why are Swiss banks so revered, jackass?
Hey, my turn, jackass:
Can you fucking spell, jackass? You need to sign up for a new avatar, jackass.
For the sake of Marla swooping in, I bow to thee, sir jackass, for the last time today.
Wings, don't bother with this imbecile.
Did the Department of Defence ever find that 2.3 trillion dollars that was missing, Rumsfeld announced it 9/10/2001...of course we all know what happened the very next day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
Shhh, some want to believe that the cave dwellers did 9/11 and that steel buildings will come down into their own footprint at free fall speed by some jet fuel that burns at far below steel melting temps. If the guy actually believes 9/11 and what about building 7, then his fantasy life is simply that.
As for the $2.3T... ummm, yeah, and OJ Simpson is still looking for the killers of his wife like he said he would. Some Americans are just not that bright and can not comprehend black ops / flase flag operations.
Well, I'm not a tinfoil hat kinda guy, but, what was up with those Anthrax attacks on 9/11...you never hear that discussed anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6obA2NTDa_M&feature=related
Just because they're after you doesn't mean you have to wear tinfoil.
Tinfoil doesn't even contain real tin these days. Totally useless. Talk about conspiracies, that one takes the cake.
+dammit!
I could also posit: If you know they're after you the tinfoil won't help anyway.
All the cool kids are wearing mylar-lined berets. All the brainwave protection, without the tinfoil fashion statement.
@ waterwings,
Who pulled your string?
Cheney Monkey
"Seven months went by before the FBI responded. Its response read:
“Initially, the spores contained in the envelopes could only be identified as Bacillus Anthracis (Anthrax). They were then sent to an expert, who “strain typed” the spores as Ames. Once the strain type was identified, the FBI began to look at what facilities had access to the Ames strain. At the same time, science experts began to develop the ability to identify morphological variances contained in the mailed anthrax. Over the next six years, new scientific developments allowed experts from the FBI Laboratory and other nationally recognized scientific experts to advance microbial science. This advancement allowed the FBI to positively link specific morphs found in the mailed anthrax to morphs in a single flask at USAMRIID. Using records associated with the flask, the FBI was able to track the transfer of sub samples from the flask located at USAMRIID to two other facilities. Using various methods, the FBI investigated the two facilities that received samples from the parent flask and eliminated individuals from those facilities as suspects because, even if a laboratory facility had the equipment and personnel to make anthrax powder, this powder would not match the spores in the mailed envelopes if that lab had never received a transfer of anthrax from the parent flask.”
On its face, the FBI’s response is absurd. The response literally says that after identifying “two facilities” that received samples of anthrax from the USAMRIID (Bruce Ivins’) flask, these facilities were excluded as possible sources of the attack anthrax because they “never received” anthrax from said flask."
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/47142
There are a ton of things wrong in the procurement process, but the F-22 is still a big time winner. It will give you air superiority in any theater we fight in. That allows you to send in bombers designed to be bombers to do that job more efficiently. The F-22 has taken on as many as 8 other top fighters in Top Gun schools and effortlessly destroyed them. To go up against the F-22 in aerial combat is like making a frontal assault on a machine gun ( stupid and sure death).
And yes we still need to clean up the procurement process, but in that you are dealing with humans and that always leads to corruption.
Whoever wrote this is stupid. Have no idea how the military works and the posts on this matter is even worst.
No one can predict the future. No one can predict future wars. Military equipments last for decades because the money that is spent on them require it. Military can't change on a dime. No military can. It takes time because of the size.
You have more chance of dieing in Obama's Chicago then in Afghanistan. You have more chance of getting injured in Chicago then in Afghanistan. Over three thousands drown every year in America. That three times more deaths in one year then the entire US causalities in Afghanistan.
I don't know how failure in the grand scale is justifiable here. With US causalities that low and the death of so many combatants anyone would suggest otherwise.
Don't write articles on what you don't know.
http://icasualties.org/
Thank you Mr. Dunnigan . . . as a veteran and Air Force brat, I find this article and most of the posts exhibit a total ignorance of military matters. They ignore the influence of politicians, i.e., the CIC, on the practice of war and military budgeting. In the US, politicians wage war. . . the military is the means by which they accomplish this.
jdun, one in three US soldiers sent to Iraq has been diagnosed with PTSD or concussive brain damage, or both.
Of my buddy's platoon of 14, two committed suicide, two were medically discharged, and three are awol including the commander.
Letters of marque and reprisal plus bounties would more effectively fight asymmetric terrorists than the present military response with the huge footprint and cost. Let the large scale military focus on national defense against other militaries, not terrorists.
Here is how my system would work. Anyone that advocates terrorism or actually commits an act of terrorism will commit a crime against humanity and become a legitimate target, either for death or capture for prosecution. The sentence, if convicted, should be for life or until they recant. Yes, advocating terrorism is a serious crime and we should punish it in a serious manner. Make the reward more significant for capture in order to incentivize capture over killing.
There are more details to work out, but this approach is more certain and would be more effective in dealing with the root cause of terrorism, which is founded in hate. If we have to wipe out all of those who foster hatred, the world will be a better place.
50% of the US Military will be Robotic by 2015
Speaking before a group at the Technology Entertainment and Design (TED) conference, military expert Peter Singer said the implementation of robot soldiers was near.
"We are at a point of revolution in war, like the invention of the atomic bomb," Singer said.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1634688/us_military_50_percent_robotic_by_2015/
I think robot war has the potential to be more destabilizing, dehumanizing, and truly threatening to the future of humanity than nuclear weapons have been.
(And I'm not referring to "skynet" scenarios.)
"50% of the US Military will be Robotic by 2015" - just trying to catch up with the civilian numbers
So we can expect 1.5 million robotic paper shufflers to enter the field I mean the office within 5 years - this must be kept a secret from the enemys of the nation!
Our current situation in the Middle East reminds me of a bull chasing a red cape.
Are we going to beat radical Islam in an area where they are indigenous, with a 150 thousand troops and a few hundred thousand contractors? Considering we fund the insurgents with contractor payoffs, drug trade to the west and money for their gas?
Militarily and financially, this is not going to end well.
In the long run, the only ones benefiting are the Chinese, Iranians and Russians.
Personally, I'm sitting back and waiting for USA 2.0.
We nuked Japan, which at the time was ready to fight until every man woman and child was dead, and they turned into pacifist.
Why not try it again in the middle east and expect the same results?
F-22 "Big time winner" that was cancelled. The idea that they would have to fly Air Cap for bombers is from 1980s doctrine of gen two warfare that has no relevance today. The program that wouldn't die was finally killed. Alert the meda if they ever fly a combat mission.
Everyone here needs to read the writings of William S. Lind, who invented the term, "fourth generation warfare". All questions will be answered, all arguments settled.
http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Lind_Index,00.html