We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:02:49 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2012 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification The American Enterprise Institute held a conference earlier this month on the Future of the Army. I would have liked to go, but I don't sit high enough up in the structure of my firm to get them to pay for it without doing a big paper justifying it - and didn't know about it early enough to write the paper... so, I settle for things like the Cliff's Notes of the conference. Given the spirited discussion of the Ralph Peter's piece in this space - I thought I would provide this, too. And no, for those who are wondering... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:58:38 -0600 Well, I've been thinking about this and the best I can do to respond is quote back what our erstwhile Dutch friend wrote: > True, we Dutch will never grasp the enormity of the US.... Correct. You just can't. >The idea is this, if you spend a dollar on an A10 it is a dollar well spent, but not a productive dollar. Although very usefull, the military is by definition not productive. I understand you to mean it does not produce, in the strictest sense of the word, the way a factory produces or a business produces. Yes, I understand, but I disagree, and I think you have just expressed a simplistic view. All entities are consumers or producers or both, even though some are only services providers. The military is a consumer (a big one) that keeps LOTs of folks employed, but it is also a producer. In fact, it is also a service organization, one of the first. People in the military expend energy and time to defend other people who are engaged in comerce of the more usual kind. The US military is a "commerce multiplier" if you will (remember, I said it here first). Truth is, the military is kind of like a cleaning company. When there is a mess, someone has to clean it up. Out military has been cleaning up the messes of the rest of the world for quite some time. True, sometimes our military is involved in making a mess, but it never does so of its own volition. No, the military serves the people of the United States who pay for it, as expressed by the elected officials of the nation. Our military allows our businesses to engage in commerce without fear of pirates, tyrants, and so on, and it allows our Government to do it's job. And finally, our military does serve at least one other productive purpose. It ensures that we don't have to be afraid of some nutcase religious group taking our country hostage while it kills the people it doesn't like or who don't agree with it. Of course, if that kind of thing were to start happening here, all of us nutcase, violent Americans with guns might just take things into our own hands, in which case the military would be here to stop us from doing that. See, that A-10 can be productive in ways no one ever imagined..... ~SangerM http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22657 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22657 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:01:48 -0600 Well ry, that was a rather good long rant. The security provided by the US Millitary is a classic example of overhead--nobody wants to have to pay for it, but the costs of ommision is far to great to ignore. Oh SangerM, thanks for putting up Kipling's 'tommy'. Its a lovely poem, and its been a couple years since I've had the pleasure of reading it. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22629 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22629 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:48:15 -0600 Well ry, that was a rather good long rant. The security provided by the US Millitary is a classic example of overhead--nobody wants to have to pay for it, but the costs of ommision is far to great to ignore. Oh SangerM, thanks for putting up Kipling's 'tommy'. Its a lovely poem, and its been a couple years since I've had the pleasure of reading it. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22628 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22628 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:47:59 -0600 Vogelaar, I think you're over extrapolating from the Finnish Example(Finland spent next to zero on defense. Never got invaded. Didn't need a military because of NATO facing off against Warsaw Pact.). Now, what endeavors does Finland kick the US's butt? Social welfare spending. Parity exists betwixt the two in all other areas when you account for size(i.e. US business' aren't more efficient than Finish, and the relative knowledge set of primary and secondary education is about equal). Let's look at Britain in particular here. The Brits started downsizing the military even before end of the cold war(moved to pocket carriers, shrank the fleet, deep sixed some Gurhka units). Did Britain scream out ahead of the US in technological improvement? No. Let's look at Japan. the JDSF is pretty small potatoes(in size). The treaty at the end of WW2 basically said that the US would defend Japan and look out for the Land of the Rising Sun's national interests(like secure energy sources). Japan a top ten world economy. HAs Japan totally outstripped the US in innovation? No. Parity, but not choveling dirt on the grave of American innovation. Yes, other nations can spend money on other things because the US has the military to maintain the peace. But that doesn't mean that there isn't enough money moving around that the US is hide-bound, backward, and un-innovative Sparta. Quite the contrary. Moving onto another topic. Non-producing. If you define 'non-producing' as not generating a commodity I'd agree with you 100%. The military doesn't produce commodities. IT doesn't build cars to be bought and sold. It is an economic black hole(dons football helmet as protection from the grief I'm gonna get). But, as Sanger seemed to get, you have no economic development without peace. The same argument can be made for police/constabulry. They're economic black holes in that they eat up funds and generate no product in return. But without them there's no safety to trade, no spare money to build universities, and definately nothing to fund basic research. Now look at a global map. Look at the areas with the greatest economic activity. These areas predominately were under NATO or Soviet military protection. areas outside them have largely been in one condition of crisis or another during the Cold War and still haven't moved to being true industrial nations(columbia is a good example. Still in one crisis after another. Wracked by one regional gang after another, with FARC being the most famous). Where the Sov Union is no more there's been an increase in economic uncertainty, and a slight downturn in stnd in living while things sort themselves out. I'm rambling. Sorry. This is hard to explain. The best way of doing it is to read Nial fergusson and TPM Barnett's 'Pentagon's New Map' in conjunction. Without a 'power' to enforce the economic and political rules there is no prosperity. You've got a horde of small but self sufficient States, but not the standard of living that any nation of W. Europe enjoys. The US is that power, largely because nobody else wants it. So we have to spend big to get that benefit. Otherwise you've got the situation between WW1 and WW2, and I'm not talking the rise of fascism either. Massive economic instability(Roaring 20's followed by global recession/Great Depression). That doesn't happen nowdays. The big force that ensures the rule sets made the interconnectivity of economies that makes recessions mild did that. But there are still forces outside the interconnected economies that want to tear it all down. They've moved onto what's called 4th Generation Warfare largely because they can't defeat the US in stand up fights. It's actually a good thing too(civillian and military casualties are at record lows because of it). And that because the US is paying $300M for a fighter, $2.4B/nuclear submarine, and who knows how much for the toys John gets to play with. It's not a commodity you can buy or trade. It's a fundemental that's neccessary before trade on the scale that provides all of us in 'The Western World' with our standard of living. Sorry, forgot the rant warning. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22616 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22616 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:04:44 -0600 Well, in the interest of peace keeping, he seems to communicate all right. I thought he was conversant with Castle humor. Go ahead and delete the raspberry. However, I still don't think the military is 'non-productive.' Is he comparing the military to what? The people on drugs? The people on welfare who do not work for a living? Maybe I should have asked before I snarked. So, I will be polite and ask him kindly: "Define and compare 'non-productive.' *smiling* http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22605 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22605 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:36:26 -0600 Just making a point here, ladles and germs, Lennard isn't working in his first language, so subtlety and nuance may be lacking, possibly resulting in an unintended directness. Let's hold the raspberrys to a minimum... besides could be a confusing cultural referent and he'll come back with something equally Dutch-unique! If nothing else, he brings some enthusiasm aboard! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22602 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22602 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:22:49 -0600 Lessee...the military by definition is 'not productive.' Okay, those lax and lazy laggards! A pox on them and their hospital building, or digging wells, or teaching villagers about basic sanitation and helping them with farming techniques. How dare they build schools and repair the damage caused by Ba'athist creeps in the waning days of Saddam's regime! Not to mention that the children of Afghanistan can be kids again. What a horrid thing to contemplate! How dare they leave their wives and families to support the WOT (which you as a Nederlander seem to support, despite your friendly warnings about us lagging behind in spending for 'education.')and befriend small children and adults and make arrangements for sick kids to get treatment here, which possibly could not have happened in Europe or Germany? Yeah, we are all just SO non productive. And when it comes to education, it isn't always money that tells the tale. It is the quality of the instruction as much as the materials. And you missed the finer points of Sanger's post. It takes an education to build, operate and maintain such toys. You get the raspberry. *retires muttering to Gimlet* http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22599 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22599 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:11:26 -0600 Sorry, wrong SangerM. True, we Dutch will never grasp the enormity of the US (distance, GNP, amount of hamburgers eaten every day etc), but we do understand that the US is spending vast amounts on education, science etc. The idea is this, if you spend a dollar on an A10 it is a dollar well spent, but not a productive dollar. Although very usefull, the military is by definition not productive. It is there to protect and paid for by that part of society that is. So if your rivals are able to be protected for less, than they have more to spend on outperforming you on the business-battlefield. Weakening you as a whole in the long run. Although the info coming from especially China is somewhat unreliable, it is very clear that their DoD budget as a percentage of GNP is far less than that of the US. They, and the EU, pay for it in terms of worldpower. The EU is not able to throw out a third rate dictator in their back-yard and China can't risk a war with the US over Taiwan. What you say about spin-offs is very true! Look at Boeing and its military and civil part. They both need each other in terms of money-making and technology. A lot of, especially, applied technology has its roots in defense spending. Still, if the balance is lost between non-productive military spending and productive civil spending, compared to your rivals, the nation as a whole will lose out. Hey fellow-capitalists, you should know! Power from the barrel of a gun is only there if you have the money to buy one. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22593 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22593 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 13:38:44 -0600 Oh, and SangerM, after I posted I went back and re read your posts. I agree with you. Well said and permission to quote you on the Red Army Faction and the Baader Mainhoff gang? Were you there when it was noised all over West Germany that a silver Golf was stolen, and loaded with explosives, headed for northern parts unknown to Do a Deed? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22564 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22564 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:43:10 -0600 Neffi, He says it in "The Fellowship of the Ring," as well as the movie, and I think "Fellowship" was published about the same time as Orwell's stuff, or predates it. I could be wrong. Spending money on education and science to build the bombers and planes and the doohickeys in them to make them work, and teaching the pilots about the laws of physics that keep the planes aloft, the science of the engineering that went into them to keep them maintained...yeah, the US does put money into science and all that other stuff. As well as makes some of the technology available to the public for use in the private sector as well. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22563 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22563 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:35:37 -0600 Thanks all! It's late, I agree with Ry (well said, and I even saw a quote earlier that peace is the greatest cause of wealth... etc I think it was either Washington or Hamilton, etc.). As for Delay, well my wife feels as Neffi, she wants Delay to stop with the crap before he turns people against the GOP and moderate religious folks. It seems no one with sense wants him doing what he's doing, but that just doesn't seem to matter. Personally, we think he ought to just take one for the party and quit. Of course, his ego won't allow it, eh? Anyway, night. ~SangerM http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22559 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22559 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 02:00:22 -0600 There's a couple of posts here that kinda work together. Vogelaar's of about 2:30pm of the 18th Sanger's of 8:52pm of the 18th. Here's an idea that kinda encapsulates Sanger and answers V: what if the greatest US export isn't a material good, new scientific principle/technique/good(say nanofibers, pharma to handle resistant stafilococous, etc...), but instead has been security? Without the US's big stick to counter first the uncertainty of post WW2 and then the Cold War would we be talking about Globalism and Soft Power at all? THe rise in real wealth in many places is because of the stability and safety of economic investment provided by the US mil. Look at the areas we were interested in vice those we weren't. This is TPM Barnett's Core vs. Gap that I'm butchering to hell. The US spending so much on Defense, subsidized by those we exported the security it bought to(Europe, Japan, SouKor) buying our debt, allowed everyone to grow. If everyone was building forces for self protection nobody would be spending on pure science research. As it worked out Barnett's 'Core' banded together and largely paid the US to be the junkyard dog. SO, given that if the US stops doing what it's been doing things get bad(look up at-sea piracy over the last 5 years. Then compare it to the change from from 'being at sea' to 'surge' in USN doctrine and you start seeing what I'm talking about). You pay us to admister the security part of the system Volegaar! So, given what $300M buys in terms of economic and political prosperity, no, I don't think it's to much. Not by a long shot. Ry http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22558 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22558 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:53:52 -0600 Sanger - excellent points, well said ... Bravo! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22557 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22557 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:51:26 -0600 What Sanger said. Elliquent bastage, ain't ya... I'm a middle-of-the-road, leaning right guy and I think DeLay is a gross embarrasment. The GOP should shed him ASAP, otherwise credibility goes right out the window. I would be more elliquent myself, were I not distracted by the image of Lioness and Were-Kitty chasing each other around in circles... mmmm rowr]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22555 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22555 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:27:16 -0600 SangerM, Thanks for posting that Kipling poem. It is a favorite of mine. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22554 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22554 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:17:39 -0600 that ain't gonna happen. So, we're doing ok this cycle with a strong GOP and a strong military that is winning the wars. Unfortunately, the Republicans are squandering their political capital, with Tom Delay in the lead and Frist not helping... and I am willing to bet the GOP is out of there next election unless there are some serious changes right quick. Why? Well, personally, it aggravates the &%#^& out of me to hear Delay go on about the Judiciary, and to make threats, invoke religion, and other nonsense because the courts didn't do what the congress wanted in re: Schiavo. If he has his way, and the Senate/congress make the changes they are proposing, I for one will almost certainly vote against every republican who runs in the next 2 elections, even if that were to mean voting for Hillary. This is no idle threat, either. What Delay and his ilk are proposing scares me more than the thought, even, of Hillary being president. I'll go for too much freedom and less religion-in-control anytime over too little, and the notion that the judiciary should be beholden to the Congress is the utmost lunacy. I can't imagine a scarier proposition. As for the problem of the courts not doing as congress wanted, well, more people should read the Federalist Papers and the New Federalist Papers, in which the issues and fears of factionalism are discussed at length. Congress is not supposed to get directly involved in things like the Schiavo case. Is not supposed to be influnced by a Mob, etc. I hope to God Delay and his cronies or tossed on their bums, and I plan to help do the tossing if I get the chance. ~SangerM]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22552 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22552 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:02:07 -0600 (Though I just finished reading Hurl's blog, have found I definitely prefer Howdy's) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22551 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22551 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:57:47 -0600 Were-Kitten, I swear we must be running in the same circles, chasing each other around the blogosphere. I just found Howdy and Hurl today, too! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22550 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22550 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:47:06 -0600 ThanksFbL! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22549 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22549 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:46:20 -0600 The John Adams quote is my fave... the way it ought to be. But it also foretells the fall of empires, Sanger- when children are free to study the liberal arts, they often forget the ways of the warrior... that which ensured the luxury of their studies. Sound familiar? heh http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22548 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22548 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:46:09 -0600 Were-Kitten, good post, thanks! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22547 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22547 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:43:35 -0600 Sanger, thank you for your words--both original and quoted. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22546 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22546 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:42:50 -0600 Neffi, thanks. I consider that high praise. Also, re: "Watchers at the gate," Kipling wrote a great poem called Tommy (see below) that I think has been on this site before. I'll post if you can't find it, but it has these lines in it: ------ We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints, Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints; While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind", But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind, There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind. ----- I also think these apply (pardon the length): - There is one source, O Athenians, of all your defeats. It is that your citizens have ceased to be soldiers. -- Demosthenes - I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. -- John Adams in letter to Abigail Adams, May 12, 1780 - Some people live their entire lifetime and wonder if they ever made a difference to the world. Marines don't have that problem. -- United States President Ronald Reagan, January 1995 - (one of my favorites!!) It's been my responsibility, my duty and very much my honor to serve as Commander in Chief of this nation's Armed Forces these past eight years. That is the most sacred, most important ask of the Presidency. Since our nation's founding, the primary obligation of the national government has been the common defense of these United States. But as I have sought to perform this sacred task as best I could, I have done so with the knowledge that my role in this day-to-day-to-day effort, from sunrise to sunrise, every moment of every hour of every day of every year, is a glancing one compared to yours. ... But it's not just your fellow Americans who owe you a debt. No, I believe many more do, for I believe that military service in the Armed Forces of the United States is a profound form of service to all humankind. You stand engaged in an effort to keep America safe at home, to protect our allies and interests abroad, to keep the seas and the skies free of threat. Just as America stands as an example to the world of the inestimable benefits of freedom and democracy, so too an America with the capacity to project her power for the purpose of protecting and expanding freedom and democracy abroad benefits the suffering people of the world. -- Ronald Reagan, 1989 - Superior firepower is an invaluable tool when entering negotiations. -- General George S. Patton ~SangerM http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22545 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22545 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:34:31 -0600 response to the Peter's article. It's well worth the read. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22544 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22544 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:15:16 -0600 What Sanger said... well spoken, Sir http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22543 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22543 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:58:13 -0600 superior to anyone else's (though I do favor it), but in asking that question you have demonstrated something I say all the time: Most Europeans simply have no real idea how big the US really is, nor how much money the US gives away every year. For example, did you know that the U.S. pays to send a good number of military folks from a good number of other countries to all kinds of military schools, including pilot training, which usually costs millions! We give it away. We also give away language training, and nation building training, and so many more things that most people simply have no idea is funded by the U.S. Even in countries like France and Germany, which one would think don't need or want our money, eh? As for education vs. miltary spending, it's really not a matter of just guns or just butter (education or other social programs), or more butter for less guns. The truth is that the $300 million for each plane goes back into the pockets of Americans (and foreign investors too), so the money is making a difference, albeit not in the same way, say, that Holland uses it, like for buying heroin AND barges to live in for all the junkies who otherwise would live on the streets of Amsterdam. Also, it is important to remember: Education and research without application has no value. Military research may be focused primarily on martial uses, but the spin-offs of the military research programs are innumerable. Just like the space program we run, the technology developed to make those high-tech machines (war or otherwise) gets applied all over the place. Without military research, there would be a lot less available for the common people. And finally, I would ask you to define weak as you use it? Weak in what ways? Militarily? Financially? I don't think we are weakening ourselves by spending money on military programs; I think we are weakening ourselves by spending money saving everyone else from each other, as we had to do in the Balkans, for example, or our current war on terrorists. And lest people say the terror war was started because of us, I point to the Red Brigade and the terrorists of Germany and Italy in the 70's. We didn't start it, we just let it get out of hand, and now we have to clean things up again for the rest of the world. Yeah, I'd say maybe other countries should spend more money on defending themselves and stop making us do it for them, then we could use our money to solve our problems. [sigh] But I know THAT's not going to happen any time soon.... ~SangerM]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22542 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22542 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:52:10 -0600 and I wish it were true ...but is doesn't work in the real world, and never has. And then there's the complacent sector... but Bush squeaked in for a second term, so there are enough people out there who understand. On we go...]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22540 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22540 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:13:07 -0600 If people are that complacent, then that is either an indication of their knowledge or their feelings of safety because the military and other services are doing their jobs so well. Last night, as we were coming home from church (yes, we attend regularly as I am a lost cause), we were talking about how easy it was to get wrapped up in our little world and forget about what others are putting on the line for us. It put me in mind of Aragorn said about his job as a Ranger in "Fellowship of the Ring." He says that people have mean nicknames for them, and yet without them their borders would not be safe, for there were creatures and men who would freeze their blood if the Rangers were not vigilant. Or something like that. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22537 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22537 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:36:50 -0600 After re-reading the excerpt, it appears that I misread the notes from Mr. Kagan's presentation, and that he is in agreement with my opinion. Thanks for giving me a heads-up about this, John, and I apologize if I offended anyone. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22536 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22536 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:50:38 -0600 Re: military spending...repeat after me, "...as a percentage of GNP, it is the smallest since WW II...as a percentage of GNP, it is the smallest since WW II...as a percentage of GNP, it is the smallest since WW II..." Yeah, they're expensive but so is everything else. And since our manpower ceilings are getting smaller and smaller and personnel costs are getting more expensive by the day, you gotta build something that does with one jet what it took a squadron to do 20 years ago. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22535 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22535 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:51:23 -0600 I will agree with one of the notes...The nation just doesn't feel "at war," for the most part. Just look at what Kagan says, he doesn't even think we are at war. I feel that we are at war, but fortunately or unfortunately the majority of America that I see is not affected by war in their everyday lives. It isn't like WWII...there's no rationing, not everyone really knows someone who is "in the service," you don't see movies (or as many as there should be) about Iraq or Afghanistan. The fact is that most Americans aren't affected by the war, so even though they realize that we have men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, they don't think of it as a war in the WWII sense. I think that advertising such as the Marine posters released last week by General Mattis might help spread the message a little bit. I actually had a professor state that "we are at war," only to hear several students afterwards say "no we aren't." Something has to be done to clear this up, and I hope to God that it won't take another attack like that of 9/11/01 to bring these people back to reality. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22534 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22534 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:27:02 -0600 Comparing U.S. defense spending to science and marketshare seems to be a little apples-and-oranges to me. The private sector in the U.S. does a huge amount of science research and development. And marketshare is determined more by what U.S. companies do than what their government goes (right?). (Take the above with a grain of salt, as I am no scientist or economist.) However, I'm tempted to be very simplistic and say: All the education, science, and marketshare aren't going to matter if the barbarians are at the gate. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22533 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22533 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:22:48 -0600 Being Dutch as I am (just 16 million, and be thankfull for that), it's easy to be astounded by the US defense budget. Bloody huge! But again the US is just a bit bigger than my beloved Holland and has just a tat more GNP. Still, spending 300 million US on 1 (one) plane!! And the list goes on. Aren't you afraid that when you were spending your cash on guns, the EU and China were spending it on education, science and marketshare? In other words, isn't your military power making you in fact weak in the long run? Lennard PS: no simple US-bashing here. This Dutch supports the war in Iraq! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22532 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22532 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:57:00 -0600 Re: the Future of the Army. Call me conservative, but... "You will remember what happened in the late war; we jumped to one conclusion after another and in the end I think you all came back to what you had been taught in the beginning - the use of the rifle." -Field Marshall Lord Milne, 'Address to the Officers of the Mechanized Force by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff' at Tidworth, 8 September 1927 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22529 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22529 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:39:10 -0600 Heh...where's bill T? nice pics at ala's. I was going to sing him a song... Don't take your guns to town, son Leave your guns at home, Bill Don't take your guns to town... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22523 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22523 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:15:53 -0600 It's never to late to go back and lay in with some snake and nape! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22521 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22521 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:58:56 -0600 How in the Hell did I miss the Ralph Peters discussion?...sorry. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22516 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/04/the_future_of_the_army.html#comment-22516 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:38:01 -0600