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/2005/05/_bgret_wass_de_czege_was_rebutted.html Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:02:10 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2012 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification Ry - in his comments to the original post (link below), anticipates this rebuttal. This appeared in Army Magazine, the house organ of AUSA, the Association of the United States Army. I think it's well argued, and supportable - and leans toward some of my predjudices. This weekend, I'll finish up my thoughts on The New American Militarism by Andy Bacevich. If you haven't read Wass de Czege's piece - go here. KOSOVO AND LANDPOWER We are responding to "The Continuing Necessity of Ground Combat in Modern War" by Brig. Gen. Huba Wass de Czege, U.S. Army retired, ("Front &... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/_bgret_wass_de_czege_was_rebutted.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/_bgret_wass_de_czege_was_rebutted.html Fri, 20 May 2005 08:07:53 -0600 well i'm no apologist for WdC, but his argument carries the day with me. the arguments opposed are coming back to almost a naval model of an enemy force-in-being affecting us more than the force in the field ever could. Iraqi Freedom has shown the potential cost on civilians of letting the enemy control the ground for every additional day. arguments that aircraft would be too vulnerable to be used has some merit, but seems overblown. rather than hundreds of aircraft, such missions would require hundreds of sorties, that born of the necessity to mass initial forces and support elements would need to come in only a few spots on the ground. those might be hard to secure, but saying it couldn't be done is tantamount to saying MacArthur couldn't land at Inchon. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/_bgret_wass_de_czege_was_rebutted.html#comment-25277 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/_bgret_wass_de_czege_was_rebutted.html#comment-25277 Tue, 24 May 2005 23:27:05 -0600 Okay, let's see if I get whacked with a frying pan. Seems these 4 are arguing ad hoc. WdC seemed to be making a broader case but only used Kosovo as an example of how it could be done not necessarily how Kosovo should've been done(reading twice helps), leading up to the ultra fast moving and acting military that Rumsfeld wants with pre-emption thrown in, while these gentlemen are far more of a reaction based mentality. I like WdC better, John. Even if my 'hate to quibble' offends thine 'booty.' I like how WdC works the calculus of suffering and death/misery index. These guys are far more realists, but it's less morally satisfying to this civillian. Might for right and all that, not might for what we can justify or get the rest of the world to go along with. (Bang! Owww. Okay, so I'm naturally contrarian. Stop hittin' already. Bang! Owwwwwwww!) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/_bgret_wass_de_czege_was_rebutted.html#comment-25159 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/_bgret_wass_de_czege_was_rebutted.html#comment-25159 Fri, 20 May 2005 22:33:34 -0600