Buddy of mine sent me this.

Slant aside... ammo consumption

That's alot of rounds! And while of course, I'd love for the old Marine axiom of one round, one kill to apply, that's never happened in reality.

Also, the Old Corps never had mini or chain guns.

Kevin is referring to this:

From Lew Rockwell's website, brilliant military analysis by a political economist Robert Higgs: If You Miss the First Time, Try Firing Another 300,000 Rounds

My somewhat intemperate reply (annoyance aimed at Higgs, not Kevin):

Sigh.

This is tired bovine feces, cockeyed "gotcha" crap from an ignorant buffoon grinding his axe, however otherwise good his other analysis on subjects he's got some knowledge and experience with might be.

We can argue, legitimately, whether or not we over-react with fires. Of course, since we hyper-over-react to Blue casualties, commanders sit on the horns of a dilemma, don't they?

So, apparently, we must train *all* warriors to Spec-Ops level firearms skills, and no one may take a shot, ever, at a fleeting target - we may only shoot those who cooperate and stand still long enough to ensure a first round hit - all while being fired upon, of course, by an opponent whose small arms skills are generally atrocious and many of those "overs" killing the innocents were *not* fired from American-operated weapons.

No more suppressive fires, nope. Can't have any of that to facilitate maneuver out of killing ground or to more advantageous ground. No fires to hold the bad guy in place while we maneuver to better take him down.

Nope. Can't do that. Might offend Mr. Higg's sense of economy. One shot, one kill. That's the only acceptable standard.

Buffoon. When was the last time this self-important ass was in a firefight? Or even observed one closely?

Nope, not for Mr. Higgs. If the kill count was 75, then the ammo expended can only be 75.

Right.

I understand that Higg's screed is more about being anti-war and scoring "I'm so much smarter than the idiots in charge" points than it is useful analysis.

But I invite Mr. Higgs to fight a fight by his rules. Leave aside his answer would be "Hah! I would not fight this fight, therefore the point is moot!"

The fact is we *are* fighting. And it's clear Mr. Higgs has zero zip nada understanding of infantry combat. Of course, Mr. Higgs doesn't really wish to, either, being against the war anyway.

Feh. Make your points, sir, without fairbanksing* 'em. Or are you angling for the columnist job at TNR? In this case meaning shoddy analysis that isn't needed to make your point.