previous post next post  

Why Armies Matter

Oh, I know.  Who needs an Army when you have the Marines.  Right, now that *that* crap is out of the way, read on.

Around the Pentagon, the budget cutters have put away their knives and are reaching for axes. In times like these, every service naturally circles the wagons around its share of the budget pie. The stress is so great that otherwise smart people take incredibly silly stands. Last week, for instance, the former chief of naval operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, published a paper that calls for cutting the Army in half and leaving the Navy’s budget untouched. He sums up the logic for this advice in a few simple words: “The force we propose accepts risk in the burden we are placing on our Army and Marine Corps.” Admiral Roughead, unfortunately, fails to tell us what risk he is accepting in the nation’s behalf. Let me do it for him. The risk he is taking on is summed up in one word: defeat.

From Jim Lacey at National Review:Why Armies Matter.

As LeavenworthCenturion noted in email: "This article is completely silent on the influence of sea and air power on enabling reelection, wherein the critical aspect lies."


 The only thing Roughead won't risk is his precious "Diversity".   He should be behind bars, in a cell with Missy Mullen, because of the hash they made of our Navy.  And I ain't just talking about the shipbuilding/LCS fiascoes.  They actively destroyed what remained of any semblance of warrior culture because they were political sycophants not worthy to lead a fire team of Lance Corporals on a field day.
Oh, yeah.  Not only that, but the USN exceeded unity on the Parkinson Ratio a few years ago.  That is, we have more admirals than we have ships. Want to save some money? Fire some admirals. Of course, if they do that, it will go as RIFs generally do, with the ones who wasted their time doing their jobs instead of taking care of politics being the ones tossed.