That was a well thought out and to the point description of our current military thinking. We need to get rid of the politicians in the leadership and put real leaders in the Pentagon and then rid ourselves of the inept civilian leaders who were inept military leaders and now running the show. Maybe, just maybe the US military will become what they once were.
The real problem here is that no one buys bullets (planes, tanks, ships...) for wars we have won. The last American General officer to win his war (Ike) knew the costs of not winning and the real cost of real war. Since his admonishment to beware the MI Complex, we have built the entire national economy around the Complex. General Lee's comment on war needs to be understood. We HAVE made war to un-terrible (now it's just youtube entertainment) and so have come to love it too much. Ike's foreign policy / defense strategy was outlined at CFR in 1954: Massive Retaliation. Shocker: NO wars in his tenure. Further shocker: By refusing to keep-alive the threat and, when necessary, apply the means, we have become a nation that wars constantly around the globe to no positive result and very, very repetitive negative results. We kill tens of thousands of our own, millions of our opponents and accomplish a worse result than having done nothing at all. And far worse than just nuking them. Had we nuked PyongYang in 1950 - we'd not have lost 40K men and the Norks would not have lost 2M. And, more than likely - no Vietnam. Had we nuked Hanoi in 1963, we'd have not killed 70K of our guys and 2M of theirs. Etc. Nukes save lives and end struggles; nothing else does. Against Army and Navy estimates in 1945, nukes saved 1M Americans and between 6-8M Japanese. If we believe the opponent's behavior needs to be modified (the entire purpose of war) so greatly that we are willing to kill them and us, then go big. If we aren't willing to go big - DON'T GO. Sending our kids to kill their kids for years or decades at the cost of trillions of dollars when we don't believe in the goal is just mind-numbingly stupid.
At the risk of being thought of as self-promoting, some fresh assumptions and ideas, including COCOM reorganization, fresh alliance structures, joint force conception, and USA grand national strategic objective, with reorganization of education and counsels on spiritual discipline tossed in just for fun:
The Pentagon absolutely cannot bring itself to prioritize. "My five #1 priorities are....". Every 4-star Combatant Commander screams that WW3 and the end of the world will result if you take a single infantry squad or staff officer billet from them.
Perhaps your best work ever.
Our sclerotic strategic thinking requires a quintuple bypass
Wow really let loose with this one. Well said.
That was a well thought out and to the point description of our current military thinking. We need to get rid of the politicians in the leadership and put real leaders in the Pentagon and then rid ourselves of the inept civilian leaders who were inept military leaders and now running the show. Maybe, just maybe the US military will become what they once were.
Clean up, yes, to take out the garbage. Then, what, who are the go-to people, what are the go-to assumptions and idea?
These have to be spiritual and they have to comprise some muscles of alliance and coordination between India, USA, and Russia.
The real problem here is that no one buys bullets (planes, tanks, ships...) for wars we have won. The last American General officer to win his war (Ike) knew the costs of not winning and the real cost of real war. Since his admonishment to beware the MI Complex, we have built the entire national economy around the Complex. General Lee's comment on war needs to be understood. We HAVE made war to un-terrible (now it's just youtube entertainment) and so have come to love it too much. Ike's foreign policy / defense strategy was outlined at CFR in 1954: Massive Retaliation. Shocker: NO wars in his tenure. Further shocker: By refusing to keep-alive the threat and, when necessary, apply the means, we have become a nation that wars constantly around the globe to no positive result and very, very repetitive negative results. We kill tens of thousands of our own, millions of our opponents and accomplish a worse result than having done nothing at all. And far worse than just nuking them. Had we nuked PyongYang in 1950 - we'd not have lost 40K men and the Norks would not have lost 2M. And, more than likely - no Vietnam. Had we nuked Hanoi in 1963, we'd have not killed 70K of our guys and 2M of theirs. Etc. Nukes save lives and end struggles; nothing else does. Against Army and Navy estimates in 1945, nukes saved 1M Americans and between 6-8M Japanese. If we believe the opponent's behavior needs to be modified (the entire purpose of war) so greatly that we are willing to kill them and us, then go big. If we aren't willing to go big - DON'T GO. Sending our kids to kill their kids for years or decades at the cost of trillions of dollars when we don't believe in the goal is just mind-numbingly stupid.
At the risk of being thought of as self-promoting, some fresh assumptions and ideas, including COCOM reorganization, fresh alliance structures, joint force conception, and USA grand national strategic objective, with reorganization of education and counsels on spiritual discipline tossed in just for fun:
https://theological-geography.net
https://theological-geography.net/?s=three+brothers
I don't know about this substack place. The comments are always a lot more fun at the old blog.
Boom 💥 💥 💥
The Pentagon absolutely cannot bring itself to prioritize. "My five #1 priorities are....". Every 4-star Combatant Commander screams that WW3 and the end of the world will result if you take a single infantry squad or staff officer billet from them.
"Vapor Lock"??? Perhaps you are being a wee tad generous in your "praise" here...
Next up: Plan Rainbow 2022, where we reinforce the PI with our battleships in a bold thrust across the Pacific.