The Paradox of Military Technology

The New Atlantis ^ | Fall 2006 | Max Boot

[RedStateRocker]

Some on the left, as well as the right, are tumescent for empire. CFR or PNAC, they are a danger.

[Valin]

PNAC?

[ClearCase_guy]

Some of the most expensive weapons systems being purchased by the United States and its allies are irrelevant to fighting and winning the war against terrorism.

Terrorism is very important. I give Rumsfeld much credit for re-shaping our forces so that we can handle that sort of threat more effectively.

But China has not disappeared as a threat (far from it). Strykers and armored humvees will not win a war against China. Much of our new technology is aimed at East Asia, not West Asia.

[Don Corleone]

Without the will to use it military strength is just about useless.

[Cruz]

ping for later

[MeanWestTexan]

Yep. China's sub surfacing near our carrier group was a clear indication.

A lot of this cool stand-off drones and the like would be of little use against a sophisticated enemy that can cut the electronic line between drone and C&C.

(The next step will be so-called artificial intelligence drones that know what to do if C&C is cut off or destroyed.)

[ClearCase_guy]

Without the will to use it military strength is just about useless.

Witness Rangel's call to reinstate the draft. He's open about his reason -- if we had a draft, we wouldn't be able to use our military due to the political costs. Sure, we could still spend $300B a year on it, but we'd never be able to use it. That would help our standing in the world, wouldn't it Chuck?

[Valin]

Yes?

[MNJohnnie]

Which is why our enemies choose to wage Asymetircal War on us. They know they can rely on our Dincons and our Appeasement Always Leftists to defeat us for them.

[ßuddaßudd]

bookmark

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

But in the final analysis, having the best technology is not enough to defeat the most committed terrorists armed with the deadliest weapons. .......

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

It is not only U.S. hardware that’s hard to replicate; so is the all-volunteer force that makes it work. Operating high-tech military equipment requires long-service professionals, not short-term conscripts. Countries as diverse as Vietnam, China, Germany, and Russia are emulating the Anglo-American model by downsizing their forces and relying less on draftees; many other nations have abolished the draft altogether.

Seems Charlie didn't get the word.

...Charlie (I am a dumbass) Rangel

[Valin]

It is not only U.S. hardware that’s hard to replicate; so is the all-volunteer force that makes it work. Operating high-tech military equipment requires long-service professionals, not short-term conscripts.

Something for the pro-draft folks here to consider.

[karnage]

"tumescent for empire"

Now that's funny!

[glorgau]

It is doubtful that any military force will again enjoy the preponderance of power of General H. H. Kitchener at Omdurman, but Americans dropping Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) on Afghan tribesmen armed with Kalashnikovs—or even on Iraqi soldiers with outdated T-72 tanks—came close.

Rule #1: Never get into a fair fight.

[jpl]

Some on the left, as well as the right, are tumescent for empire.

I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but an author (British I think) recently wrote a book describing modern America as the "reluctant empire".

[RoadTest]

"Without the will to use it military strength is just about useless."

You touched on what I was going to say. It's because of our superior military array that our enemies are now fighting us in a political war instead. Their strategy is to change the folks' mind back home and remove their will to resist.

They know that Americans will only take their soldiers being blown up for so long before they cut and run. At least that's what they learned from Vietnam. They also saw it happen back home in Russia when too many Russian soldiers came home in body bags. And News media really help them a lot in this propaganda pressure on the American electorate.

[ClearCase_guy]

At least that's what they learned from Vietnam.

Too true. We should have enough hindsight now to look back at the Tet Offensive in 1968 (where we won the Vietnam War) and then see the strategic decisions made by N Vietnamese General Giap, and his domestic assistants (Tom Hayden, John Kerry, etc.) and how our victory ended up with our ignominious retreat from Saigon.

Then there is the Iranian Embassy, and the Marine barracks in Beirut, and Mogadishu, etc. For 40 years, all of our defeats have come from our loss of will, caused by second-guessing by the media. If we were smart, we'd make it axiomatic: The US doesn't fight political wars. We fight military wars. And that means we kill many, many, many, many, many people. So don't f****** mess with us.

If we had that policy, fewer people would die, and more people around the world would live in freedom.

[RedStateRocker]

In the same sense that one can't prove a negative, we shouldn't go into ANY situation where "victory" is not defined. Defined in advance, in stone, and with the OVERWHELMING support of the entire electorate. We can't create nor prop up other governments, and we shouldn't try. Define who has to die, send our boys in to kill them, get the hell out- that's what you have an army for. Just my .02