We're not colonizing Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Phillipines and we are approaching 200,000 Army troops in those places. And if we lined up our Air Force wing-tip to wing-tip over any of those countries and vectored in every satellite in outer space while the entire Navy steamed off-shore it would not reduce the need for those soldiers by one man.
The problem with the latest greatest high tech whiz-bang idea is that the enemy never seems to cooperate. That is why the diesel snorkle subs didn't starve out the UK. That is why our fleets of long range heavy bombers with Norden bomb sights didn't destroy Germany's industry. That is why we can do shock and awe by launching missiles and planes from the other side of the world and guided by satellites and lasers to hit targets with pin-point accuracy--and have no effect except destroying a bunch of empty buildings & probably killing a few conscripts left behind to guard them.
The most flexible and effective weapon in our arsenal is a well-trained soldier on the ground--operates in any terrain, weather, or climate against any enemy. Can kill or capture, can separate bad guys from civilians, can use one shot to kill the sniper in the mosque, and unlike a high tech gizmo--a soldier can adapt to completely new or unforeseen circumstances.
I don't disagree
with that one bit! I'm saying,
however, we have
many proven means
of getting troops here to there.
To my eyes it seems
smarter to budget
money to build deep reserves
of vehicles that
have proven themselves
rather than invest in new
programs. (In regards
to well defined things
like troop-moving and such.) That's
all I was saying.