Rather, how many of whatever % that was were trained in small arms, etc?
What I see of the military today is a majority are support troops, with minimal, if any training in marksmanship and such.
Good chance those support types were the Øbowel supporters.
“...What I see of the military today is a majority are support troops, with minimal, if any training in marksmanship and such...Good chance those support types were the Obama supporters.” [doorgunner69, post 130]
Another opportunity to correct mistaken notions. Thanks.
The growth of numbers of “support” personnel in the US military in relation to front-line combat troops is not a recent trend. During the Second World War, the ratio was six to one, support troops versus front-line troops.
A side effect of technological changes that have altered the systems composition and capabilities of weaponry. It’s also given rise to the “military-industrial complex” so many Freepers love to hate.
Love it or hate it, the changes aren’t likely to be reversed. The military establishment has become tech-heavy because that way, it’s more effective. A very American tendency: the only alternative is to revert to a manpower-intensive concept, which citizens would never tolerate. Doing so would probably lead to failure anyway - if the events of World War One mean anything to anyone.