Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Neeka who wrote (76359)	10/10/2004 10:57:16 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) of 793725

I think it hurt our ability to fight the WOT by eliminating so many vital elements of our military. Many of the elements in question involve strategic nuclear forces that have no relevance whatsoever to the WOT. The only force reduction that might in retrospect be questioned - and it is easy to question most such decisions in retrospect - is that of infantry divisions. Even in that case, the relevance is limited, since the forces being reduced were those required to fight conventional wars, which were judged at that time to be far less likely - a judgement that was not unreasonable at the time, and not altogether wrong. The WOT is an unconventional war, and if we insist on trying to fight it by conventional means, we will lose. That's been our single greatest weakness so far. Instead of adapting our tactics to fit the war, we tend to twist our perception of the war to fit the tactics we want to use. If we want to conquer and occupy territory, our forces are insufficient. Luckily for us, conquest and occupation are neither necessary nor desirable parts of the WOT.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next