To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9210 ) 11/7/2001 2:13:01 AM From: jjkirk Respond to of 281500 Hi Hawk, May I help with your thought, with which I agree?So while acknowledging the special roll of logistics in US military strategy, let's acknowledge that they should not be over-emphasized to the point where the quality of troops on the front line are impaired. ?? Let us remember that "logistics" is not just a two-bit word for "suppliers", or that it is limited to the CommZ. Logisticians built the "requirements" that ultimately convinced congress to come up with the bucks 3-5 years ago, to place the demands on the economy to open, reopen, or maintain those ammunition plants, etc., to make the rounds that are going downrange as we speak... Re: Your proven comment: But I will state that sometimes the logistics folks fail to understand that every person they have running supplies is one soldier that's not up at the front. We are always trying to increase or, at least maintain, the "tooth to tail" ratio of fighters to supporters. That is the principle behind the historical Marine Corps ethos of "every Marine a rifleman." If there is such a thing as a rear area, it should be able to protect itself, not tie down an infantry outfit to do so. Sounds good on paper, but as you indicated in your comment that I hope I correctly restated above...logisticians (like everyone else), given the opportunity, will become the sine qua non , the main requirement, for success in battle. In the end, it is up to the logistician to keep up with and supply the attacking force, not the other way around...This lesson has to be taught daily...I liked how they answered the phone down at the 7th Motor Transport Battalion at Camp Pendleton 15 years' ago, "7th Motors, Sir. We may not be the "pride", but without us, the"pride" don't ride! jj