To: tekboy who wrote (20953 ) 3/15/2002 1:08:19 PM From: Win Smith Read Replies (1) | Respond to First time through, I thought Keller's article was weak on the technical issues and long on personalities. It was fun to see poor old Franklin Spinney, with his nose still to the same grindstone as he was 20 years ago with Fallows, but also a little sad. On second look, I think Keller actually got pretty close to the real problem with all the "reform" talk. Most concisely stated here, I think.[Andrew Marshall's] role became somewhat more visible last year when Rumsfeld put him in charge of an ambitious review of how the military might be transformed. The studies by Marshall and kindred thinkers amounted to a powerful assault on cherished weapons and on the compartmentalized identities of the services themselves. The military service chiefs and their Congressional allies let the press know they regarded the exercise as secretive and ham-handed (the Hillary Clinton health care study was trotted out as a damning analogy), and you can tell Marshall is a little weary of the backlash. This day he stresses that he sees his job mainly as ''diagnosis'' rather than ''prescription.'' (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/magazine/10MILITARY.html?pagewanted=print&position=bottom , the single page article version)
