Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tekboy who wrote (26453)	4/22/2002 11:09:22 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

I posted this as part of a package the other day, but no one seemed to look at them. Read all three; liked all three. Just waiting for a chance to get into a thread on them. I found the first most helpful, the last--Cohen--the thickest. Thick is good. (It's beginning to look as if I need to annotate my own posts.)

To: tekboy who wrote (26453)	4/22/2002 11:17:41 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

tek: Great post from FA on The Defense Dept. under Rumsfeld...here's a passage that caught my attention... <<...By and large, American generals and admirals today are, as senior military officers usually have been, competent and conservative. But underneath them exists a cadre of energetic young officers whose familiarity with information technology and willingness to experiment with it represents something more radical. Increasingly, they have both operational experience and advanced technical education, and they are slowly but surely dragging the system along with them. Whatever stodginess and hierarchy may exist in the U.S. military, the truth is that the majors and lieutenant colonels, and even the sergeants operating the hardware, have a certain power to press their superiors, and they use it...>>

To: tekboy who wrote (26453)	4/22/2002 11:39:55 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I must be on a lot of "ignore" lists because I spoke about all three of those articles the day after I got my copy. Hey, I even posted about the Schelling piece. C2@noheftatallsniffsniff.com or C2@ignoremeatyourownperil.com

To: tekboy who wrote (26453)	4/22/2002 2:46:46 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I posted this as part of a package the other day, but no one seemed to look at them I have to admit your post on them got lost in the "Noise" of the thread. I have just finished reading the Cohen piece. Every couple of paragraphs, I would stop, shake my head, and say to myself, "Where has this guy been!" I have never read a piece on the Defense Department that I agreed with more, or that has caused me to assess my thinking as much. One thing Hackworth makes a big point of, and is right about, IMO, is that the Grunts are being bypassed in what they need while concentration is put on large expenditure weapons systems. For instance, the M16 Rifle is an out-of-date, inferior weapon to what is available today. The HK MP5 is an example of a much better Grunt weapon, ready to go, and proven. Here is a link to what it looks like. hkpro.com It is being used by the CIA and some special forces, but the 10th Mountain and the rest of the Army has still got the M16. The same problem exists with clothing, boots, and food. The standard MRE food pack, ( Call "Meals Rejected by Ethiopians" byt the troops) took years for the Army to come up with, and is inferior to the food made available to the French and British troops. The key tactical point that Cohen addresses is I.S. We are now using very good systems to distribute battlefield Info, but are we doing it right? One of the big criticisms of the Army is that the Generals "Micromanage" too much. Remember the old "REMF" complaint from Vietnam? Franks is running the Afghanistan war from his Florida HQ. From what I have read, this has worked well for the first part of the attack, once the Air Force weenies were put in their place, but was a strategic failure at the end of the main campaign, when the enemy was allowed to escape in Pakistan. I realized as I was reading Cohen's piece that the main jump in efficiency and savings from I.S. in both private and public systems is the elimination of a lot of "Middle Management" from the command chain. This means, in the Army, that a Regimental Commander can now issue correct orders to a Platoon Leader, bypassing the BAttalion and Company Commander. I would bet that Frank's staff was issuing orders to SF Teams in Afghanistan directly from Florida. The possible "good" and "bad" from this jumps out at you. The urge to "Micromanage" has to balanced with the need to not override local commanders. But the key thrust of Cohen's article, IMO, is the near impossiblity of making changes, at the Pentagon level, of the weapon and command systems. When you look at the lack of continuity in top management, due to Political changes, and the Services desire to buy big weapon systems, it is obvious why it is hard to get things done. I have said before that the way the Military works, you have to give them three times, at least, as much money to do something as you would a private business, and that this cannot be changed. But, this means if you really throw money at them, as we are doing this year, you can get some changes through. Cohen lists several of them. lindybill@thisswinefinallyreadyourpearls.com

To: tekboy who wrote (26453)	4/22/2002 2:52:15 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sharon digs in hard on settlements, in right turn that may herald break-up of his government - Ha'aretz Daily (Apr 22, 2002) haaretzdaily.com <<...In a testy, fist-slamming exchange during the Sunday cabinet session, Sharon not only ruled out the idea of dismantling settlements as a gesture of compromise, but vetoed any further cabinet discussion on the subject - at least until he leaves office. If re-elected, Sharon could serve until the year 2007 and beyond...>>