Washington Post: As it combats the Islamic State, Pentagon looks to assemble the force of the future
As it wrestles with how best to attack yet another unconventional enemy—one that is without a recognized state, driven by extreme ideology and willing to kill innocents on civilian territory—the Pentagon has largely stuck to a conventional strategy: bombs away.
The U.S.’s war against the Islamic State has largely been fought from the air, with old reliables of the U.S. arsenal, such as the B-1 bomber and the Tomahawk cruise missile.
But while the force the Pentagon has deployed may be similar to the force that opened the Iraq War’s “shock and awe” campaign more than a dozen years ago, military leaders are at the same time scrambling to assemble a new force, equipped with the most advanced technology for the wars of the future.
WNU Editor: What does the future hold? I would say robots, drones, automated defence systems, and weapons that can pin point targets from great distances and be able to take them out on a moment's notice.
8 comments:
The best battle is one you never have to fight. Perhaps the answer is 'do not start any new wars'.
Britain did not start WW2, but it had to fight it.
What if Britain had not declared war in 1939? They would not be starting a new war.
To defeat a bully, you do not necessarily have to fight him, but you absolutely have to be prepared. I remember a bully that was picking on another kid who was as more or less as strong as him. The other kid did not back down and the bully was shocked and nervous. Finally, the bully said "Stick your head up your ass and fight for air" and nervously laughed. The other kid let it pass and the bully though his joke gave him a face saving way out. The bully never picked on that kid again.
When Britain declared war on Germany in 1939,there was an attempt on Hitler's life. If it had succeeded, the German political establishment might have ceased aggression in Poland and negotiated. The mere fact of Britain declaring war almost stopped WW2. The mere act of declaring War caused people on the other side to attempt to kill their leader, Hitler, who was waging "aggressive" war.
Maybe Qaddaffi should have been taken out. But Obama, Hillary et all never put that before the American people. Basically, Obama used executive authority and Congress rolled over. Boehner was in charge of the House ... never mind. The orange man has no backbone.
Didn't Colin Powell say "If you break it you own it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule
Obama broke Qaddaffi's power and he did not own up to it by putting American boots on the ground until a new government could be elected in free and fair elections. That is Obama was a cheapskate. He did not put in the work but tried to cut corners. He did not have a mandate to put boots n the ground because he never made the sales pitch to the American people nor really go to Congress.
Qaddafi was a bad man. But after 2003 he no longer attacked us nor give aid or comfort to those who did. So we no longer had a beef with him. R2P is legitimate IMO, but you have to make the case for it. Meaning you have to build public support and you have to devote enough resources given that it has to compete with many other priorities such as education, welfare, read building etc. Samantha Power, Hillary, Susan Rice and Obama might have done that in their echo chamber, but they did not do that to the wider public. You can get away with an "air"war in pursuit of legitimate purposes and not worry about winning a mandate until break a country and do not put the resources in to fix it. That is exactly what Obama did.
I am tired of hearing about how Libya or Iraq is 3 countries or should be. You could say the same about Canada, the U.S. Spain, France, Italy, Great Britain or Germany. Is the last sentence clear or do I have to figuratively beat people over the head with the different regions like Catalonia or Provence and Brittany?
Feel better now?
"The best battle is one you never have to fight. "
Sun Tzu might say that, but his context would be different.
In time of peace prepare for war and then you will not have to fight.
The US has been so prepared and rambunctious for war ever since the end of WWII that they have started, and lost numerous wars. The current situation in the Mid East is a product of that preparedness and desire to pick a fight hence my advice to not start any more wars.
Must be that draw down in the % of the budget devoted to defense. The drawdown in troops #s etc
War is part of the human condition it always has been war's and some other countries, somewhere will be at war forever . we will not have an evolution out of war . and for as long humans exist the battlefront of the future is set up on our destiny.
Si-vis-pasen- Oh good that explains it for me. It is okay I guess that we will have war as long as we have, human traits such as, greed, cruelty, brutality and a few more I can't think of right now.
Post a Comment