U.S. military vehicles parading near Russia's border in Narva, Estonia on Feb. 24. (Estonian Defense Forces)
Mark Perry, Politico: The U.S. Army’s War Over Russia
Top brass profess to be really worried about Putin. But a growing group of dissenters say they’re overreacting to get a bigger share of the defense budget.
During the Battle of the Wilderness in 1864, a unit of Robert E. Lee’s army rolled up some artillery pieces and began shelling the headquarters of Union commander Ulysses S. Grant. When one of his officers pleaded that Grant move, insisting that he knew exactly what Lee was going to do, Grant, normally a taciturn man, lost his temper: “Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do,” he said. “Some of you always seem to think he is going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command and try to think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do.”
The story was recalled to me a few weeks ago by a senior Pentagon officer in citing the April 5 testimony of Army leaders before a Senate Armed Services Subcommittee. The panel delivered a grim warning about the future of the U.S. armed forces: Unless the Army budget was increased, allowing both for more men and more materiel, members of the panel said, the United States was in danger of being “outranged and outgunned” in the next war and, in particular, in a confrontation with Russia. Vladimir Putin’s military, the panel averred, had outstripped the U.S. in modern weapons capabilities. And the Army’s shrinking size meant that “the Army of the future will be too small to secure the nation.”
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This Politico article points out (rather accurately) on how much U.S. military leaders have over-reacted on the Russian threat .... but bottom line .... they are still getting more money .... U.S. To Deploy More Troops And Equipment To Europe To Deter Russia From Further Aggression (February 2, 2016)
3 comments:
WNUE: "but bottom line .... they are still getting more money"
Yes, and it was like that during the cold war. I was working in defense industry and it was Golden Age!
So B. Poster actually works for the U.S government, and not the Russians? My mind is blown.
Travis,
I didn't see your post. When I first saw this post, I did not have time to comment and while scrolling down for any updates where I could learn something new based upon any replies to some of my other comments which I lkke to do.
Had I have posted I would have pointed out that top government officials aided and abetted by the news media have a disturbing tendency to overestimate our capabilities while underestimating those of adversaries and potential adversaries all while the media puts the most Pollyannish spin on things. I think I've touched on this elsewhere on this site.
If you notice from the article, the military officials who dare point out the Russian threat are maligned at best and often smeared. Those who suggest the threat is being overstated are called terms like "experts", "distinguished", and the like while generally being praised. This type of reporting is the norm rather than the exception in the US media. Furthermore this reflects the thinking of the bureaucracy. As such, these people and not the ones who have the courage to point out the threat are tapped for promotion faster.
The problem with this is at least twofold. 1.) By understating the threat we can blythly continue witb stupid policies. 2.) We don't need to adjust certain methods of thinking. To challenge one's preconceptions can be uncomfortable. (If you don't challenge your preconceptions they will challenge you!!)
This actually works out quite well for Russia not for the United States. By underestimating the threat posed by a major competitor the US government has undermined itself while advancing an adversary!! This could be called an unforced error.
To make matters worse, those who do have the courage to point out the threat don't understand how to deal with the problem. For example, we cannot increase military spending over the mid to long term as we cannot afford it and even if we could more spending only means more inferior weapons to be operated by more military personnel who aren't properly trained for modern warfare.
A better approach would be to try and add value to them while acknowledging Russia's superior position. At the very least, avoid actions that they could deem detrimental to tbeir interests. Furthermore countries such as Poland, Romania, and their fellow travelers seem unreliable allies and, as such, not worth it.
Post a Comment