and our strategic interests are?
The first challenge is to clearly define our national security objectives, and then define what type of force we need to protect or achieve these objectives. Instead we'll see a bitter budget fight among the services, then within the services (strategic versus fighter versus transport for the Air Force) and conventional versus SOF for the Army, and light versus heavy within the conventional army. The fight won't be based on a clear strategy, because there won't be one, so there will be no true basis for logical arguments, just personal interests. In the end Congress will way in strongly based on pork barrel projects for their districts. What's new?
Every day Charlie squats in the jungle he gets stronger.
Totally true. Congress is the BIG problem there...
Congress and the stupid political parties. :mad:
Defining our national security objectives is the responsibility of the Administration -- and the writers of the Constitution set it up that way as they knew a (they then thought) relatively rapidly changing Congress would not have the continuity required to develop such objectives over the long term. We used to do that but recent trends mean that each Administration comes in determined to undo what its predecessor did.
Congress should put the national interest first, instead they are concerned with party primacy, their prerogatives and reelection so they force the services (all the US government agencies, for that matter...) into the bicker and barter mode for the benefit of Congress and long term incumbency and not for the good of the country.
I could fault the services for going along with that stupid game but they actually have little choice. It will not improve until Congress fixes itself and that will not occur until we voters just routinely vote against all incumbents. It'll take a generation to get the message through but it ain't gonna get better until the way Congress operates gets changed...