was just the convenient Ways that fit our Means
Bob's W,Originally Posted by Bob's World
Great point and I completely agree that whatever force we build will tend to be used in ways that are more convenient to the strengths of that particular Army. So the question is what type of profession of arms should build. That in essence is the reason for this discussion the CSA asked us to have.
I value your end, ways, means, perspective as it really highlights the connection between the decision of what type of Army we make to what type of national strategy and policy we can follow. "Build it and they will come" may work for a field of dreams but in the real world we should think deeply about such decisions.
Do we need a large forward deployed force to keep us safe at home; maybe not, perhaps a smaller more expeditionary force would serves us better. But either way our political leadership may ask us to do things we did not anticipate, so a core aspect of any force should be the ability to adapt while engaged in the fight. The more adaptable the force the more easily it can transition along the full spectrum of conflict. Some may point out that such an adaptable force is also easier to use and thus more likely to be used. Providing political leaders with a profession of arms means they may be less inclined to solve problems with other means, but not providing such a force would leave the nation less prepared.
As a profession, we should strive to provide the most effective force possible within our means and trust the political leadership to use it appropriately. As a profession we should not attempt to limit our political leaders by designing a less than optimal force.
Bill Jakola
Bookmarks