Well, I'm old and not too bright so I guess I'm missing something.
As I understand it:
One side says "We will will be involved in FID and COIN and must be prepared at the same time to have some major war capabiility."
Other side says "We must be prepared for major wars but do need some FID and COIN capability."
I think that is broadly correct. Thus, it seems to me they effectively cancel each other out and both are in agreement that the United States does need full combat spectrum capability.
Is that about right?
Then I agree. So why argue? Let's just point that way and move out.
Huh? Oh, the SYSTEM has not made up its mind. I see, So this argument is an attempt to influence the senior leadership to go with one priority or the other, perhaps. Makes sense. Sort of...
I see one problem. The senior leadership of Armed Forces are unlikely to be on the cutting edge of anything. That is not a slam as it appears, it is a simple statement of fact; the system will not allow people to do that ordinarily. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way but it is. Further, that system defaults to warfighting -- and that includes both ends of the spectrum as we have recently been reminded -- so seems to me that both sides will get their wish and we will have some semblance of balance between the poles. That ought to be okay.
It seems to me that the new crowd coming in will have some say and effect and that Congress will have significant impact through their power of purse and that both those two batches of folks would be more likely to listen to a unified voice rather than two opposing camps. But maybe not...
On balance, I'm in agreement with Cav Guy and 120mm and Ron and Bill --and I strongly suspect, the vast majority of serving people. I think that that comes close to being one a them consensual things. er, consensus...
Bookmarks