Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
My point on the ambiguity was more aimed at allies or potential allies than enemies - will our allies believe our promises.
Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
Back to what I wanted to talk about on this thread, though, I think our ways/ends/means are out of whack with each other. If we want to truly fulfill our NMS, we need to buy the resources to make that happen, or change the strategy.
Having spent some time wandering around the globe it’s my opinion that most folks in other countries have a pretty good understanding of who our allies are and what we can bring to the fight. Being an AF brat sensitized me to the importance and associated costs of the strategic mission the USAF covers down on. Having done the unthinkable and joined the Army I have been sensitized to what it takes to gain and hold ground. I have spent a few years working for the Navy as well and have an appreciation for their contributions to the strategic and sea-lanes fight. Not to leave anyone out, I have enjoyed all of my time spent working with Marines. My take away from these experiences is that DOD is a huge organization, with substantial redundancies in its various abilities to wage war. The safety factors built into our organization truly impress this engineer, just as they do our allies and opponents.

The system is indeed in need of re-balancing. If we can accept that people are more important than hardware, if we can acknowledge that we have substantial redundancies built into both the workforce and the equipment of the whole of DOD, and if we understand that most forecasts predict ongoing and substantial changes to our financial system then perhaps Mr. Gate’s recommendations can be seen as being not just reasonable and prudent but also as a shrewd way forward which will help to ensure that our enemies and allies alike continue to believe our promises.