Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
I see this here again and again in the forum.
Maybe

You got your priorities wrong.
Which priorities? Political, military, both?

To have a super army is not important.
To maintain peace is important.
Especially if the peace is being guaranteed by the US

Accordingly, you DO NOT WANT your officer corps to be combat-experienced!
On the contrary if there is a war on the go it should be used to test weapon systems and soldiers in battle. To neglect to do this is sheer insanity. This is the only time I could support short tours and that would be to expose as many soldiers as possible to war time conditions and hopefully combat before peace breaks out. Helps to focus a soldiers mind.

A combat-experienced officer corps is a symptom of a national security policy failure!
You mean the politicians screwed up again?

From a military point of view soldiers must be as best prepared for action as possible in the event of war breaking out. Other wise why have a military?

Even the yanks and the Brits who seem to jump in and out of wars have their challenges and so countries whose armies only spend time on peace keeping duties at best in all honestly should probably be graded 'pathetic' by comparison.

It is clear that in the absence of war there is a tendency for the wrong selection criteria to be used for officer advancement. There is little point in having an army comprising a bunch of 'prancers and dancers' as one US general called them. The question is how to keep the soldiers edge during peacetime.