Then why the concern over deploying a "one trick pony" unit raised and trained for a specific type of warfare to a small war environment?Originally Posted by Ken White
Then why the concern over deploying a "one trick pony" unit raised and trained for a specific type of warfare to a small war environment?
Last edited by JMA; 07-28-2012 at 05:00 PM.
Not concerned. Nothing to be concerned about.
Just pointing out it's not going to happen because it isn't feasible for a host of non-military reasons and is questionable militarily.
The fact that the US has only rarely been able to offer more than a few units that are truly ready to fight in any type of war is not self justifying nor is it an excuse for deploying less than the most capable units we can. It would be better if that were not the case, if the bulk of the Armed Forces were indeed ready. However, they never have been and never will be.
Democracies won't accept the costs in several parameters for that degree of competence and readiness -- and even if they were willing to do so, ability to predict what will unfold is denied us and it is not possible to prepare for everything. However, one can prepare for the worst to the extent possible and adapt quickly to lesser problems -- one cannot prepare for the minimum and easily, rapidly scale up.
We should do better in the combat readiness aspect but probably cannot do so to any significant degree. That's no reason to volunteer to do worse...
That it is not going to happen because of the US system does not make it a bad idea.
Questionable militarily?
Volunteers are always better than conscripts in terms of attitude and commitment.
As far as serving soldiers at the outbreak of hostilities are concerned... what percentage signed up to wait for a war as opposed to the percentage who signed up because they needed a job?
Give me well led and commanded bright eyed and bushy tailed troopies anyday.
The challenge would be to get the right 100 odd man leadership cadre per battalion.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks