Actually, it's good for a number of things.
I noted a article in the Christian Science Monitor on whether the US Army is ready for a conventional war. Its conclusion: well, somewhat, but you know, we really ought to get back to that as what we're really good at. Which makes me think, a bit, of what the Army (all of the military, of course) is supposed to be good for:
'Warfighting' -
- fighting conventional wars
- fighting unconventional wars
- fighting asymetrical and/or undeclared wars
R&D -
- developing improved advanced weaponry
- developing improved basic weaponry
Sociology -
- promoting equality within the ranks
- developing managers who can manage and leaders who can lead
- straightening out messed-up teens
...and doing it all as cheaply as possible. Okay, that part needs a little work.
2 comments:
yeah, that cheaply as possible thing has totally gone out the window.
Nice to see you again.
Big boys toys always cost more, hadn't you noticed? Thats a snide comment, of course. The idea of managing the military as if it were a company is recurringly popular -- the first one I knew of was McNamara in the Kennedy years -- and I think there's something to that, but not as much as you could wish. When you want an improved weapon system and don't know exactly what it will take to get there -- and possibly not even what it is that you want in the first place -- its like walking onto the new car lot with a dumb look and your wallet out.
Post a Comment