Latest Breaking News

The US has made itself arms dealer to the world by prioritizing the development of ever-more-sophisticated (and expensive) military technology, and flogging off its previous-generation goodies to allies, partners, and (probably) under-the-table private dealers/middlemen. The idea being we'd always have the BEST toys and thus would always win.

This priority has dominated military planning, budgeting, and procurement since the end of WWII, enthusiastically helped by what Eisenhower pinpointed as the "military-industrial complex". That powerful alliance of tech-obsessed senior military (mostly from services other than the Army) and military tech oligarchs, has promoted the mindset that "the best tech wins the most wars" since the Nagasaki explosion.

Reality, however, has contradicted this doctrine multiple times. No matter how advanced a combatant's standoff weaponry might be, the actual process of taking real estate and real-estate based military strategic assets can ONLY be accomplished by the US military's most valuable and paradoxically undervalued asset: Infantry. Well-trained, well-equipped, highly-motivated, experienced infantry, thoroughly supported by both ordinary combat management logistics AND the application of superior standoff weapons supporting infantry operations.

We had our noses rubbed in this in Vietnam. We had our noses rubbed in this in Kuwait, in Fallujah, in Mogadishu, in Baghdad, in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency can NEVER be successfully accomplished by technology alone, and almost all of our modern conflicts have a powerful counterinsurgency element.

So, dude is correct - the best possible investment of the U.S. military budget is the establishment of a recruiting, training, advanced training, logistics management and combat support network that makes and keeps a substantial force of Army and Marine Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Airborne Infantry, Special Operations and Combined Operations units, sharp, trained, and ready for deployment under the widest possible variety of conditions.

This is NOT cheap. A new high-tech bomber or unmanned ordnance delivery system or some dumbshit like skynet or whatever would be cheap compared to the cost of letting the preparedness and effectiveness of an adequate Infantry personnel roster decline.

But he's making a poor case, and likely will be ignored.

resignedly,
Bright