WE TAKE OUR NAVY—AND ITS GLOBAL DOMINANCE—FOR GRANTED
BUT HOW ARE WE GOING TO COPE IN AN AGE OF MATURE PRECISION STRIKE? AND WHY SHOULD OUR LAND BASED FORCES FEEL ANY SAFER?
A military friend of mine—who worked for the Chief of Staff of the Army at the time—once memorably commented that we lacked a National Strategy, and so stumbled into one war after another, primarily driven by a combination of arrogance, ignorance, commercial interests—and the knowledge that we were the biggest kid on the block (so couldn’t lose).
In truth, all he said was that we lacked a strategy—the rest is mine—but I have to say that I think our combined opinion has considerable validity.
We don’t seem to know where we are going—let alone how to get there. And we don’t seem to be that good at winning wars either (even little ones).
Look at Yemen right now. The only winner in Yemen to date is Iran—which is enjoying equal success in Iraq, and may well win out in Syria as well.
That isn’t making our ally, Saudi Arabia, too happy—because, sooner or later, Iran is going to gobble them up (or their surrogates will).
Is that bad?
Think before you answer.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter too much if we lose out in these relatively minor conflicts—at least in the short term.
However, we have been so preoccupied playing whack-a-mole with sundry insurgents—who seem to re-emerge under a different name no matter how many we kill—that it is far from certain we are ready for a real shooting war with a first rank enemy.
It strikes me that it would be a fine thing if we played less with our military toys—fun through that is (I speak from experience) and got vastly better at the less glamorous business of ensuring peace, and re-building America.
For that we’d need a National Strategy—or is it downright un-American to plan?
I get the impression that all too many think it is .
VOR words 337.