POLITICAL: Cut Defense Spending

Monday, February 25, 2013

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/16-ways-to-cut-defense-spending-7/

16 Ways to Cut Defense Spending
The greatest threat to our national security is how much our militarism costs.
By JON BASIL UTLEY • February 22, 2013

*** begin quote ***

1) The military is top-heavy with officers and generals compared to enlisted men, with far more proportionately today than during World War II. The military is still trained and designed mostly for mass mobilization to refight World War II: tanks, aircraft-carrier strike groups, and fighter planes for dogfights and to shoot down bombers only Russia has. Yet Russia’s military is a shadow of its former self, plagued and demoralized by Putin-era corruption. China is dynamic, defensive, and prospers with peace.

Basing one’s military on past wars’ lessons is nothing new. British generals entered World War I with horse cavalry and the strategy of Napoleon. It’s common to start wars with the strategy of 75 years before.

*** end quote ***

What a joke.

Let’s reform into the Department of DEFENSE!

The Swiss have it right; be a hedgehog.

# – # – # – # – #   


GOVEROTRAGEOUS: Why are the girls and boys still in AfPak?

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/mr-president-why-my-son-afghanistan-anna-berlinrut

Mr. President, Why Is My Son in Afghanistan? By Anna Berlinrut
Juliet Buck
Radical SAHM
Topics> Foreign Policy, Military, Politics, Diplomacy
Editors Note:

Anna is a member of Military Families Speak Out — the only nationwide organization of military families (and supporters) that want to bring our troops home from Afghanistan NOW and take care of them. There is power in numbers. We now have approximately 4,000 military families registered and about 2,000 non-military supporters. The larger we grow, the more powerful our voice will be. We also want to stop the War with Iran before it starts. That war would also not be in the best interest of our country.

This piece was originally published at warisacrime
Wed, 09/19/2012 – 8:37am

*** begin quote ***

September 17, 2012

Dear Mr. President:

He’s been in Afghanistan for two weeks, but I feel as though I’ve aged 10 years. This is my only son’s sixth deployment in harm’s way.

I was supposed to get together with friends Saturday night. But when I read that two more NATO troops were killed in Helmund Province in a green on blue attack, I cancelled my plans. Then I found out they were Brits. This morning I heard that four American troops were killed by Afghans in uniform. Another mother’s son is dead. Not mine.

I don’t understand why our troops are there. First we were told it was to destroy al Qaeda. But Bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda has not been in Afghanistan in large numbers in many years. They are now scattered around the world in many countries.

*** and ***

My son is an ANA trainer in one of the most volatile regions of Afghanistan. He has left his pregnant wife and two young sons to go half way around the world to a country where many of the people he is trying to help want to kill him. Our President cannot give me a valid reason why he is there. It’s time to bring all of our troops home and take care of them.

Sincerely,
Anna Berlinrut, Maplewood, New Jersey

*** end quote ***

Like Ron Paul said: “We can just march out!”

There is NO logic to why we are there, still there, ever went there.

Argh!

This just proves to me that the “anti-war movement” was astroturf!

# – # – # – # – #   


INTERESTING: The Heritage Foundation and OODA

Friday, January 20, 2012

http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/heritage-foundation-then-and-now

The Heritage Foundation Then and Now
Winslow Wheeler

*** begin quote ***

Since then, Heritage has come a long way in defense policy analysis, all of it downward. On December 26, 2012 the Director of Heritage’s Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Dr. James J. Carafano, published a commentary in the Washington Examiner, “What To Do about Obama’s Pound-Foolish Air Force.” Without saying so explicitly, he implied that the legendary Col. John R. Boyd, “a fighter pilot’s fighter pilot” in Dr. Carafano’s words, would favor what the good doctor wants: to reopen production of the $411 million F-22 and to buy more $154 million F-35s.

*** and ***

Not only did Carafano miss the boat on the technical differences between the F-86 and MiG-15, he ignored the even more important Boydian idea that, to win wars, people come first, ideas (i.e., tactics and strategy) are second, and hardware is a distant third. It was perfectly obvious to Boyd why two hundred F-86s achieved air superiority over 1000 MiGs in Korea and shot down 5 to 10 enemies for every American loss. Our pilots were simply far more skilled than the Chinese and Russians by virtue of better selection, more rigorous and realistic training using better tactics and better exploitation of the skills of experienced pilots, and far more flying hours (the much more reliable F-86 flew 40 hours per month to the MiG’s 10 or 12 hours). Had we changed aircraft with the enemy, our lop-sided victory tally in Korea would have been the same—an insight repeated almost verbatim decades later by the Israeli Air Force commanders after the 1973 and 1982 wars, then again by the U.S commander of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Despite John Boyd’s seminal role in designing the F-15 and F-16, he was always the first to point out that technical differences in friendly versus enemy aircraft are minor compared to differences in people skills—and that applied with equal force to ground and naval weapons.

*** end quote ***

I love when I can find gems in posts.

Here is a “debunking” of the Heritage Foundation. The same Heritage Foundation that has been advertising on Rush and Hannity and pushing their Reagan connection.

And inside it is an excellent about why Boyd was a visionary. “People first. Ideas second. Technology third.”

A lot of businesses could use that insight.

# – # – # – # – #


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,032 other followers

%d bloggers like this: