Jumbo
July-12th-2006, 02:40 PM
We've all been hearing about this latest stuff coming. Some of the work I do is at Ft. Lewis. I see a number of Stryker Brigade folks and they are buzzed about this.
http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060712/NEWS/607120372
I am also wowed by the $$$ per soldier this must cost. Of course, like anyone else, I want the troops to have the best, but the reality of the military budget and strategic use of money are equally serious issues for stability of our armed forces and national security also means economic responsibility. So my main question is: is it worth it? For all we talk about money being misused, many of us (me right up there on the list) are loathe to ever suggest cut-backs. Besides obviously wanting our military men and women to have the best, most folks probably want to avoid having anyone think they are "un-patriotic" in general to talk about cutting military cost. Cutting social programs is a lot more PC.
I can be conflicted on this issue. I want state-of-the-art gear, and lots of it, for our armed forces. I have also seen literally criminal levels of waste (some deliberate) and bad decisions made for many reasons less than noble. The sheer dollar volume channeled in some of these directions has me questioning the return for that money. Yet I not only love the gear and planes and armor myself (guy thing I guess), but also seek anything that gives our people an advantage.
But we're in a third-world country fighting in a war for over three years now for all our billions of dollars spent on our military. And this has been money spent on conventional arms and their role, so saying "we could nuke 'em" doesn't really relate to what I'm talking about, though I know its some members favorite policy option. And maybe you are satisfied with just saying something like “it’s our political will and policies that are the problem." While I think that’s a valid area, it is also can be an easy cop-out to at least some extent.
We have capable leaders on the field and the best trained and equipped troops. Is all the money we shovel here being used effectively? Is it necessary? Can we even put the military on a dollar diet if we wanted to? Are the generals and planners just into high-tech toys without regard to their actual strategic worth? I personally know of regularly and deliberately damaging expensive gear in order to not get cutback next time by coming in under budget for retrofitting.
And does any future enemy have two military plans now? Conventional means to fight a weaker foe (N. Korea Regulars vs. S. Korea) and another (urban guerilla-lose the uniforms-take to the hills) for some invading much more powerful foe that offsets their superior firepower? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq? Russia was partially crippled financially by spending billions to support their war effort while their opponent lived off the land, relied on foreign support, cheap weapons, and guerilla tactics...and won.
Is that enough questions/topics for a thread? :laugh:
http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060712/NEWS/607120372
I am also wowed by the $$$ per soldier this must cost. Of course, like anyone else, I want the troops to have the best, but the reality of the military budget and strategic use of money are equally serious issues for stability of our armed forces and national security also means economic responsibility. So my main question is: is it worth it? For all we talk about money being misused, many of us (me right up there on the list) are loathe to ever suggest cut-backs. Besides obviously wanting our military men and women to have the best, most folks probably want to avoid having anyone think they are "un-patriotic" in general to talk about cutting military cost. Cutting social programs is a lot more PC.
I can be conflicted on this issue. I want state-of-the-art gear, and lots of it, for our armed forces. I have also seen literally criminal levels of waste (some deliberate) and bad decisions made for many reasons less than noble. The sheer dollar volume channeled in some of these directions has me questioning the return for that money. Yet I not only love the gear and planes and armor myself (guy thing I guess), but also seek anything that gives our people an advantage.
But we're in a third-world country fighting in a war for over three years now for all our billions of dollars spent on our military. And this has been money spent on conventional arms and their role, so saying "we could nuke 'em" doesn't really relate to what I'm talking about, though I know its some members favorite policy option. And maybe you are satisfied with just saying something like “it’s our political will and policies that are the problem." While I think that’s a valid area, it is also can be an easy cop-out to at least some extent.
We have capable leaders on the field and the best trained and equipped troops. Is all the money we shovel here being used effectively? Is it necessary? Can we even put the military on a dollar diet if we wanted to? Are the generals and planners just into high-tech toys without regard to their actual strategic worth? I personally know of regularly and deliberately damaging expensive gear in order to not get cutback next time by coming in under budget for retrofitting.
And does any future enemy have two military plans now? Conventional means to fight a weaker foe (N. Korea Regulars vs. S. Korea) and another (urban guerilla-lose the uniforms-take to the hills) for some invading much more powerful foe that offsets their superior firepower? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq? Russia was partially crippled financially by spending billions to support their war effort while their opponent lived off the land, relied on foreign support, cheap weapons, and guerilla tactics...and won.
Is that enough questions/topics for a thread? :laugh: