- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
The problems are two-fold. First of all, the risk in that Rumsfeld will suceed in creating a light, nimble force experted equiped and trained to fight terrorism. Great, unless and until we have to fight a more conventional enemy like China. Who by the way must be watching with amazement right now as we tear down the military as the world's preeminent example of a force designed to fight the standing army of another nation-state (the pupose armies have historically served since the nation-state came into being) and recreate it as a weapon to use against terrorist organizations. Ironically enough, Five years ago, China couldn't dream of having military forces capable as ours, yet five years hence it might be a very real possibility since we've turned ours into jihadist busters.
Secondly is the threat the proposed Rumsfeld transformation itself poses to the strategic concept of war the U.S. employs. A good (if long) article on this follows to explain it better than I ever could:
"A sound military transformation would proceed exactly the opposite way (than what Rumsfeld is advocating)."
Secondly is the threat the proposed Rumsfeld transformation itself poses to the strategic concept of war the U.S. employs. A good (if long) article on this follows to explain it better than I ever could:
"A sound military transformation would proceed exactly the opposite way (than what Rumsfeld is advocating)."