| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Failure of State: They Fired the Wrong Guy |
| 2014-12-10 |
 Having a State Department that has the size and ability to articulate a foreign policy for the Department of Defense to follow would assist in this task immeasurably. The Department of Defense is a mission-oriented organization and should be taking its orders from the top, not making them up themselves as they go along. |
| Posted by:Ulaitle Glearong5012 |
| #7 Yuuup, lets finally let the USAF be the US Aerospace Force = US Astro/Space/Star Force it wants to be. To paraph "STARSHIP TROOPERS" RICO = "NAVY DOES THE FLYING, MOBILE INFANTRY DOES THE DYING"! As long as there are unknown, new Planets that Humanity needs to survive + expand, Daleks, + just-darn-unfriendly Aliens, etc. there will always be the Mobile Infantry. DIBS ON THE ORION + KREE BABES. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-12-10 20:34 |
| #6 Give the A10s to the Army and Marines. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2014-12-10 15:03 |
| #5 cough*clears throat*cough about those Hogs. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-12-10 09:50 |
| #4 Ask the Army grunt if he want an A-10 on call or something the fighter mafia promises in the future? If it meets the mission requirement, why screw with it? This is asking the guys who are still comfortable with the M2 (entered service in 1933). |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-12-10 09:25 |
| #3 In so doing they inevitably find themselves associated with militaristic military men who demand all they can get merely for the sake of having it without reference to ends. Not so mission-oriented? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-12-10 09:01 |
| #2 The Department of Defense is a mission-oriented organization and should be taking its orders from the top, not making them up themselves as they go along. Shall we talk about the procurement agencies? This lack of a general fund of widely disseminated military information is perilous to the maintenance of civilian power in government. The civilian mind, presumably concerned with the maintenance of peace and the shaping of policies by the limits of efficient military defense, can derive no instruction from acrimonious disputes between militarists, limitless in their demands, and pacifists, lost in utopian visions. Where the civilians fail to comprehend and guide military policy, the true military men, distinguished from the militarists, are also imperiled. For these the executioners of civilian will, dedicated to the preparation of defense and war with the utmost regard for efficiency, are dependent upon the former. Again, and again, the military men have seen themselves hurled into war by ambitions, passions, and blunders of civilian governments, almost wholly uninformed as to the limits of their military potentials and almost recklessly indifferent to the military requirements of the wars they let loose. Aware that they may again be thrown by civilians into an unforeseen conflict, perhaps with a foe they have not envisaged, these realistic military men find themselves unable to do anything save demand all the men, guns, and supplies they can possibly wring from the civilians, in the hope that they may be prepared or half prepared for whatever may befall them. In so doing they inevitably find themselves associated with militaristic military men who demand all they can get merely for the sake of having it without reference to ends. Vagts, Alfred, History of Militarism, rev. 1959, Free Press, NY, pp 33-34. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-12-10 08:12 |
| #1 Having a State Department that has the size and ability to articulate a foreign policy for the Department of Defense to follow would assist in this task immeasurably. Some would argue that State is far to big already. It doesn't help that there is a pompous dufus at the helm. Recent Secretary of States have not been strong, effective or respected in a dangerous world. The appropriate person to fire is Obama. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-12-10 08:05 |