are advanced fighter planes strategic weapons all by themselves? i argue, that without more, such as logistics and supply train, and the ability to be hauled to battle, they are not.
so, relax that china and russian say they are going to build advanced planes. just a bit. it is a cause for concern, but, not for panic.
of late, some recent gnashing of teeth, which i share, over the u.s. cancellation of the full f-22 raptor air superiority fighter build, with about ¼ to 1/3 of the original contract to be built, and the services going with a reduced number of planes, in favor of going with a full build of the f-35 joint services "jack of all trades" fighter/attack craft. (the f-35, though not the air superiority plane the f-22 is, is not exactly toothless.)
this teeth gnashing has been recently exacerbated by confirmation that russia and china and perhaps the indians are proceeding with plans to build a new generation of fighter air craft with capabilities comparable to the f-22, and in number. some recent commentators have gone so far as to suggest this development might give our potential adversaries sufficient capacity to limit our ability to assert in theatre air superiority, in given situations.
from this, it is deduced whether or not the commentators meant the inference, that the u.s. military strategic superiority around the world might be blunted, and perhaps supplanted. lord knows, i have mumbled such things in the disquiet of poor sleep.
the implication clearly to be drawn from such concerns as voiced is that the u.s. dominance and ability to project strategic power may be waning a bit, and may face stiff challenges in the future.
well, i share the concerns. in my view, if you are in the military business, you want to be the best in terms of hardware, capability and personnel. best to go into a fight, if you are in the fighting business, with a clearer prospect of winning than of loosing.
do such concerns stand up to sober assessment, or is the matter not so dramatic as when viewed at first blush.
this is a fact based world, is it not? and, it is also a world that rewards critical thinking over the long run.
update: the soviet union, ... , yes, i know, russia, but it is still the soviet union, does not have strategic military capability, and neither does china, and neither does india. not yet, anyway. follow the link, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8126433/Rusting-ships-at-Frances-main-naval-base.html , to a very interesting article on the status of the french and english navies. the state of the navies of these two historical naval powers is, in a word, deplorable. to try and rectify this situation, and to give themselves some minimal strategic reach and on the budgetary cheap, they have agreed to combine their strategic naval forces, including the sharing of several of england's air craft carriers and that of france's lone nuclear powered carrier. it is not a very pretty picture for the free world, which is rapidly loosing it military capability to defend its freedom, and, except for the united states, has no more military "reach" than the soviet union and china and india. in the next 25 years we may expect that to change as regards china and india, ... , but, given europe and england's difficulty controlling islamic extremism amongst its "immigrant" populations, and given the weakness of their economies, it is to be doubtful that they former powers will contribute much to the defense of the west. indeed, it is an open question whether they will stand against the tide of islam. it is very reassuring, in its own little way, that when islam does complete the conquest of england, france and the remainder of western europe, that it will assume control of precious little by way of military prowess, tradition or advanced military technology as successor to the military glory that was once western europe. in terms of naval forces, it looks as though islam will succeed to some rusting scows, and naval forces that the united states should have little difficulty in destroying either on the open seas or, more likely, rusting in port. islam will not produce the sailors to get them out of port. and, again, i find this quite reassuring. now, about those nukes. end update. fini.
so, let's look at the facts, and do some critical thinking. and, as a general matter, the view will be asserted herein that it takes more than one conventional weapons system, no matter how good, to assert strategic power. a very clear example lies readily at hand, that being the fact that israel having some of the best fighters in the world, along with a pilot corps of unquestioned quality, does not have a strategic air force: as discussed in this blog many times, this fact poses a severe limitation on israel’s ability to take out the iranian nuclear weapons systems. israel simply cannot reach iran with the quantum of force necessary to do the job, as the fighters and attack air craft she has cannot make the 2400 mile round trip with enough throw weight.
so, again, the underlying proposition is, a strategic weapon or strategic weapons system does not confer of necessity its possessor strategic capability.
well, what is strategic capability?
perhaps russia’s recent invasion of georgia demonstrates more clearly what strategic reach isn’t.—georgia lies on russia’s southern border, and indeed, throughout history has demonstrated the difficulty of asserting military dominance over distance, as georgia has moved in and out of russian dominance as russia’s power has waxed and waned: georgia’s most famous native son/citizen, for example, is josef stalin.
when the russians invaded georgia is was with a very rag tag assortment of troops, who could not muster common uniforms, and were clearly very short of logistic support, in terms of weapons, ammo and food. in addition, the russians were not able to muster much air power into georgia, which hurt them not in the slightest because georgia had no air power to throw against the invasion. but, the clearest indicator of russian limitation to project power was that after about 4 or 5 days, the offensive simply ground to a halt, and not because georgian defenses had stiffen, or their resolve to oppose invasion had grown.
the russians came to a halt, because they did not have the supply train to support even a small endeavor like this.
does that mean that russia is not a formidable military power, in the ranks of such power in the world. it does not, clearly. russia has a fine army, with heavy and tanks and artillery galore, and it has many fine air planes with marvelous capabilities, some of which rival the capabilities of western air craft and perhaps exceed them on a plane to plane basis. and, it would be a fool hardy power that concluded from the georgian adventure that russia would not be able to defend itself if invaded: the fact is, russian power is modeled on the capability of localized forces being able to mobilize and brought up to strength quickly, with man power brought on board to flesh out hardware in situ.
does this mean that georgia illustrated the inability of the russians to assert military power outside her borders? yes, it means precisely that, in my opinion, and it also illustrates why russia has not been able historically to lever more influence in the middle east as a map might suggest. the point being, it is far easier militarily to defend than it is to attack, and the projection of strategic power is dependent upon the ability to carry on offensive warfare.
we will examine, in just a bit what is required to develop the ability to project power as the u.s. is currently capable, and whether or not it is known that the above countries are willing to undertake such an endeavor, or are currently doing so.
and, we will look at what the u.s. has in terms of "reach," and what the rest of the world "hasn't" in terms of reach.
but, first, what are these other countries developing.
well, they are developing fighter aircraft. and, as i am given to understand from what i have read, they are developing air superiority fighters for their own use and for export to nations which are diplomatically and geo-politically allied. pakistan, for instance, has already purchased chinese manufactured fighters which look a whole lot like the u.s. f-16 fighter.
this is something that should not be lost upon the observer. in some ways, developing advanced weapons does not confer only military power, but it garners military, diplomatic and trade relations as well. i suppose you have to think no further in this regard to the u.s. influence over the conduct of egyptian and saudi arabian diplomacy, as a result of u.s. sales of planes and allied weapons systems to this country. were china, or russia, interested in nosing into these relationships, it would do them no harm to be able to sell these countries weapons on a par with what they can buy from the united states.
the hanky wringers in the crowd may view this askance, and as further evidence to our trip to perdition, and i am not so sure i disagree with them that it would be desirable if the arms trade did not exist in the world, but it seems a well established fact of life. the hanky wringing seems to have been to no avail.
what aren’t these countries developing?
i have not seen any indication that they are developing strike aircraft such as the english tornado, a marvelous aircraft, or our own f-35 as now being deployed in some numbers, yet to be proved battle worthy in actual combat. now, the a-10 warthog is supposed to be supplanted by the f-35 as a craft capable of attacking armor, which move strikes me as asinine: why expose an incredibly expensive airplane to ground and anti-craft fire when the same job can be done, as amazingly demonstrated in real life combat, by a far cheaper and mission specific aircraft. you are not going to fly an aircraft long distances to fight armor, but sortie it from close to the battle lines on marginal airfields, something i’ve yet to see demonstrated as an attribute of the f-35. i will take the a-10 for that, thank you.
but, the russians and the chinese and the indians do not seem to be developing expertise in that.
neither are they developing pilot-less drones as the united states, israel and canada which strikes me as a curious oversight. but, this illustrates, does it not, the lack of asserting the reach that a modern strategic air force has, in its ability to place forward the supplies and crews necessary to keep the drones flying, in its ability to defend such forward deployment of drones, and in its ability to train, equip and staff the infrastructure that goes into the “piloting” of the drones from remote sites, and the command structure stretching across the globe to decide when to and when not to engage targets by drone borne craft.
and, finally, these countries are not building something that is the back bone of a strategic air force, and that is the modern strategic bomber. the fact is, only one country in the world has a true strategic air force, capable of delivering weapons all over the globe, and that is the united states. only three countries have ever marshaled strategic air forces in war time, that being the united states, great britain, and in an extremely limited sense, nazi germany during the battle of britain. germany was extremely limited in this effort in that it had no true strategic bomber, and fighters with such short combat radius that they could only defend their bombers when launched from france: when germany lost control of france, it lost the ability to attack england from a distance.
and, this illustrates another aspect of the true strategic air force, and that is both during world war ii and the cold war, only the united states was able to supply strategic air cover to its bomber forces over enemy air space, e.g., to have fighters accompany the bombers to protect them from enemy fighter attack.
during the cold war, the english had some capable bombers, but only russia and the united states could marshall strategic air attack, and the russians had an extremely limited capability in this. i cannot imagine it to have been a very welcome feeling for the pilot and crew of a russian badger to look out the windows and to see themselves “escorted” by american fighter interceptors.
here is a fact. when supersonic fighter aircraft go supersonic they consume enormous amounts of fuel. as a consequence, either they are refueled in flight, or they have an extremely limited combat radius and loiter time over the target, and their ability for extended combat is very limited at distance.
as a consequence, an essential truth emerges about fighter aircraft and that is, they are “strategic” only in the sense of maintaining superiority over one’s own air space, or in providing escort to attack craft.
in and of themselves, the modern fighter plane, as a system, is of limited strategic value unless integrated into other military systems.
and, here, once again, the russian foray into georgia illustrates the point. russian air superiority over georgia was limited, because the russian military and civilian logistic systems could not get the air planes to georgia in the first place, and in addition they had no way to supply or fuel them if they had flown them there. nor, in the final analysis, did the russians have the ability to adequately defend the planes once there.
modern jets and bombers require huge air bases, and they require enormous stores in fuel and weapons. they require enormous support from flight crews and mechanics, and parts and ordnance. and, they require a lot of man power to run the command and control systems, and a huge command & support structure to figure out targeting and attack strategies. the fact is, the fighter pilot just not just walk out to his plane and hop in, and go find someone to fight or to bomb.
and, to do all this, you have to be able to put all this on site.
as it stands, no other military on earth has the capability of the united states to do this. no other military on earth could have fought the gulf wars against iraq as did the united states.
and, this fact, and this fact alone, completely demonstrates why in all its adventures since wwii around the world, in korea, in south viet nam, in iraq, (and in iran, if it comes to that) the united states not ever faced another super power, … , except, of course, in korea, where the chinese state lies directly contiguous to north korea.
the fact is, no other power on earth can get to the localized fight, except the united states.
nor will they be able to in the future, with just fighter planes. period. not unless someone else can support their deployment.
granted, the fighter air craft is where the glamour is, just like battleships were in another age. but the fighter, or interceptor, is not as demonstrated, the equivalent of strategic reach. by itself, or even in considerable number, fighter aircraft are not strategic aircraft, nor do they equate to strategic reach, or the ability to project power.
we have seen the limited ability of the israeli air force to attack iran’s nuclear facilities, with some of finest fighter air craft and pilots in the world, and russian adventure in george demonstrates that it is hard to get the infrastructure of a military system even outside its own borders.
and, this goes a long ways toward explaining why russian has never been able to project military power into the mediterranean, and will not be able to do so in the future, even if possessed of advanced fighter air craft. even if they are arguably the best fighter air craft in the world when deployed, this will remain true unless other weapons systems are conceived, planned, built and deployed by the russians.
why?
well, the answer is suggested in the case of israeli difficulties in attacking iran. given limited combat radius in the air craft available to carry on the attack, the israeli’s will have to depended upon a series of perhaps 4 in flight refueling to get her planes out and back, and at these extended distances she will have to defend her flotilla of air tankers the entire distance. if i were an iranian war game planner/strategist, i would be examining very closely the matter of attacking these “gas stations” at their most vulnerable, when the israelis have to commit their air craft to the attack: at this point, she will have the fewest planes available to defend her flying gas stations.
russia faces this profound challenge if she tried to project air power into the mediterranean from her own air space.
and, the russians, not in their planning nor in their war gaming have never demonstrated the desire to be able to emulate the united states in her air lift capability, let alone developed or built the infrastructure to carry such a thing on. in all the reporting and analysis that went on in the iraqi campaigns, and that goes on regarding the fighting that goes on in afghanistan, not much attention is given to the simple astounding fact that america can deploy her supply lines this far, defend them, and supply the logistics needs of troops fighting on the ground with helicopter, air and limited artillery support.
it is an amazing feat. and, no other country in the world can remotely accomplish it.
neither russia nor china has enough air transport not enough ground transport to accomplish it close to home, and they certainly have no ability to project & protect it over extended distances. to do what the united states is doing takes tremendous sea lift capability, tremendous air lift capability, and tremendous logistics endeavors, all of which must be protected from the time the military takes possession of goods, food and ordnance at the factory door until it is delivered to the troops at station, and at bases. the difficulty of this is amply demonstrated by the attacks on truck borne fuel trains in pakistan as of late, no doubt as a result of pakistani military connivance in theatre. it must be confusing, if you are pakistani military, to know which uniform to put on in the evening, whether pakistani or talibani.
so, let us now look to the components of u.s. strategic power, and see if fighter planes being contemplated and/or built by other nations impinges on it, or might serve as a workable substitute for others who aspire to u.s capabilities in terms of strategic reach.
the focus on this article has been on fighter planes, to show that without more all the ambitions of other world powers to develop united states power and influence, will come to naught. and, this focus has kept us away from the overwhelming power that the united states exercises in one other sphere, such that no power on earth will rival in the foreseeable next two or three generations.
and, that is the united states navy.
it rules the seas. period. any mischief that goes on on the high seas is as a result of the u.s. navy allowing it. this idiocy of somali piracy happens because the political overseers of u.s. navy functions have ordered the navy to stand down: that this is so, is a tremendous indictment of the obama administration.
you think the navy doesn’t loathe obama for this? you gotta another think coming.
there was a small fuss when last year a russian “air craft” carrier steamed into a syrian port, and the syrians and the russians talked of a russian naval base in the mediterranean. some reacted to this as though it posed a genuine counterpoise to american sea power. did it?
well, to sum it up, this display of "gun boat diplomacy" didn’t amount to much.
for one reason, the russians have no “air craft” carriers. none. the craft that cruised into the mediterranean was, in fact, a missile frigate, her keel laid some 30 years ago in georgia, her sister ships sold by the georgians to the chinese when the russians defaulted on payments. she is classified under international agreement as a missile frigate, or some such, and she has a compliment of some 14 aircraft plus some very small troop carrying helicopters, and of that complement only 7 or so aircraft have very much operational capacity at all. they take off from a “jump deck,” e.g., ramped deck, because her launchers are a bit weak, and i have never seen it demonstrated or established that her jets can land upon her. that’s an interesting point, now i bring it up.
she has the capacity to “steam” for about 40 days, until she is to be chandlered, e.g., “old salt” talk for filling up the gas and getting groceries on board.
russia does not have another “air craft” carrier being built, and so far as i know, has not put another in the process of having a keel laid. i have not read that russia has planned or designed an aircraft carrier since the psuedo-carrier was built. and, as a matter of fact, it is not clear that russia even has a shipyard capable of undertaking the construction of an aircraft carrier, ... , that is precisely why the "carrier" under discussion was built in georgia in the first place.
when the russian carrier made her voyage to syria, she was accompanied by a defensive missile ship, and a support vessel.
that’s it.
how long do you think that poor ship could withstand attack by israeli or u.s. aircraft carrier planes?
the russians have no merchant marine. nor, military support navy vessels such as could sea lift supplies, weapons and ordnance to the mediterranean, or anywhere else in the world, for that matter.
in effect, the russians do not have a naval capacity to ship things, nor to carry weapons and aircraft, nor to defend troopships carrying troops, if she had any such ships. neither do the russians have the air lift capability to do so: much was made of the huge transports the russians built in the last century and still fly, but they did not have enough of them to do very much with them.
by stark contrast, the u.s. navy has 13 or 14 air craft carrier task forces. a task force is a carrier, escorting and picket attack subs, surface ships galore, and each of those carriers has air craft for fleet defense, strike and attack, and air superiority fighters. in addition, the carriers have helicopters, and anti submarine air craft. the surface ships are concerned with air defense, and carry rockets and missiles up the ying yang for that purpose. finally, awacs and radar planes fly perimeter defense to warn the fleet of approaching threats, and to direct responding u.s. aircraft onto the threats. the f-14, that glorious old bird, has missiles with a very long reach from where she is stationed, and she stands on station almost continuously.
two or three of those carrier task forces sailing together are capable of handling any hostile air force in the world. if there were any aircraft in the world capable of reaching them at sea. friends, that is overwhelming power that can be brought to bear, if only our commanders in chief have the cajones to use it.
finally, the united states marines have small aircraft carriers of their own, which carry a complement of harrier vtol air craft and helicopters, a whole mess of combat marines who are equipped to spear head any landing anywhere as they put to sea, and who can be taken to the beach head in amphibious craft, hover craft or combat helicopters. to the best of my knowledge such craft can carry about 2,000 combat marines, and in a pinch if it was known that they were going to be needed even more could be crammed on board. in the final analysis, each carrier & carrier group has the equipment and marines on board to mount its own landing, against opposition.
did we talk about submarines, for the navy? the russians are again deploying subs, and just to let it be known they are back in the game, they are shadowing american craft. there will be some dented hulls come from it, for sure.
and, friends, the same is the situation for the chinese, and the indians. though they have announced ambitions to build the advanced fighters, and though they have ambitions for geo-political reach, and given that they have economies sufficiently large to carry these matters out, and given that they have the educational base and demographics by which to achieve such things, and though they will begin some day, ... , for the time being, they are as the russians, and simply do not possess the strategic reach nor the underlying infrastructure for it.
they have announced their intent, and they will carry it out. some day.
but, it will be a long time. and, it is not now, nor in the immediate future.
it takes years to design such weapons, years to build them and enormous societal involvement to fund and build such weapons, and it takes years to make it operational and to train the personnel necessary to operate the systems.
and, there is one more thing involved. nothing illustrates the matter better than a quote from adoph hitler, which i read some years ago, and which i hope i can retrieve from google. (i have not done so yet, still doing the "proofing" on this i should have done last night.) hitler was not reticent to praise himself when he thought the praise due, and he thought the praise due almost always. and, if he could not find a lackey to do it, he praised himself.
he was not given to cautionary tales.
but, he said something which ought to be sobering to those thinking of becoming instant military powers.
it was to the effect, that when it came to land warfare and armies the germans were excelled by no one, they were the lions of the savannah, or some such similar hyperbole. but, on the water, he said, they were bumblers. the germans, hitler rightly observed, were not sailors.
and, in this assessment, hitler was prescient.
and, neither have the russians been sailors, not of the world’s blue waters. two words characterize russian efforts in this regard, and they are "failure" and "calamity." when they engaged the japanese, disastrously, in the little affair just before wwi, it took them the better part of two years to get their fleet to the fight, and they were utterly destroyed by the japanese who must have been overjoyed to have found their adversary, and to be able to go home and re-paint their ships.
naval warfare is a warfare of tradition, not just of sailors and sailing, but of command and planning. the japanese navy was a formidable foe in wwii, especially given the devastating attack on pearl harbor. and, at the start of the war, her aviators were better flyers, her planes better planes, and she had a battle hardened navy.
what she didn’t have was the naval tradition and command structure of the u.s. navy, which built a new navy, manned it, trained it, made it operational, and took it to every fight it could find the entire course of the war as this was going on. the u.s. navy engaged the japanese at every turn, in situations that would have given any prudent person pause, and rushed to the attack always.
tradition.
won at considerable sacrifice. maintained at even greater price. but, it won a war.
a tradition that the chinese and the indians, though formidable people, will be at some no small price acquiring over time, even after they have the hardware. after all, you gotta find a dependable dry cleaner in every port of call, and that doesn’t happen overnight. and, you gotta have salts. this is not a joke, though you may think it such. you gotta have the pride that causes old men to wear baseball caps with the insignia of the ships they served on, from battle cruisers to air craft carriers to landing craft, to ships’s lighters.
the united states army.
the u.s. navy.
the u.s. air force.
the united states marines, the lean green fighting machine, the finest assault troops on the face of the earth, equaled only by british special units and the gurka’s, in my opinion.
what do they have in common, that gives them reach?
logistical capability. planning capability.
ability to extend and protect supply trains at ever point, to prevent crippling attack.
the ability to deploy, and be supplied, at any point on earth.
so, we might inquire, is there any evidence that these other countries, though they announce the plans to build advanced air superiority fighter planes, are undertaking the building of the structures and infrastructures necessary to emulate this reach.
the answer is no.
it is though the military of these countries have designed the dress uniforms to be worn by their societal elites who shall take up flying these craft, without ever having earned the battle traditions behind them. the marine dress uniform, for instance. do you know where the sword comes from? well, it is modeled on swords the marines met and captured at tripoli, that’s where. the right to wear the sword with the uniform, was won in battle.
and, there is one other matter, this superpower thing.
rank and command and status in the u.s. military is won on merit, and performance. it is not won on political and social status, and those who fly the air planes off of u.s. carrier decks are not doing it because they were born into the elites, or because they can spout the party line from front cover to back.
it is the difference between the french nobles who were the knights at agincourt, and the english long bowman who were born yeoman, and whose proficiency with the bow was won, and not conferred.
until the russians, the chines and the indians learn this, u.s. military hegemony, even if squandered by u.s. politicians such as the sorry assed idiot now in the white house, will be around for some time longer.
my bet is on the indians to master the tricks first, in no small part because of the military and social traditions learned from the british, first as subordinate colonials, and then as part of empire, and then in winning their independence. india will master first, the social underpinnings necessary to support super power status. i do not think the russians shall recover their military might readily, because of a society beset by thuggery and rampant alcoholism, and rampaging tuberculosis and a declining birth rate.
the russians are at their zenith. it is only down for them.
the chinese, and the indians. they will be formidable. soon enough. but, fighter planes alone, no matter how good, will not be enough for them to be able to project power. that takes legs.
without the infrastructure to support such ambitions, the u.s. is not immediately threatened by this. not for decades. and, not until the chinese and the indians begin sailing the world’s oceans.
but, i will tell you who is.
and, that would be israel.
such air craft constitute a strategic threat to israel, because in the limited geographical theatre of action represented by israel, the kind of localized air superiority the next generation of fighters represents if possessed by arab/muslim states presents israel with a grave danger, and becomes a thing of strategic significance. these fighter planes, as contemplated by russia, china and india are strategic weapons in the small theatre of operations that is israel.
if the saudis and the egyptians gain possession of f-22’s and f-35’s in sufficient number, that is of very strategic importance to the israelis. it is a strategic threat, a threat to israel's very existence.
that is pretty self evident, and it needn’t be examined very closely to understand the truth of the assertion.
we do not know the israeli counters, if any, at this point.
but, i would imagine that israel will acquire f-22’s and f-35’s for her defense, and i would expect her to make her own contributions from her own air defense industry.
what else might israel bring to her own defense?
there are significant rumblings that boeing and others have nearly developed air craft deployable laser systems, using on board chemical systems to generate the instant burst of power needed to generate a weapons grade laser beam. boeing and its partners have already shot down test mule missiles with it.
the u.s. defense department has tabled the system, and further development. i would not be too surprised to see israel take it up, both as an air borne and ground based defense. israel will not shun such tecnology, as the confines of her geography make deployment of such weapons in mass quite feasible.
we shall see. i will be looking for any israeli pronouncements on this subject in future, and if i run across any israeli statements on how such a threat might be countered, i will bring it to the table.
but, to conclude.--
in sum, u.s. power has not been sufficiently degraded yet by our marxist leaders such that we face imminent danger, strategic or otherwise. and, the plans to build even very advanced fight aircraft by china and russia will not change this situation, in a strategic sense: it will make them more difficult of strategic attack. but, if you hear of china, india & russia planning & building shipyards, of laying the keels for multiple aircraft carrier task forces, of building and deploying same, and we have done nothing in return, then worry. worry, big time.
and, please folks, vote this coterie of idiots running congress and the white house out of office, so that we can restore our country and its defenses to the posture it belongs.
living under this rule is a night mare, from which i hope to awake, just a month from now. vote. vote as if your lives depended on it.
john jay @ 10.09.2010
p.s. no, i didn’t talk about nukes. that’s for another day.
and, i didn’t talk about one other matter, under a sub-heading to “tradition.” and, that is the service academies, and the war colleges.
the service academies have been educating military officers for a long time in this country, west point having been in business a good while before the civil war. west point educated the officers for both the union and the confederacy, and “enabled” this country to carry on a civil war in which 29 battles exceeded the size of the fight at waterloo.
in a few short years, with conscripts, this military tradition created armies with the discipline and grit to carry on that conflict.
annapolis creates the officer corps for the navy and the marine corps, hence the marine’s ability to run their own little “invasion carriers,” as i call them. marine and navy command is integrated. they develop battle doctrine on a joint basis, and such things as close air support as done by the marines and naval and marine aviators is some of the most demanding and sophisticated battle order in military science: this sort of thing didn’t happen overnight, and is a continuing art.
the air force academy educates the officer corps of the flyboys.
and, the merchant marine educates its own officer corps.
in addition to the service academies, the military branches run “war colleges” for both non-commissioned and commissioned officers, with graduate academic degrees available from some of them. they war game future conflicts against anticipated adversaries in various theatres of conflict.
this is what i am trying to say in this post script.—
war is not a disorganized brawl. it is a very carefully choreographed endeavor, with rules of conduct and engagement, and it is as fully an intellectual exercise as it is the application of brute force, … , which it most assuredly is, as well. the services just don’t give people guns and turn them loose, and say go shoot someone. fighting requires a lot of preparation, and mental acumen, and not to understand this, is not to understand the military.
and all of this, … , well, it is by definition strategic in nature. it is where strategy is formulated. it is were hardware and tactics and art are integrated into the soldiers who are the fighting units.
without this tradition, without this intellectual knowledge, a military is not very proficient, and is most certainly not strategic. ultimately, these factors are what separate the men from the boys.
JJ---Thank you for this cogent and thorough analysis of the current state of our military force. It is easy to fall into despair over the forced decline of our military assets. I am heartened by and agree with your analysis and concur with you on the importance of the next election. Keep up the excellent work!
Posted by: fightforfreedom | October 10, 2010 at 09:08 AM