ARTICLE: CHANGING COURSE: Rumsfeld out Iraq strategy, Pentagon policy will be shaken up, analysts say, By Matthew B. Stannard, San Francisco Chronicle, November 9, 2006This is the article on Rumsfeld that Tom gave an interview for. His part (about 2/3 down):
Part of that emphasis came from a concern shared by Rumsfeld and others in the administration about China, which they saw as an emergent military threat and a "near peer" to the United States, said Thomas Barnett, author of "The Pentagon's New Map" and "Blueprint for Action."
"The fixation on China, which was strong with this administration when it came in and certainly remained strong with the China hawks under Rumsfeld and with Rumsfeld himself became the excuse for over-feeding the war force and starving the occupation force," he said. "The Air Force and the Navy probably get happier than they need to be ... and the Army and the Marines are left hanging."
| Permalink |
Comments (3)
Hi. It's interesting to consider the repercussion of this administrative change -- the American people are definitely thinking about it.
The real question, now that the Democrats have gained control of Congress by focusing on foreign policy, is "what now?" And that's going to be tough, because opinion surveys show the public doesn't have a lot of confidence in any of the strategies on the table. This Public Agenda survey found only two options, better intelligence gathering and
reducing dependence on foreign energy, get any real support from the public.
Check it out at:
http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/foreignpolicy_energy.htm
Posted by public agenda | November 10, 2006 12:46 PM
Compared to other countries, any countries, all countries US military spending is high. It is difficult to imagine that anyone in the Pentagon Finance Ministry is really being neglected though, naturally, everyone wants more of everything.
Is it correct that compared to the troops of other nations ours are going without?
The reason why tech is used in any area is to reduce costs. You invest in capital equipment to eliminate expensive human labor and this is true in every area of human endeavor.
I do not wish to go back and forth on this but the cost of more "boots on the ground" will be unfeasibly expensive. On top of this these new troops are to be trained to unrealistic levels of professional academic competence totally unavailable in the US at any cost. An armed and trained industrial working class is what an army IS in US cultural terms.
On top of this we are told a huge group of spooks is to be created to develop HUMINT in all the locales we express an interest in. Who will pay for this and how can we wait the many years to create these experienced "handlers"?
The best citizen soldiers are drawn primarily from family farms and blue collar industrial labor. Technology has almost abolished both these sources of boot wearers.
Why do so many want to preserve War as an obsolete people heavy industry? There is no chance of this even happening let alone working.
Even if Iraq is winding down the "boots on the ground " people are touting Sudan, the Horn of Africa and sub- Saharan Africa as destinations for swarms of heavily trained, culturally sensitive boot wearers.
As in all other industries the future of War Industry belongs to the industrial robots.
Posted by mikewjohnson | November 10, 2006 11:46 PM
Mr Johnson, I beg pardon in advance for what may be a misinterpretation of your post.
The problem with it is, it's easier to build robots that can kill and destroy than to build robots that can work with strange people and rebuild things. Until someone invents ALIENS-style andriods ("too humane to be human"), leaders will have no choice but to find ways to defy your prediction; America's success on the world stage will be determined by their success or failure at this task.
Posted by Michael | November 13, 2006 4:47 PM