reply to post by marg6043
No actually we don't have to look behind the "agenda" ... all that matters are the points being made.... Now we should probably fact check the
points carefully if it smells like there is an agenda behind something, BUT regardless of the agenda if the FACTS are good and support the assertion
then the agenda doesn't matter!
Whenever someone tells me to ignore the facts and look at the agenda.... I immediately check and make sure my wallet's still there and my man
virginity is still intact...
Also Marg... you should not make any assumptions about whether someone "understands" the rank system, which you seem to be a bit hazy on, and the
way you describe it is exactly what I was saying is BAD about it!
The reality is rank doth not make you more intelligent by default! Nor does it make your mistakes less likely to get people killed! Matter of fact in
general the higher the rank you have the more people die when you screw up!
Even further you seem to miss the point that you basically confirmed that I was right in making the points I did since you've confirmed that from
what you've seen I'm exactly right about how it works currently!
Where you seem to be failing to grasp things is that many of us including the author are saying this is an inherently BAD way to do things! It is not
conducive to having a top flight military! It is conducive to turning a nation's military into a good place for rich second sons to live out their
top gun fantasies!
Also this mentality that doesn't trust enlisted men with weapons or "killing power" or "high end systems" not only balloons your personnel and
other costs but it also absolutely eviscerates your ability to sustain an acceptable "tooth to tail ratio". The tooth to tail ratio is a way of
explaining how many men in support positions that do not involve direct combat with the enemy to support each combatant. Also the Air Force by the
way it chooses to operate at insane costs of treasure and diplomatic capital all in a bid to keep weapons out of the hands of the enlisted underclass
by basing them so far away from the action that they're considered non combat posts is foolhardy for any number of reasons. Not the least of which
is if we can't trust our military personnel with pistols or carbines at all times how the hell do we trust them with Cluster bombs and nuclear
Also if you pay attention to the current acquisition trends and armament buying trends among our near peer and peer nations you will see that most of
the groups we are more likely to face in combat are VERY quickly working to close the technological gap specifically in things like ISR,
communications down to even the fire team level, Situational awareness augmentation, and other high end force multipliers. Not only are they doing
this but since they are doing it using reverse engineered and extraordinarily heavily mass produced and therefore MUCH MUCH cheaper than our devices
although generally only about 75% as capable/cutting edge as ours but they are starting to buy them in quantities that can match or EXCEED our ability
to get said equipment into a combat zone in the initial days and weeks!
These same near or full peer groups are also doing everything they can to compensate for some of the qualitative differential by arming and armoring
their personnel to a level we quite frankly are not used to facing! We are now in a situation where if we were to face a well equipped adversary
buying chinese gear for example, it's very possible at the squad and platoon level we would be facing a very disproportionate weight of fire from
comparable enemy units!
While everyone else is working to make every individual in uniform they possibly can MORE lethal... our military spearheaded by the Air force is
working to reduce as many personnel as possible to unarmed, and barely trained in combat basics 2nd class DEPENDENTS on the very few remaining
combatants! That trend alone is reason enough to get rid of or very heavily restructure the Air Force as it is now.