US military does not trust their soldiers: that's an understatement. They actually don't give a s..t
johnson and mcnamara recalled the planes scrambled to assist the USS Liberty. Why is it that when I bring that up, everybody's eyes glaze over, including military people.
The only way we will have peace is when people stop going into the military and send congress to the front line.
I bet nobody is worried in Washington because the war with China is going to be - a proxy war again.
BTW, I would stop giving advice to US army. It fullfils the same goal as German Wehrmacht - it is not defensive, it is utmost ofensive. NATO, which US army is an essential part of, serves the Western empire. NATO has literally emerged from German Wehrmacht, as Scott explained in his article: https://scottritter.substack.com/p/from-the-ashes-the-birth-of-the-german
So true, that the US Military has Profits for the Supplier as first and foremost, effectiveness of weapons and safety for the soldier secondary.
While Reagan gets the credit tor bankrupting the Soviet Union, it is the addiction to borrowed money, robbing from the future, that has now destroyed the US economy.
Financialization, skimming profits from ever growing transactions, not profit margins from building needed goods, that has been the replacement for jobs, communities and baseline, fair taxation.
So right. Today's U.S. military is subject to over-bureaucracy with profit for the suppliers at the forefront...not military competence. Interesting to watch films of WWII where soldiers did improvise without consulting higher ups (they had to, they were in life or death situations). Yes, they're films, but some...like Band of Brothers...are pretty accurate. I guess the "modern" U.S. military forgot the importance, and intelligence of the soldiers on the line.
It's pretty usual that peacetime military bureaucracies become bloated and ineffective. This was even true of the US Union when the Civil War started. It took a year or two of losing battles and clearing the deadwood before genuine military leaders like Grant and Sherman arose. The initial Confederate successes led many Confederates to believe that the war could be easily won.
For sure, the US would be easy pickings for a Russian or even Ukrainian military engagement early in a war. The US after a year or two of war may (or may not) be entirely different. The problem with getting involved in a war with an opponent anywhere near comparable to you is the unpredictability of where the war will go. My guess is that Putin used the initial SMO as a bargaining tool to get Ukraine and the US to more or less adhere to the Minsk agreements. It would have worked, except the US and Britain saw the war as an opportunity to weaken Russia, rather than a means of preserving Ukraine.
Excellent rant Scott.
US military does not trust their soldiers: that's an understatement. They actually don't give a s..t
johnson and mcnamara recalled the planes scrambled to assist the USS Liberty. Why is it that when I bring that up, everybody's eyes glaze over, including military people.
The only way we will have peace is when people stop going into the military and send congress to the front line.
Love to watch but hard of hearing and so with subtitles turned off I cannot follow a thing
https://www.tvears.com/
I bet nobody is worried in Washington because the war with China is going to be - a proxy war again.
BTW, I would stop giving advice to US army. It fullfils the same goal as German Wehrmacht - it is not defensive, it is utmost ofensive. NATO, which US army is an essential part of, serves the Western empire. NATO has literally emerged from German Wehrmacht, as Scott explained in his article: https://scottritter.substack.com/p/from-the-ashes-the-birth-of-the-german
Maybe it is time for USA to look in the mirror...
We need to get out of the war business.
Within the MIC context of a war for profit culture, it can only fail.
So true, that the US Military has Profits for the Supplier as first and foremost, effectiveness of weapons and safety for the soldier secondary.
While Reagan gets the credit tor bankrupting the Soviet Union, it is the addiction to borrowed money, robbing from the future, that has now destroyed the US economy.
Financialization, skimming profits from ever growing transactions, not profit margins from building needed goods, that has been the replacement for jobs, communities and baseline, fair taxation.
So right. Today's U.S. military is subject to over-bureaucracy with profit for the suppliers at the forefront...not military competence. Interesting to watch films of WWII where soldiers did improvise without consulting higher ups (they had to, they were in life or death situations). Yes, they're films, but some...like Band of Brothers...are pretty accurate. I guess the "modern" U.S. military forgot the importance, and intelligence of the soldiers on the line.
It's pretty usual that peacetime military bureaucracies become bloated and ineffective. This was even true of the US Union when the Civil War started. It took a year or two of losing battles and clearing the deadwood before genuine military leaders like Grant and Sherman arose. The initial Confederate successes led many Confederates to believe that the war could be easily won.
For sure, the US would be easy pickings for a Russian or even Ukrainian military engagement early in a war. The US after a year or two of war may (or may not) be entirely different. The problem with getting involved in a war with an opponent anywhere near comparable to you is the unpredictability of where the war will go. My guess is that Putin used the initial SMO as a bargaining tool to get Ukraine and the US to more or less adhere to the Minsk agreements. It would have worked, except the US and Britain saw the war as an opportunity to weaken Russia, rather than a means of preserving Ukraine.