Does anyone else think about possible journal entries in advance? God, I am so lame. 
I've been out of the news cycle lately - with the exam and then recovering from it. But, I seem to be getting back into the swing of it. And hey, just in time to read a story about how the Pentagon refuses to face up to reality. Bitchin.' The basic point of the article is that some 15 years ago a handful of military strategists predicted that the days of "manoeuver warfare" (large units moving around quickly - think WWII) was over. They published a piece where they predicted - very astutely I might add - that the new trend in warfare was "insurgency warfare," which is basically small scale, guerilla-style tactics.
The Pentagon's has responded to this .... by ignoring it. In fact, for years "insurgency" was simply purged from the Pentagon, as if pretending it didn't exist would make Vietnam go away. Instead, the Department of Defense is all ga-ga over new wired up units, unmanned vehicles, and big equipment. In contrast, insurgent warfare calls for an almost policing-level of action: living in neighborhoods, learning more about the culture and context, and focusing on smaller units of soldiers working together. In fact, in a situation like this, large units are a hindrance: they're slow and just become easy targets.
The Pentagon is probably not wrong is fully dismantling their large armored units and divisions of infantry. They are perfectly aware that China is just sitting right there. Of course, there's always Russia too. And if you think that no one in the Pentagon has had a meeting about the EU .... well....
I'm not really sure why the Pentagon insists on ignoring the writing on the walls. I'm sure some of it has to do with the influence of large contractors (that old military-industrial complex). Further, there is a sense of bureaucratic inertia as well holding things back: "We've always fought this way, it's done right by us so far, etc."
But, in a lot of ways those explanations don't seem to make sense. Presumably, smaller units could still take advantage of a lot of the technology being developed. Hell - they might even need whole *new* bits of technology. In addition, while bureacracies tend to resist change, a combination of budget signals, appointments, new policies, and careful massaging *can* redirect them. Thus, even the most entrenched bureaucrats can be moved - and they will tend to follow new orders out of a sense of professionalism. So this disregard for what is actually needed on the field seems to suggest some deeper roots than these institutional causes.
Fuck, not even some Freudian explanation about penises can account for this. I mean, I don't think anyone wants to dispand artillery or tank units - just inject more flexibility. So the capacity to still blow up shit real good would never go away.
To me, it seems like an obsession with technology. I know that Dialectic of Enlightenment is one of my intellectual crutches ... but one gets the perception that the Pentagon wants to build these newer, bigger machines just to see if it *can.* In other words, they want to know: can we build a bomb that does X? A plane that goes Y fast? A tank that shoots Z distance? They are enraptured with their *capacity to produce* rather than with any desire to produce results. Sure, smaller units would have new technology - but it would be boring shit like surveillance equpitment, translators, or better and less conspicuous body armor. That's not *fun.*
At the end of the day, there is a sense of childishness that is informing the choices of the Pentagon. It is, bluntly put, just damn stubborn. This is just wild conjecture. I know fairly little about how the military, or bureaucracy in general actually operate. I do know this is stupid however. Generally, I have a fair amount of faith in government. It's not a perfect system - but I think it does a fair job at incorporating citizen needs/wants, and delivering on them. But this is one case where that's not true - and it's disappointing, given the risk it puts solidiers *and* the nation itself in.
I've been out of the news cycle lately - with the exam and then recovering from it. But, I seem to be getting back into the swing of it. And hey, just in time to read a story about how the Pentagon refuses to face up to reality. Bitchin.' The basic point of the article is that some 15 years ago a handful of military strategists predicted that the days of "manoeuver warfare" (large units moving around quickly - think WWII) was over. They published a piece where they predicted - very astutely I might add - that the new trend in warfare was "insurgency warfare," which is basically small scale, guerilla-style tactics.
The Pentagon's has responded to this .... by ignoring it. In fact, for years "insurgency" was simply purged from the Pentagon, as if pretending it didn't exist would make Vietnam go away. Instead, the Department of Defense is all ga-ga over new wired up units, unmanned vehicles, and big equipment. In contrast, insurgent warfare calls for an almost policing-level of action: living in neighborhoods, learning more about the culture and context, and focusing on smaller units of soldiers working together. In fact, in a situation like this, large units are a hindrance: they're slow and just become easy targets.
The Pentagon is probably not wrong is fully dismantling their large armored units and divisions of infantry. They are perfectly aware that China is just sitting right there. Of course, there's always Russia too. And if you think that no one in the Pentagon has had a meeting about the EU .... well....
I'm not really sure why the Pentagon insists on ignoring the writing on the walls. I'm sure some of it has to do with the influence of large contractors (that old military-industrial complex). Further, there is a sense of bureaucratic inertia as well holding things back: "We've always fought this way, it's done right by us so far, etc."
But, in a lot of ways those explanations don't seem to make sense. Presumably, smaller units could still take advantage of a lot of the technology being developed. Hell - they might even need whole *new* bits of technology. In addition, while bureacracies tend to resist change, a combination of budget signals, appointments, new policies, and careful massaging *can* redirect them. Thus, even the most entrenched bureaucrats can be moved - and they will tend to follow new orders out of a sense of professionalism. So this disregard for what is actually needed on the field seems to suggest some deeper roots than these institutional causes.
Fuck, not even some Freudian explanation about penises can account for this. I mean, I don't think anyone wants to dispand artillery or tank units - just inject more flexibility. So the capacity to still blow up shit real good would never go away.
To me, it seems like an obsession with technology. I know that Dialectic of Enlightenment is one of my intellectual crutches ... but one gets the perception that the Pentagon wants to build these newer, bigger machines just to see if it *can.* In other words, they want to know: can we build a bomb that does X? A plane that goes Y fast? A tank that shoots Z distance? They are enraptured with their *capacity to produce* rather than with any desire to produce results. Sure, smaller units would have new technology - but it would be boring shit like surveillance equpitment, translators, or better and less conspicuous body armor. That's not *fun.*
At the end of the day, there is a sense of childishness that is informing the choices of the Pentagon. It is, bluntly put, just damn stubborn. This is just wild conjecture. I know fairly little about how the military, or bureaucracy in general actually operate. I do know this is stupid however. Generally, I have a fair amount of faith in government. It's not a perfect system - but I think it does a fair job at incorporating citizen needs/wants, and delivering on them. But this is one case where that's not true - and it's disappointing, given the risk it puts solidiers *and* the nation itself in.
VIEW 8 of 8 COMMENTS
runelateralus:
IT STINKS! I am bored. Nothing happened here or at work.
runelateralus:
Not so much missed...I am just bored