[Vision2020] A Thought to Ponder

[Tom Hansen]

I would consider the Korean War to have been a "7" on the "1 to 10 Victory
Scale".

Although North Korea was not obliterated off the globe, we chased their
butts north across the 38th parallel, where they remain today.

Another thing one must take into consideration when criticising the
"evolution" of the Defense Department.  The matter in which wars are
fought has changed immensely since World War 2 and the old War Department.

The first noticeable change was the introduction and "success" of gorilla
warfare (which dominated Vietnam).

It isn't so much the structure of upper management (i.e. the US Defense
Department) as much as it is the tactics employed by that management when
fighting wars.

However, the old adage will forever remain true . . .

"You do not own a piece of land until you put a person on it."

There is a sign at the main gate entering Fort Benning, Georgia (home of
the infantry).  It simply states (to the effect) . . .

"Many leaders have pondered what wins wars.  Ask the soldier with the
rifle.  He knows."

Seeya at Farmers Market and the Latah County Fair, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho



> A war the US was victorious in since the Department of Defense was
> created?
> This depends on how you define victory.
>
> Saddam Hussein's rule was ended, his regime displaced, and he was
> executed.
> Attempts are under way to establish a better form of government in Iraq,
> however difficult.  Some define this as "victory."  But our "victory" in
> Iraq may only be realized in decades.  Those who defend the US invasion of
> Iraq still insist history will show whether or not the US invasion and
> occupation was the best course of action.
>
> Maybe in 50 (or ? years) years when the US/West in facing a massive energy
> crisis, our military and/or economic presence in the Middle East will be
> declared crucial, as this presence gains the US and/or its allies access
> to
> critical oil supplies, and ensures the oil is not hoarded or used as an
> economic weapon against the West, by whatever powers might try to rule the
> Middle East (Iran, et. al.).  Isn't this the bottom line reason for the
> invasion, given the Middle East holds the most quantity of the world's
> most
> valuable high quality oil supplies, and overthrowing Saddam's regime
> offered
> a path to the West's control of the oil, including defending Israel, and
> encircling Iran?
>
> Violations of international law, the Geneva Conventions, the spending of
> hundreds of billions of dollars, and the death of hundreds of thousands
> of innocents, might seem irrelevant at that point in time, just as we now
> dismiss the genocide against Native Americans in North America, as
> we dominate and exploit what was the homeland of native cultures and
> peoples.
>
> I could be ridiculous and claim the war against Grenada a "victory."
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande07.html
> ---------
> But my question was meant to address the often heard claim that the
> private
> sector does things best, that "highly centralized government programs do
> not
> work," when aiming this claim at the US military.
>
> If our government can run a military (and this is a highly centralized
> government program(s)) that can guarantee the freedom of the so called
> "free
> world," as we often hear from those of many political viewpoints, then why
> is it not possible for the government to run an effective national health
> care system?  Which is a more difficult endeavor?
>
> No institution is perfect, whether private sector or government run.
> Private sector endeavors fail frequently, and can feature corruption,
> waste,
> deception, crime and greed.  The evidence of these claims has been front
> page news the past year; and governments are often corrupt, inefficient
> and
> wasteful, and so forth, anyone of reason will agree.
>
> Of course the military should remain under civilian control; but turning
> most of the operations of the military over to the private sector
> (including
> all VA hospitals and military personnel health care) would be the logical
> result of following the arguments of those who insist the private sector
> is
> superior in efficiency and effectiveness, to the government, therefore
> there
> should be no government run public option health care.
>
> I'm not arguing to privatise the military, only pointing out what seems to
> be an inconsistency inherent (a private sector champion might have
> arguments
> why the US military, including VA hospitals, should be government run, but
> public health care should not) between the position that "highly
> centralized
> government programs do not work" and the position that the US military, as
> currently constituted, does work.
>
> Ted Moffett