[lit-ideas] Re: Piggy-eyed wonder

  • From: John Wager <johnwager@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:53:24 -0500

JulieReneB@xxxxxxx wrote:

>                                                                 . . . . The 
>men I know best (brothers, husband, dad) just flat out don't do hypotheticals. 
>And they're smart guys.  
The Pentagon is usually accused of being TOO concerned with 
hypotheticals, or in your terms, it's TOO feminine. They have 
hypothetical solutions to hypothetical problems like nobody else. And 
they plan for hypothetical unforeseen circumstances to hypothetical 
problems.  There are teams of "players" who role-play adversaries, so 
that each side can do the unexpected. Some brass get to play Al Qeda 
operatives, I'm sure.  The point is that this Republican president has a 
Republican staff with almost no real understanding of the workings of 
the military.  Not since the Democrat MacNamara has the Pentagon been as 
badly led and badly served.  The military is trained to follow orders 
from the civilian leadership, though, no matter how vexing or stupid, so 
they have gone to war.

I would be willing to bet that if you asked almost ANY Pentagon planner, 
though, they would say that the present leadership botched this 
operation from the beginning, starting with the kind of military we need 
("light and agile" versus thick-skinned), the level of troops required 
("light and agile" versus infantry to take and hold ground), etc. 

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: