I believe it was that Marshall that being military Chief of Staff at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, got wind of said attack via de-coded intercepts 6 1/2 hours ahead of time. He didn't respond until 11:52 a.m. that day (attack was 1 p.m.) and when he did, he did so by commercial telegram. Said telegram arrived at Pearl Harbor 6 hours after the attack was over.
"The likelihood that the United States will have to fight a really big war — one that requires many hundreds of thousands of troops, with high levels of destructiveness and casualties — remains low, but the consequences would be enormous."
This statement flies in the face of reason. If you are not prepared for war, it cannot be unlikely.
The authors' lack of core military acumen is rather telling, given that military expertise is apparently their claim to credibility at all. But it is their lack of prudent consideration of resource limitations that really discredits them. In their recommendations for how to close the what they consider the largest "gaps" in military preparation, they make no concession whatsoever to the idea of making anything less prohibitively expensive or wasteful. Their answer to every problem is "spend large amounts of money we don't have and can never repay to expand the wasteful spending and centralization characteristic of big government".
Which is precisely why we are already on the brink.
6 comments:
I believe it was that Marshall that being military Chief of Staff at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, got wind of said attack via de-coded intercepts 6 1/2 hours ahead of time. He didn't respond until 11:52 a.m. that day (attack was 1 p.m.) and when he did, he did so by commercial telegram. Said telegram arrived at Pearl Harbor 6 hours after the attack was over.
"The likelihood that the United States will have to fight a really big war — one that requires many hundreds of thousands of troops, with high levels of destructiveness and casualties — remains low, but the consequences would be enormous."
This statement flies in the face of reason. If you are not prepared for war, it cannot be unlikely.
The authors' lack of core military acumen is rather telling, given that military expertise is apparently their claim to credibility at all. But it is their lack of prudent consideration of resource limitations that really discredits them. In their recommendations for how to close the what they consider the largest "gaps" in military preparation, they make no concession whatsoever to the idea of making anything less prohibitively expensive or wasteful. Their answer to every problem is "spend large amounts of money we don't have and can never repay to expand the wasteful spending and centralization characteristic of big government".
Which is precisely why we are already on the brink.
Very accurate observation....no one even considers a civil war in their planning, except for the DOHS with their army of alphabet soup agencies.
A civil war means brother against brother or to put it another way; unit against unit, don't ya know!
The Generals are always prepared to fight the last war.
Civil war means faction against faction, within the population, and the government gets to decide who they are going to help.
Since they were directly involved in creating the circumstances, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who they will be assisting.
They don't need no stinking constitution....
Post a Comment