![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ew, New York Times. just ew.
Nov. 16th, 2008 08:31 pmI don't know what got into the NY Times' editorial board today. It's truly hilarious that Americans think the U.S. military is like, "critically ill-equipped". Guys: we are really, really not. We have the most powerful military in the world. We have the best equipment in the world. That is part of the quagmire. That is why it's a quagmire. Adding troops or money is not going to solve Iraq (just like it didn't solve Vietnam, natch!) - inadequate preparation, or God help us, too small of a force, is really not our problem.
Is this like a particularly Democratic thing? Because Democrats seem to have this fixation with wanting to protect "our boys" over yonder - bring them home, give them more shields, etc. I suppose Republicans want to spend money on missile defense shields and Democrats want to spend money on armor.
Too bad nobody wants to just cut military spending, period. Too bad nobody thinks maybe we should close some of our hundreds of bases and put more effort into building diplomatic relations instead of mil-to-mil relations, especially with countries that are trying to wean themselves off military dictatorships. Too bad nobody thinks maybe the way to fight terrorism isn't through more terrorism, just like fighting guerrilla style didn't do a whole lot against the Viet Cong. Too bad nobody listened to Wayne Wilcox, who's dead now.
"American military power, while formidable beyond belief, cannot always produce intended results because it cannot influence the dead. The willingness of people under siege – London in the Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, Bastogne, the Japanese at Iwo Jima, and let it be said, the North Vietnamese – to sacrifice all is quite as impressive as advanced weaponry… how hard small states die and how easily they are reborn, vigorous as before." (1967)
Too goddamn bad.
Is this like a particularly Democratic thing? Because Democrats seem to have this fixation with wanting to protect "our boys" over yonder - bring them home, give them more shields, etc. I suppose Republicans want to spend money on missile defense shields and Democrats want to spend money on armor.
Too bad nobody wants to just cut military spending, period. Too bad nobody thinks maybe we should close some of our hundreds of bases and put more effort into building diplomatic relations instead of mil-to-mil relations, especially with countries that are trying to wean themselves off military dictatorships. Too bad nobody thinks maybe the way to fight terrorism isn't through more terrorism, just like fighting guerrilla style didn't do a whole lot against the Viet Cong. Too bad nobody listened to Wayne Wilcox, who's dead now.
"American military power, while formidable beyond belief, cannot always produce intended results because it cannot influence the dead. The willingness of people under siege – London in the Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, Bastogne, the Japanese at Iwo Jima, and let it be said, the North Vietnamese – to sacrifice all is quite as impressive as advanced weaponry… how hard small states die and how easily they are reborn, vigorous as before." (1967)
Too goddamn bad.
