tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post1789102982793833904..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: The ideal minister of defenceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-13671465018256310182017-05-07T14:58:30.644+02:002017-05-07T14:58:30.644+02:00RMA (originally a Soviet term) was many things to ...RMA (originally a Soviet term) was many things to many people, but at its core it was about the application of guidance to many more formerly always dumb munitions. This was supported by advances in night vision tech.<br /><br />The theoretical idea that came from the technological progress was that almost everything could be detected and almost everything that was detected could be hit (defeated).<br /><br />This led to the emphasis on situational awareness (to be quicker at spotting and striking) & communication (for hunter-kill teamwork) such as in the FCS project and to a lesser degree in the Stryker brigades.<br /><br />According to RMA reasoning even the best MBT would be detected and killed, so all that heavy passive protection wasn't as good as being the first to spot & strike.<br /><br />It's a bit like the late 1930-1942 story of aircraft carriers which made battleships obsolete, and until introduction of long range air search radars the USN was convinced that spotting and striking the opposing carrier first was much more important than the carrier group's protection.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-64778783486359349832017-05-07T13:51:07.332+02:002017-05-07T13:51:07.332+02:00Interesting.
No argument on his Cold Warrior thin...Interesting.<br /><br />No argument on his Cold Warrior thing in the Seventies.<br /><br />My take on Rummy under Dubya, tho, was that he was one of the few Bushies that really DIDN'T want to play great power games in the Middle East. I mean...he went along with it, but he was a terrible "wartime" manager, always seeming to be irritated and frustrated by the need to worry about stuff like providing an occupying army with constabulary tools rather than doing his "revolution in military affairs" high-tech thing that he seemed to be all up in when the Bush administration kicked off in 2001.<br /><br />I never really figured out whether the "RMA" was an actual thing. But Rummy seemed to think so, and as you study and understand defence policy more and better than I do I wondered if you had a better sense of it.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-89275802693751547192017-05-06T20:13:23.098+02:002017-05-06T20:13:23.098+02:00A combination of I and IV, but no good one.
Rumsfe...A combination of I and IV, but no good one.<br />Rumsfeld was characterised by prioritising the pursuit of an extremist agenda over his career (reelection).<br /><br />His reforms were Cold War hawkish during the 70's and under GWB oriented towards maximised suitability for great power games (regime changes in Arab world and Iran) instead of deterrence and defence.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-57014297968208727612017-05-06T13:41:38.144+02:002017-05-06T13:41:38.144+02:00I'm curious; where would you rank the US SecDe...I'm curious; where would you rank the US SecDef Donald Rumsfeld in this hierarchy (based purely on his pre-Iraq decisions?)<br /><br />Although Rummy would seem to have been a natural "IV" (he was very much a career politician) as a purely administrative SecDef my recollection is that he was something of a "I"; he definitely talked about "reform", and he was at odds with the senior officer leadership early in Bush 43's term. He altered or killed several prized acquisition programs. <br /><br />But I honestly don't recall the "why", and my memory doesn't serve me well on whether he wanted to really "reform" the U.S. defense system or whether he even had a solid conception of what "reform" meant.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-80711862990247854612017-05-05T23:03:01.014+02:002017-05-05T23:03:01.014+02:00Reforms demanded or enacted by rank Colonel or hig...Reforms demanded or enacted by rank Colonel or higher tend to be about different doctrine or increased efficiency, not about some other things dear to me as well, such as avoiding money-wasting excess capacities. S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-88202818210231254212017-05-05T22:52:50.671+02:002017-05-05T22:52:50.671+02:00Scharnhorst was an general, a radical reformer, si...Scharnhorst was an general, a radical reformer, since 1807 chief of the department of war (Kriegsdepartement - which was the ministery of defence at this time).<br /><br />And the senior NCOs and officers did not hate him, they worshipped him.<br /><br />In my opinion he is best example for what is needed for the job of the minister of defence: an general with practical experience in warfare who knows the whole army from the ground upwards and then still is an reformer when he reached high ranks. <br /><br />Therefore one (the civilian gouvernment) should look for officers which think unusual and are not indoctrinated. But today the civil politicans and the high ranking officers (which are more civil politicans than soldiers) support the complete opposite: The civil politicans especially want only yessayer without spine, without independent personality and especially without beeing free-spirited. <br /><br />Every soldier with such mannerism has no carrier and fail to reach high ranks especilly because of the to strong civilian control over the military in todays western tm societies. In my personal experience the civilians only want yessayers, which think and act like civilians and therefore promote them simply because the feel more familiar with their (civilian) thinking and can control them more.<br /><br />For an ideal minister of defence we therefore need more indipendence for the military and in the military at least some officers which are reformers which then can promote other reformist soldiers. If such an avantgarde reaches a critical mass then a real military reform can start. <br /><br />Civilans only for themselves can only fail in this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-26269448827768716332017-05-05T15:14:58.309+02:002017-05-05T15:14:58.309+02:00Most of the time i scroll past Your Political post...Most of the time i scroll past Your Political posts.<br /><br />This was one of the really good ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com