The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia The Commander in Chief might be right on this one. He wants to shift more defense money to anti-insurgency needs. We are faced with "asymmetrical" fights in which spendy weapons systems are no substitute for boots on the ground.
The proofs in the pudding will be
1) how the CIA is treated by this Administration. Our biggest lack is human intelligence and developing networks in hostile settings. Satellites can't give the kind of intel that is needed to interdict terror networks.
2) will the saved $1.75 billion actually end up in counter-insurgency development, or will the same Democratic Congress that sticks "Hate Crime" bills on the Defense appropriations legislation use it on pork for interest groups?
2 comments:
1) how the CIA is treated by this Administration.
Bambi put Panetta in charge. strike 1
2) Our biggest lack is human intelligence and developing networks in hostile settings.
It will remain so as long as agents are threatened with prosecution for doing their jobs, or face being outed by the media and then liquidated. Strike 2
3) will the saved $1.75 billion actually end up in counter-insurgency development
No. F-22 give us an advantage. It was canceled because as imperialists, we are not to be allowed an advantage. Strike 3.
Anonymous - thanks for giving perspective on that question about the CIA. Our downplay of "Humint" over several decades continues to cripple us around the world.
What do you see as the added value of the F-22 as regards current threats to U.S. security?
Post a Comment