Here's an interesting piece I ran across over at Q and O.
I have a headache right now, digesting it all isn't in the cards tonight. Therefore I cannot say that I am sure what I think about it just yet. I'll have to chew on it a bit.
And....I'll get back with you on it. I just want to submit it for review.
Addendum: Still haven't has time to look at this more closely, Mrs. Sunsett is generating projects for me to do. But, here is the article that seemed to spark this discussion.
2 comments:
Our citizens, bless their ignorant hearts, are so powerfully misinformed about anything military. Now I have to admit that this discussion, in defense of maintaining the Air Force, is interesting, but it demonstrates a general lack of understanding of the DoD, and worse it reflects shallow understanding of our nation's integrated fighting capabilities.
The questions to be addressed, in my view, are which of the armed forces is best structured for combat, which provide more for less (rather than less for more), and which of our forces provide operational commanders with the quickest reaction and the greatest punch? Hint: It isn't the USAF.
Mustang,
I still haven't had the time to sift through the entire thing and analyze it closely. But, I have to wonder what the objective is with this. If it's to save money, it really doesn't make sense to shift the budget from one department to another.
I posted an addendum link on the main body of the post, to the article that seemed to generate this discussion. Maybe it will reveal what the real objective is supposed to be. I'll read it when I get a moment.
In the meantime, Mrs. Sunsett is dreaming up work for me to do around the house. Some French weekend this is turning out to be. (eyes roll)
Post a Comment