An excellent question, and one that allows me to reply to two threads in one post!

I recently finished reading "The Arms of Krupp", the story of the Krupp steel family of Germany. It deals largely with Krupp's function as an arms manufacturer from the times of the early steel cannons and on through WW11.

In it, the author points out that whenever there is a change in the nature of warfare, the group that is in power at the time of the change will be thrown from power shortly thereafter. He offers as reason the fact that military complexes become rooted in doing things the way they have always done them, and are unable to change when the nature of war changes. It has happend over and over throughout history.

I believe we are seeing that now, and the signs (Korea, Viet Nam, Iran) have been there for some time. The US has been caught flatfooted by the recent to shift to terrorism as warfare, and if some major changes are not made - quickly - this could be the dawn of a whole new age.

Not a vision I care to contemplate.

Terrorists. This latest style of warfare is so foreign to our military that they can not even declare it as a war. They have no clue how to fight it, and if the goal was to capture the leader, they have failed. Small scattered bands of terrorists hide out in caves, and the best solution they can come up with is bombers - WW2 techonology trying to adapt to Y2K warfare. It's not going to work, especially on terrorists located on our home soil.

But what will work? How will the US military adapt quickly enough to combat this latest threat?

Perhaps the FBI will be the solution, if it can be reorganized, staffed, trained and deployed quickly enough. If not the FBI, than some other organization. Perhaps a new style of organization altogether. Can it be done?

I sure hope so, because you can not stop a suicide bomber with an aircraft carrier.

An excellent point, Steve.

There is change afoot. Can we adapt quickly enough? Let's pray to God we can. Because your point is well taken, we will not be successful if we do not. One of the reasons we lost in Viet Nam was because we had no idea how to fight the type of war the Vietnamese forced us to fight.

And we will lose in this one as well, if we allow the dinosaurs to argue that their way worked in the past so it will work now.

Jody
I have been married for 38 years. My wife thinks just like you, she doesn't know what I will say or do next.

Pique
Good to see you back. Just as the body needs all its components, like the appendix and tonsils, to function properly the forum needs people like you.

George
We didn't lose the Vietnam War in Vietnam, we lost it at home. We were fighting a war on two fronts and didn't realize it. We are still engaged in that second front war and if the opposing forces were acknowledged you would have the rank of at least El Capitan :p

lb

Steve,

There are many in our Defense Department who are keenly aware of the point you are making. As we speak, there is a struggle underway the outcome of which will determine how we structure our forces for the new types of conflicts we are, even now, facing. One example of this struggle is the Crusader cannon which the civilian leadership wants to kill and the Army brass, as well as certain members of Congress from Oklahoma, are trying desparately to save. I hope the civilian leadership wins on this one because the Crusader is exactly the type of outmoded weapon system we could do without. I am confident that our military will adapt itself to this new type of warfare if the old guard inertia can be overcome and Congress can keep their pork barrell mitts out of it.