|
The days of fighter on fighter, or tank on tank battles are over. You don't send a tank after another tank. You send guided munitions launched from a helicopter, plane, artilery, or even a shoulder launched version.
You may send a "fighter" (interceptor really) after a bomber, but you send a missile after a fighter.
And a superpower doesn't fight another superpower on the ground, it's all done with ballistic missiles. The only other option is surrogate wars.
We're going to need one more bomber, mostly to replace the THREE we are using now. Unfortnately, the military will over specify what it needs to do. We don't need a fighter to replace the F-35 or F-22. We will need some semi-autonomous air vehicles to do ground support and some recon/interception activities. We need some APC's that can address IED kind of threats without weighing more than a tank (not an easy problem).
But mostly we need to stop "leading with our spear". They eyes are suppose to be on the olive branch. Our State Department needs to stop relying upon our military to "back them up" and instead find ways to lead without might. In other words, the DoD needs to truly become the Department of DEFENSE.
I've advocated for some time that we need to create the "West Point" of foreign diplomacy. A place that teaches and produces a more diplomatic oriented Department of State. Politics, and ambassadorships have far too long been pursued through military careers, and political patronage. Presidents, UN ambassadors, and politicians in general should be far more interested in showing off their diplomacy "rings" than their military academy backgrounds. Smart students should be able to get an "appointment" to an academy to study diplomacy, civil service, political science, as well as sociology, anthropology, history, and to some extent the rule of law. These appointments could come with the same commitment to spending 6 years in civil service, most likely overseas, in a consulate, embassy, or with the Peace Corps.
I can actually see creating 5 "core" schools around the country, each with its own focus. Students could study at just one, or move around to each. They could have graduate degree programs as well. The could even create various "continuing education" courses for educators, civil servants, nonprofit administrators, and NGO's in general. And their entire purpose would be to teach how to achieve the concept of "Peace through justice". Of recognizing that one can "defend freedom" without carrying a gun. That war is suppose to be what you do after you've missed all the opportunities to do the "right thing" and that it means now you are having to do the "wrong thing" because you weren't paying attention, or took stupid risks.
But I guess I'm suppose to compromise on such an idealistic concept and just accept that we will try to achieve the same things with the whole "peace through greater threats of war", or so a Nobel Peace Prize winner suggests.
|