I am no fan of Bolton or war, but this is an extraordinarily uncharitable reading. The article in question is pushing for a "military transformation" in which

I am no fan of Bolton or war, but this is an extraordinarily uncharitable reading. The article in question is pushing for a "military transformation" in which the DoD moves "more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts." It discusses challenges to this process--for example, the Pentagon has limited funding, and the US can't declare a "strategic pause" to experiment while our allies and enemies hold still--and notes that: > the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. This seems to me very far from saying that America "needs" to be attacked. They're just noting that the speed of military innovation tends to increase very dramatically after an event like Pearl Harbor.