3 ms·
Seems like a rather grand claim to make without supporting evidence. The military have little incentive to be cost effective due to the sanctity of military bud
by SiempreViernes 8y ago
Seems like a rather grand claim to make without supporting evidence. The military have little incentive to be cost effective due to the sanctity of military budgets in the USA, and by construction they use very few local resources which is inefficient.
Maybe you are right about the second claim if you impose the rather arbitrary restriction of ”foreign military force”, but rather obviously the first responders are always the locals. If those happens to include US forces it is a reflection of the maximalist approach to foreign policy the USA follows rather than a feat of logistics.
- greedo 8y agoRead up on REFORGER, or on the build up prior to the 1st Gulf War. The amount of men and materiel moved in both instances was simply incredible. The Second Gulf War used far fewer forces, but was still an amazing display of logistical prowess. The US may not be the most cost-effective, (I'd give that to the Brits), but in terms of capability and overall effectiveness, they don't have a peer.
- jki275 8y agoHe didn't say cost effective.