3 ms·

I saw a proposal a long time ago on TEDx or something on how the military should be split between people who fight wars and the people who support wars. The pre

by useful 7y ago

I saw a proposal a long time ago on TEDx or something on how the military should be split between people who fight wars and the people who support wars. The premise was that the supply and support mission should be handled by the department of state in times of peace and the department of war in war. Things like supply ships, bases, hospital ships, aircraft carriers, merchant marine, peace corps, etc all go to providing aid in peacetime and supporting the military in times of war. Maybe I'm naive, but I always thought it was a nice way of approaching the rest of the world. In reality, the most effective militaries in history have been the ones where everyone can fight.

pjc50 7y ago
> how the military should be split between people who fight wars and the people who support wars. Logistics win or lose wars. The support is the most important part. Arguably the people "fighting" wars (or at least vulnerable to incoming fire) should be reduced to as close to zero as possible, replaced by drones of various sorts. Strategic bombing has never recognised this distinction, anyway. Both sides in WW2 spent extensive effort bombing each other's supply lines and factories. The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the notorious Benghazi incident, etc: does that count as "fighting"? Most of the US wars since WW2 have been lost during the occupation phase due to the difficulties of COIN. There's no glamour of "fighting" there, it consists of spending years going to work in an office but never forgetting to check under your car. > Things like supply ships, bases, hospital ships, aircraft carriers, merchant marine, peace corps, etc all go to providing aid in peacetime and supporting the military in times of war. There is no such thing as peacetime for the United States. https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946 https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-... Edit: while I was writing this comment, protestors have stormed the US embassy in Baghdad. Do the embassy staff count as "fighting"?
- arethuza 7y ago
  "should be reduced to as close to zero" Isn't it already less than 10% for most militaries?
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Logistics win or lose wars. The support is the most important part. Stormin’ Norman once said that logistics is not the army’s tail, but its spine. Another thing to consider is that supply lines are a target too; in recent conflicts logistics soldiers have very much been at the sharp end.

by useful 7y ago

pjc50 7y ago

> how the military should be split between people who fight wars and the people who support wars. Logistics win or lose wars. The support is the most important part. Arguably the people "fighting" wars (or at least vulnerable to incoming fire) should be reduced to as close to zero as possible, replaced by drones of various sorts. Strategic bombing has never recognised this distinction, anyway. Both sides in WW2 spent extensive effort bombing each other's supply lines and factories. The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the notorious Benghazi incident, etc: does that count as "fighting"? Most of the US wars since WW2 have been lost during the occupation phase due to the difficulties of COIN. There's no glamour of "fighting" there, it consists of spending years going to work in an office but never forgetting to check under your car. > Things like supply ships, bases, hospital ships, aircraft carriers, merchant marine, peace corps, etc all go to providing aid in peacetime and supporting the military in times of war. There is no such thing as peacetime for the United States. https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946 https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-... Edit: while I was writing this comment, protestors have stormed the US embassy in Baghdad. Do the embassy staff count as "fighting"?

arethuza 7y ago
"should be reduced to as close to zero" Isn't it already less than 10% for most militaries?
goatinaboat 7y ago
Logistics win or lose wars. The support is the most important part. Stormin’ Norman once said that logistics is not the army’s tail, but its spine. Another thing to consider is that supply lines are a target too; in recent conflicts logistics soldiers have very much been at the sharp end.