> And not single word about what is actually wrong with US army (F35 and similar projects) This is a silly mindset. Your preconceived notion about the worst pr

> And not single word about what is actually wrong with US army (F35 and similar projects) This is a silly mindset. Your preconceived notion about the worst problem shouldn't stop someone else from talking about a different one. If you looked you will notice that other than quoting complaints at the beginning, the vast majority of the article ignores costs. They speak only of effects. It is easier to question military spending by first pointing out why throwing money at problems isn't working, since you can't easily quantify the benefit of the military you can't just apply cost benefit analysis and have a convincing argument. > 75% of servants in army (support roles) is pretty stable number since Roman Legions times. And that number works great in Roman style conflicts. When you have a force power huge logistic lines make a great target, refocusing your logistics is a way to minimize that weakness. > Fighting street by street, block by block takes large number of men. You assume that is the ideal method of fighting the conflict. > Army should not do police work. There should be para-military units (gendarme) composed from locals, but from different regions. US did great job at Philippines with this strategy. You didn't actually disagree with him here but frame it as if you did. He said they sucked at understanding local needs but acted on what information they had. You said that they shouldn't act on local things. > I will take any US 'war hawk' over this guy anytime. BTW Russians captured Crimea with 2 casualties, so much about 'not enough deaths'. Was the goal of Crimea to minimize casualties? Because it isn't the results he is criticizing but the mind set. "#1 don't let anyone die. #2 win" isn't the best strategy if you want to win. > Americans lost because they could not go near Chinese border. Please read some facts about that conflicts. You aren't actually disputing his point, but simply pointing to a different one. There are lots of things that cause Vietnam to go bad, their ability to sustain casualties certainly helped.