Brad, I've read two, the one about China's perspective of future warfare with better technology and Strategy and the Revolution in Military Affairs: >From Theory to Policy. Neither contain much that we haven't already read by now given they both were written in the mid and late 90s prior to 9/11 and the so-called War on Terrorism. Much of what they discuss has transpired, although the political environment in China has notably changed since1995 and they *may* not be as centralized as back then. We've read a lot more about her economics and politics than her military lately, although that is about to change because China is building a new navy.
The controversy for a military superpower like the US is that there will always be suspicions that something has been manufactured to give us/them the excuse they need to go in and do something while averting UN or separate treaty restrictions. When you have this much superiority, it's part of the burden of responsibility. If the others are like the one on strategy, we can see some of the process by which the military establishment undertook in restructuring the larger field command units to smaller guerrilla-like combat squads with the help of the newest communications and survival gear, although as a non-military armchair observer, I'd be worried that there was too much confidence in these reports after the quick success of the Gulf War ten years ago. Perhaps 9/11 has provided a little humility and caution given that technology and weaponry are not useful if you can't find the enemy before or after they have struck. EXCERPT: RMA = Revolution in Military Affairs. I've highlighted phrases that might raise red flags with some of us. "With regard to the policy implications of pursuing the "minor" RMA now taking place, we must ask ourselves about its current utility to our armed forces and the nation they represent. Any cost-benefit analysis must take into consideration increased combat effectiveness against future opponents, likely countermeasures that will develop, our possible overreliance on military power to the exclusion of other forms of national policy, and the potential alienation of friends and allies due to our ever-growing military strength. To this analysis, we must also factor in the political ramifications of a new RMA-based force structure, an alteration in our deterrence capability, and a gradual US slide into strategic inferiority unless we pursue the RMA. In conclusion, the report discusses policy options concerning future RMA-based paths available. We have three choices, each of which will greatly affect our security posture in the next century. The first is to continue on the path we are now on, aimed primarily at conventionally armed regional aggressors. The second is to put a brake on the RMA to consolidate our military advantages. And the third is to take the revolution in a new direction. It is imperative that we make the right choice and that it be as well informed a decision as possible." END OF EXCERPT It should be noted that RMA would not be happening without 9/11 and this is what makes conspiracy theorists go crazy. Again, I say in the American spirit of checks and balances, it is absolutely necessary in a democracy to be skeptical and demanding of answers (not that you disagree there). There may be more tantalizing or provocative stuff in the others, but this is helpful in giving civilians access to the thought process of military debriefing, assessments and evaluations, and theoretical planning for the future. This is just a minor tip of the iceberg to what Rummy, Wolfowitz and Leith are considering for our future military. I'm sure there is a lot more Star Wars stuff out there we will never see, so this is a welcome read. Enough of my brutally brief synopsis. Surely I've offended someone by this point. Karen East and West Outgoing Mail Scanned by NAV 2002
