<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. And failing miserably. :mad:</p>
<p>The REALLY funny thing is that the folks who are always all for the drawdowns and the leaning-outs are the same clowns who went ballistic when Rumsfeld uttered a plain truth: You DO go to war with what you’ve got, not what you WISH you had.</p>
<p>It was once easy to plan for the next conflict: you looked around the world at those nations with potent Navies, counted their ships, aircraft, and facilities, and designed weapons, systems, and Orders of Battle accordingly. Nowadays, there are very few potential all-out foes (but China is growing), and the threats can come from small Boston Whalers. </p>
<p>It is going to be exceedingly difficult to plan for a force that can fight low-intensity conflicts such as a localized Persian Gulf skirmish, asymetrical battles such as those waged against terrorists, and full-scale wars such as what would result if China went after Taiwan, and to do all three well.</p>
<p>It’s going to cost money. It always does. You get what you pay for.</p>
<p>Hopefully, the planners at the Puzzle Palace will not repeat the same turf wars of yesteryear, and the dorks on the Hill will put aside their pathetic little agendas to fund the forces we are going to NEED.</p>
<p>Hope springs eternal… :rolleyes:</p>