I have now read six different accounts of Obama's speech regarding the "revision" of the military's role in the future and his "vision" for how the military will be shaped in the future, and all I hear is a lot of words that sound like a prettied up version of Donald Rumsfeld. And we all know how that worked out when put to the test, don't we?
We are going to rely on high technology and "innovation," and are somehow going to do that while spending less money, which is going to be a nice trick. The military has never before in history bought new toys at low prices, so we'll see how that works out. We're going to focus on computers, which sounds good. When China occupies some oil country in Northern Africa, for instance, we'll throw them using a few dozen geeks heavily armed with Apple MacBook Pros.
He actually says that we are going to be improving technology while cutting procurement and slowing research and development all at the same time, which is on the same level of reasoning as "We are denying them space in which to plan their attacks." Pretty words which, when examined for meaning, have none.
I have to laugh, however, at critics who bemoan ending the policy of us being able to "successfully conduct two land wars at one time." I mean, really? They seriously thought we had that capability?