Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Martin Partridge's avatar

Tommy Conway rues "misguided pseudo-intellectual development" and Tara Houle comments that "academia is where professional b.s. thrives".

Dr. Mitchell says that "the challenges military officers confront in contemporary missions go well beyond traditional professional knowledge".

I vote for Dr. Mitchell.

Expand full comment
Roy Brander's avatar

My recent experience is that "Fighting a Modern War" means:

a) lying about attacked warships, babies-in-incubators, or WMDs to get one started;

b) fighting to prop up a corrupt, murderous regime that you wouldn't let your kids grow up in;

c) spending more on it than the GDP of the country invaded; (in Afghanistan 3X as much)

d) spending most of the money at home on comically overpriced weapons systems;

e) lying for 10 years (Iraq) or 20 years (Afghanistan) about how it was going well;

f) losing to rice-paddy farmers, shopkeepers with garage-door openers, or goatherds.

...I would rather NOT subject any young, idealistic Canadians to that nightmare. Thanks.

We need to change our whole concept of "fighting" to fit a modern world with nukes, and where every non-nuke nation knows that the "Sixteen Character Formula" (google that and "Gwynne Dyer") works against even the most-powerful attackers. Americans got 10X *better* at fighting in Afghanistan, because of their amazing drone and surveillance improvements...and even THAT didn't make any difference.

We need our smartest strategic-level thinkers working on the problem: What does effective, useful, meaningful "fighting" look like in this century? The military themselves, have utterly failed us. Not their fault: they're brave and smart - it's the world that has changed around them.

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts