Economy of force doesn't mean using the bare minimum to get the job done, it means using enough to ensure the job gets done without being wasteful. As cool as it is to take out a lone bad guy with an AK with a 500 pound JDAM it isn't cost effective.
In Desert Storm the number one killer of Iraqi Tanks was not American Tanks, it was Apache Helicopters. So what did the US Army plan to do with that lesson learned? Upgrade the M1 and ensure that we had plenty of tanks on hand. Now people are saying "What?" if they are logical. Obviously if we killed more enemy tanks with helicopters we should be buying more and better helicopters right? Yup, you bet.
Until it comes time to fight in a sandstorm, or protect an armored column that rolls up into an Iraqi formation like at the Battle of 73 Easting. It isn't about having the "best" weapon, it's about having the "best mix" of weapons. Even the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle killed more enemy tanks than the M1 Abrams in Desert Storm. Once again the rules of logic are saying that we should buy more Bradleys, right?
Anyways, trying to explain this to folks who control our budget is sometimes like explaining rocket science to a botanist. The people in power are often smart individually, but not experts in the field of warfare. Right now we have fewer experts in warfare in our civilian leadership than at any previous point. This explains some of the ham fisted diplomacy going on, and it also explains why the Defense budget is being gutted (some of which is completely necessary gutting of money pit pork projects) while rattling sabers at Iran and Syria.
But what does "economy of force" mean to four guys with rifles, pistols, and a pickup truck?
No comments:
Post a Comment