Military strategy is supposed to be driven by the objective analysis of global trends, but the Pentagon is getting it back-asswards: "warp
by the military-industrial-congressional complex," Pentagon strategists are churning out analysis that furthers not the nation's security but the financial goal of the defense contractors — which is to spend a whole lot of the taxpayers' money of super-expensive high-tech equipment, regardless of whether it's necessary.
Military Advantage in History is written like a thousand-year plan for American military dominance, but the patriotic-sounding title masks the greed-driven agenda of the Rumsfeld–Cheney "Revolution in Military Affairs," which in turn is a propagandistic title for the defense industry's plan for diverting more money to its big-ticket items and less to actual troops.
The so-called Revolution in Military Affairs is why we're spending more money than ever on the Pentagon yet have to send National Guardsmen into battle in Iraq in unarmored vehicles while all those multimillion-dollar bombers and fighter planes gather dust in dark hangers.
But Military Advantage in History isn't merely "so completely incorrect as to be useless." It also distracts from the Big Picture, which is that a country can't be militarily strong if its economy is going down the tubes.
http://www.bigcynic.com/2008/08/yo-pentagon-you-cant-maintain-military-superiority-while-our-economy-goes-down-the-crapper.html
"Got the Blackwater Blues." Halliburtontosis can be fatal!:spank: