"The Myth of American Military Dominance" Topic
4 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleNeed some armored artillery vehicles?
Featured Workbench ArticleDoes anyone else have trouble with the color green on microscale vehicles?
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 16 Aug 2019 10:14 p.m. PST |
"It is now popular to talk about grand strategy. A variety of media outlets regularly publish articles about it. Think tank panels and papers frequently address it. People even talk about it on television. Loren DeJonge Schulman memorably said that it has become cool to talk about grand strategy at parties and happy hours over $8 USD PBR. As conversations about America's strategic choices become more frequent, and hopefully start to have more of an impact, practitioners and academics alike need to begin to question the assumptions they make about the tools at America's disposal. One commonly made assumption is that the United States has for decades enjoyed conventional military dominance, the ability to defeat any other actor in a conventional fight. The assumption of historic military dominance, often understood as fact, is almost entirely unsupported by meaningful evidence. While the U.S. military is unquestionably powerful, dominance cannot be measured by defense spending or even training. Dominance can only be measured through performance, and the United States' history does not support a narrative of conventional military dominance. Because American conventional military dominance is an assumption rather than a fact, strategists need to question its validity and its importance for policy and strategy. If the common narrative proves to be unsupported, it will change America's strategic variables…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
Thresher01 | 17 Aug 2019 5:57 a.m. PST |
It's not a "myth". Invincibility, yes, is a myth, but the US is indeed "dominant" in military affairs. It is the premier, world superpower, and has been since WWII. Frequently, that power has been hamstrung by incompetent tactics, abysmal political leadership, news media seemingly rooting for and all too often working with the opposition, and lack of will to "win" against inferior foes. |
JMcCarroll | 17 Aug 2019 7:36 a.m. PST |
Thresher01 is 100% correct. |
USAFpilot | 17 Aug 2019 12:28 p.m. PST |
The article had no point. Blah blah blah Anything that begins with "The myth of..," is just bait to provoke a response. I could easily write an article titled "the myth of Roman military dominance in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. And point out various battles which were lost etc. |
|