Is the U.S. Army Near Becoming Obsolete?

| August 19, 2018 | 80 Comments

 

The U.S. Army once was superior to every potential adversary in terms of combat power, what it called overmatch. This is no longer entirely true. In the future battlefields, the Army will face enemies that will be extremely lethal, more numerous, fighting on home turf and able to exploit the advantage of getting in the first blow. Unless the Army takes a number of steps in the near-term, it is likely to find itself not merely outmatched, but at risk of defeat.

We  were well on the way to becoming vunerable.  Thats what happens when you gut the military and encourage leadership in the likes of 1stSgt Moerk.

Thankfully the Russians colluded to put an end to the decay of our military and set it on the right path.  Thanks Putin.  I am still glad I did not vote for Hillary.

The article is available HERE

Category: Politics

Comments (80)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. NR Pax says:

    I seem to remember the press being almost orgasmic during the First Gulf War at how we were going to be soundly defeated by the Republican Guard. So I’ll just take the article with a salt block.

    • NHSparky says:

      Keep in mind, this is the same media (in my example, the NYT) who said a mere month after 9/11 when we had just gone into Afghanistan, that we were already in a “quagmire.”

      Now I will defer to those who have served there, but I would opine that the biggest reason we’re still there 17 years later is political versus military.

      YMMV.

  2. 26Limabeans says:

    “fighting on home turf”

    Bring it the fuck on.
    Tell ya what…you rely on your fancy smansey technology and I’ll rely on my Yankee attitude.
    I may lose but you won’t win.

  3. Roh-Dog says:

    Horse shit.
    The man-child that wrote this article is retarded. I’ll just address two points from the ‘author’ (more like a roomful of monkeys that got lucky) that are without support:
    -“To fight and win outnumbered requires being more lethal than the adversary too.”
    +This… It’s like Madden saying, “If the (team) wants to win they’re going to have to score more points.” At that point, why open your fucking mouth? Other than some of our adversaries having untested weapon system and unproven militaries, how is this a problem?
    -“While adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan made excellent use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the only anti-armor threats came from rocket-propelled grenades.”
    +really? I guess that hole from a deep buried that I had to look for peices of my friends when the Stryker became a mangled piece of metal wasn’t really an IED, it was a BIG ASS RPG. Thanks for the update, you MORON!
    And I guess EFPs aren’t a thing now either, so all those guys killed and maimed on Tampa can stop playing.
    Who ever wrote this should stick to writing for Better Homes and Gardens or O and leave military shit to the big boys.

    • SSG Kane says:

      Fucking Tampa.

    • J.R. Johnson says:

      Heartily agree Roh-Dog. The manufactured threat of EFPs was much more deadly. The RPG was defeated with a cage, and the active armor the author mentioned. The Russian advances were very slight in munitions and UAV teaming. They however, did perfect the art of using civilians as spotters on open networks in a 360 degree battlefield. Our biggest worry is their increase in Electronic Warfare, which the author failed to identify. This kid (author) needs to get out of the classroom and listed to some actual feedback from people at the front lines. Not professors with half the information making guesses that can be proven wrong.

  4. AW1 Tim says:

    Sounds to me like the author of that article spends most of his time in his mother’s basement, playing video games.

    I guess he never read Joseph Plum Martin’s comment from his service during the American Revolution. Martin was asked what it was like to be a soldier in the Continental Army. His response was “We fight. We get Beat. We rise up and fight again”.

    That’s the problem for any of our adversaries. We might lose here or there, but we come back time and again until we overcome our enemies and make them stop wanting to play.

    • Anonymous says:

      Call of Duty can be a bitch, you know. (All those gamers in their 30s at work tell me so. Can’t tell ’em shit about actually deploying and taking fire, etc., of course.)

  5. Ex-PH2 says:

    I did take the time to read that article. I was impressed with the fact that the typeface point size was large enough for the vision-impaired and kindergarteners to read it without difficulty, but I do question somethings such as:

    “upgun”????? Is that like “upchuck”?

    If you don’t have access to a thesaurus, stop inventing words and look up “upgrade”, which is more accurate.

    I see nothing in the article that explicitly demonstrates our lack of readiness to engage with any enemy, foreign or domestic.

    However, the question posed: Will the Army become obsolete? needs an answer, so here’s mine.

    No, the Army will not become obsolete in the future. It will be combined with the Space Fleet Marines into a lethal land/air/space/you-name-it (LASP-UNI) force that will take out any and all Very Bad Guys with the AWN weapons available (Any Weapon Necessary) at that time.

    The author of the article is an uninformed slacker with a modest ability to get information out of available DoD news releases about current weaponry. There is nothing new to see here. Move along.

    (I’m in a good mood today. 🙂 )

    • 19D3OR4 - Smitty says:

      Upgun is a military term PH. We use it to describe getting a larger or improved weapon system to replace the one we are currently using.

      Example: The M1 Abrams used a 105mm cannon. It was upgunned to a 120mm cannon for the M1A1 and M1A2.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Ah! So, despite his lack of time in the military, he’s using terms that, to most people, seem like some sort of secret code.

      I would have said ‘upgrade weapons’, which is more clear to an audience of readers. Almost seems like he’s puffing himself off as being an insider, or something.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        You really ought to check his creds. If you find that they don’t meet your approval, let me know.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Well, Air Cav, I’m only addressing the article itself, which doesn’t tell me much about anything, other than Goure had what appears to be a “shopping list” of equipment, threw in some terminology that is not familiar to the average reader, and then left the whole thing hanging.

        Credentials didn’t have a lot to do with it. That’s all.

      • AztoVA says:

        And here I thought “upgun” was video-game terminology. (And it just may have started there, for all I know)

    • J.R. Johnson says:

      Ex-PH2, thank you for mentioning the new Space Force! Though I don’t foresee it combining quite like you mention. The Marines will get their increase in troops, the Navy will have to learn to speak SPACE in order to stay relevant, and the Air Force will have to get back in to the Space Force’s good graces in order to have any relevance as well. The Army will always be relevant, since you can’t hold a position without them (for more than two weeks with the Marines). They may need new tools to do it, and body armor and more effective weapons will definitely be a big move towards that, but all the toys the author mentions are old news and misinformed about their effectiveness. Not an insider is he! Of course this won’t happen for a few more budget cycles and the other teams get their veto vote, so we have to stay vigilant!

  6. MSG Eric says:

    It’s too early on a Sunday to roll my eyes to the full extent that I should be able to for such a worthless article.

    Dan Goure is a think tank VP and his stories are all over the place. He loves the F-35, thinks the Navy needs more money and help, says our M1s suck, etc etc etc.

    But, I’m sure if we pay him more contracting money, he’ll be happy to talk about the strategy we need to use in depth on how to fix the Army he’s never been in.

    • Perry Gaskill says:

      Bingo. The author is Dr. Daniel Goure (Ph.D) who is a vice-president at the non-profit Lexington Institute. He’s apparently one of those academics who has been a consultant on the fringe of things for a long time. There’s no mention of service in his bio, so he’s also likely one of those guys who is an expert on the military without ever having actually served in the military.

      The story is a reprint and The National Interest pulled a fast one by changing the original Lexington Institute blog headline from “America Needs A More Lethal As Well As Survivable Army” to “Is the U.S. Army Near Becoming Obsolete?” Which has not the same tone and introduces a different bias.

      One of my own problems with the Goure piece is that it seems to lack focus. He goes into a litany based on a long inventory of weapons systems, but never seems to get to a constructive point by suggesting a solution.

      • timactual says:

        ” a vice-president at the non-profit Lexington Institute.”

        I love that “non-profit” BS. I am sure this guy carries a sign-“will work for food”. TAH is also a non-profit that produces the same product–opinions. I will bet Goure profits more from his efforts than anyone here.

  7. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    I read the brief piece and take no issue with it. He is simply saying that if we get into a war against a large, well-armed, organized, and well-trained enemy, a force comparable to ours, our military’s experience in Iraq and Afghanistan will be of no help. We need more and better killing devices for a large-scale, but conventional, war. His article is not a piece with any depth, that’s for sure, but it appears it wasn’t meant to be.

    • NHSparky says:

      I would disagree with you, Cav.

      One major lesson learned from the GWOT is special operations and small unit tactics: hit em hard where they least expect it, causing the proverbial death by a thousand cuts.

      Another we’ve learned us combined arms tactics. Nobody in the world has practiced or used it to nearly the extent we have. Nobody in the world can project power nearly as well as our Navy, and when you consider how much of the world is within reach of a CVBG, that’s a HUGE factor when establishing or supporting ground forces inland.

      Could an enemy with sheer numbers present a problem? Sure, but not to the point of imminent defeat. Not buying this guy’s thesis.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        The disagreement line is very long. Pack a lunch. Cheers.

      • Roh-Dog says:

        Our 3000+ M1A2 SEPv2’s and 3’s against a similar number of T-90’s and the handful of T-14’s.
        Not to mention the A-10’s, Apaches, Infantry with Javelins, F-35 w JAGM/Brimstone.
        If China wanted to team up with Russia and integrate forces, spend trillions of dollars a piece, for a decade, turn NATO against the US, and roll a 7, without it all going nuclear…
        Yeah, maybe the author could be around right-ish.

        • NHSparky says:

          The language issues alone would be so problematic as to be daunting at best.

          Also consider if the US ever got serious about a technology/proprietary information controls, screened Chinese “students” with a fraction of the scrutiny given to foreign students 30-40 years ago, and the fact that while the Chinese/Russians have TRIED to emulate the tactics of their American/NATO counterparts, they’re still very much stuck in certralized command.

          • Roh-Dog says:

            Yep. To your above post, of the 21 aircraft carriers in the world, the U.S. of A. floats 11 of them.
            And we’re the only country in all of human history to field a Mattis.
            Boom.

        • MSG Eric says:

          Luckily not something we really need to worry about since China and Russia hate each other.

          Possible, but as likely as North Korea and Japan teaming up against South Korea.

          • 26Limabeans says:

            “China and Russia hate each other”

            China wants it’s ancient maritimes back from Russia. China is busting at the seams with horny soldiers and Russian women hate their drunken men.
            It’s a win/win for China.

      • timactual says:

        Those major lessons may have been RElearned from the GWOT but they were first learned long ago.

        It doesn’t really matter how long the US has practiced or used anything since there are very few people in the military who have practiced or used anything longer than 20 years.

      • USMC Steve says:

        The Chinese tried that lots of people at one time thing throughout the Korean war. Didn’t particularly work, especially when they ran afoul of the M1917A1 Browning with antifreeze in the water jacket. That will cull your human wave attacks right quick.

        • timactual says:

          ” Didn’t particularly work”

          Worked well enough so that we were kicked back to the 38th parallel and it extended the war by two years. Also why we are relying on NORK to return the remains of our soldiers.

          • USMC Steve says:

            No timactual, it didn’t actually. Some theorize if the 8th army had not bugged out and stood their ground, that campaign might have gone differently, but who knows? As to the ending, the NORKS still don’t own South Korea, China lost nearly a million men, and gained nothing for it other than a braindead stone crazy neighbor they cannot control to their south. Additionally, due to Truman setting the tone for halfassing that particular war, and setting the stage for the next halfassed war, that is why it took two plus more years to end.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      With all due respect, 2/17 AirCav, Ho Chi Minh completely understood the term ‘war of attrition’. He used it against the Chinese, the French, and the USA. The Taliban and subsequently, ISIS/Daesh, have engaged in the same thing in the Middle East. Prior to that, the Taliban wore out the Soviet Army over a period of 10 years and bankrupted the Soviet Union.
      Before that, it was the tribes in India against John Company and then the British Army. Fabius Maximus used the same tactics against Carthage by engaging in 17 years of warfare against tribes surrounding Carthage.

      What Goure does not address is this “siege” mentality of ‘wear out the opposition no matter the cost’, and it is what cost us so much in Vietnam – NOT understanding how willing Ho Chi Minh and Giap were to wear down the French and the USA.

      If WE are not prepared to commit to that kind of tactic – wear them down first – then we won’t get anywhere. This Middle Eastern warfare started with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and is still going on in a different playing field.

      It doesn’t matter WHAT tools you use to fight. It matters immensely how willing you are to wear down the opposition.

      • timactual says:

        Also, as Clausewitz said ( and we pay millions of dollars yearly for our military leaders to study him) the strength of resistance is equal to the product of the means of resistance and the will to resist.

        • Roh-Dog says:

          You and 1610desig both referred to this Clausewitz guy. Wow. Dialectical approach to war… I’m sure him and Patton would have gotten along swimmingly.
          And this Clausewitz dude sounds like he may just be responsible for all this military newspeak propagand-asiming all the f over the place, eg The Clausewitz Center of Excellence for Staff Officers Who Can’t Read Good.

      • USMC Steve says:

        Ho Chi Minh also had the advantage of a bunch or artificialities without which he and his dinks would have gotten their asses handed to them: 1. Communist country where you have a virtually limitless slave labor pool of troops who can be sent to die in droves, as they did for the entire war, to no positive tactical or strategic result. 2. Opposition that through democrat political stupidity and weakness insisted on halfassing the war by mentally retarded limiting rules of engagement and insisting on staying south instead of going north and pounding their little yellow asses into pudding. The only reason the commies won their war of aggression was because we failed to do what we said we would in the treaty, and the south didn’t have anything left to fight with.

        • timactual says:

          “to no positive tactical or strategic result.”

          They won. Is that strategic enough?

          Make all the excuses you want. The Communists had a game plan, they stuck to it, and it worked. They read and, more importantly, remembered what Clausewitz wrote. And used it successfully.

          Their game plan, incidentally, has been extensively publicized for over a century now.

          Past time for losers to stop whining about how they were “cheated” and learn how to win.

          • USMC Steve says:

            They didn’t win their war of aggression, they simply waited until no one could shoot back any further. While American forces were there, they never won a single engagement at larger than company level, and by Giap’s own admission, we greased between one and one and a half million of their people. In any country where people are actually valuable and allowed to contribute, that would be a monstrous loss of potential. And when your game plan is to feed people into a meatgrinder until you get what you want, that is a shitty plan. And you run the risk of running out of people. Unless you are communists of course. And America had nothing to do with the endgame there, since we divorced ourselves from it in March 1973, and South Vietnam didn’t fall until April 1975. I made no excuses by the way, simply stated facts. Stop being obtuse.

  8. 1610desig says:

    The author is the 21st century’s Clausewitz and JFC Fuller…what a luminary

  9. LTC F says:

    The US Army hasn’t played a home game since 1812 (not counting the Blue Gray Bowl in the 1860’s, but that was an intramural event, didn’t count in the standings).. I’d kind of like to keep it that way. If we ever have home field advantage, things are going very badly.

    My parents were nervous wrecks during Desert Shield/Storm during the 24/7 reports of how the 10 foot tall, bullet proof Iraqi soldiers would bury us all in shallow graves. (Of course back then I was a Sheridan tanker, so I was a bit nervous myself, wrapped in my aluminum and styrofoam armor.)

    Beyond the weapons we have, I’ll take the average American tank crew, rifle squad, artillery battery etc, against the best Russian, North Korean, or Chinese conscript counterpart any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

    • Roh-Dog says:

      “If we ever have home field advantage, things are going very badly.“
      I respectfully disagree. We’ll be surrounded which’ll make finding the enemy easy.
      And they’ll have to get here, through; CVBGs, subs, Fighter AC, beach landings, airborne drops, land incursions… or as I’d like to call it, ‘3D target practice’.
      Red Dawn wasn’t a entertainment movie, it was a training film.

    • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

      I remember that myself seeing one news mouth after another running their mouths about how the Iraqi Army was going to run over us after being hardened by eight years of war with Iran, yada yada and said it again the second time because they learned how to deal with us after DS/DS.

    • MSG Eric says:

      Well, I’m thinking there are somewhere North of 21 Million veterans who would disagree with that and are eager to have a “home game” if it came to that.

      Russians don’t have the real capital to start a land war in America. The Chinese don’t have the capability to get here with a large enough force to do anything but attack the Coast Guard. There aren’t enough countries interested in trying to defeat the US who get along to worry about that kind of threat. Easy to attack us in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., because that’s their home turf and they can run/hide easily.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Hmmm… what if the Chinese sent in a large force housed in the hold of a container ship, which can transit the Seaway and navigate all of the Great Lakes, right up to the Port Authority in Indiana? Or never mind that, just go all the way north to NS Great Lakes, drop dinghies at night and come ashore there?

        Yes, there is enough deep water in the Great Lakes for container ships to come in and drop or pick up cargo and go back through the Seaway.

        And Milwaukee has a military shipbuilding company on its north end.

    • desert says:

      LTC F –You seem to forget a little thing called the CIVIL WAR!

  10. Graybeard says:

    How to win a war has a very simple math:

    Kill 2/3 of the military age men. The enemy then has insufficient resources to continue, and will sue for peace at any price.

    Then make that price involve an acceptance and adoption of traditional Western thought and behavior.

  11. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    The Left would regard Goure as a warmonger and hawk. He is about preparedness and ensuring that the US never gets caught short should it find itself in an all-out conflict. His summary article is just that and does not analyze in depth any aspect of our engagements in Iraq or Afghanistan. He is one of the guys behind the scenes who advises on national security and, if he had his way, I’m guessing he would quadruple spending for weaponry. All of that said, I do not suggest that criticism of his piece is unwarranted. I’m just trying to put it in a larger perspective.

    • Roh-Dog says:

      You’re right about what he was trying to say, still doesn’t stop him from being an idiot. The assertion that there is parity is false. Can the US use more money to upgrade, sure, but can we afford it? Without knowing what the new threat entails we’d be preping blind. Our military prowess is fine; armor, air, SAMs, space systems, etc. The only thing I’m concerned of is our weapons sales. The T-14 and S-400 systems will be coming more-er on line and Russia will be back in the saddle.
      The idea that COINOP has weakened us, lessened Theater wide operational readiness for frontal conflict or taken away our ability to fight a frontal war… piss on him.
      Russia’ Varsity Team invaded Ukraine and got stomped by farmers with AKs. At least we’ve fought an Army in the last 25 years.
      What was that Soviet General’s quote, “The Americans are a formidable adversary, well versed in their doctrine which they invariably ignore”.

      • jim h says:

        Roh-Dog, I’d carry that a tad further too; we *can* upgrade, sure, but why? there’s a big difference: our stuff has been combat tested – a LOT – by a lot of different enemies and scenarios, and most of the other side’s gear in this article is new and relatively untested. to say nothing of the fact that *how* we fight is markedly different from centralized command armies, like China and Russia. the average US unit can and does tackle maneuver engagements with a relative independence.

        so, we know how to fight our units and we know the capabilities of our equipment, and we have a pretty good handle on the other guy’s toys too.

        agreeing with you, just saying that in addition to your points, the other guy just doesn’t have the experience to match up with his new gear like we do with our old. and if there is relative parity (now) with gear that is 30+ years old, then exactly how are we lagging behind?

      • USMC Steve says:

        Another very significant thought is the thought processes of our likely enemies, China and Russia. Neither one prize initiative in their conventional forces, so when enough of the leadership has been offed, who would then step into the breach to take command of various tactical units, or better yet, who would be able to do so? We excel there because we train almost everyone to be able to think for themselves when necessary, and we also don’t bother to follow our doctrine much, which drives them apeshit.

        • timactual says:

          ” Neither one prize initiative in their conventional forces,”

          That was also official US Army doctrine about the Germans in WWII. Pre-Kasserine Pass anyway.

          How much initiative does it take to follow orders and doctrine?

          • USMC Steve says:

            My point here timactual, was that after the leaders are dead, who is going to give the orders? Who will be able to step in and act as a leader to keep the other followers moving?

            First time I ever heard that about the Army thinking the Germans didn’t prize initiative. Rather short sighted of them.

            • timactual says:

              “First time I ever heard that about the Army thinking the Germans didn’t prize initiative”

              True. That’s why it stuck with me. Read it in an official US. Army “Handbook of Enemy Forces” printed in 1942. I found it in my local public library ~1964.

              I love old books. You sometimes get a completely different perspective on things and how people thought and felt about things. Even ostensibly objective and technically oriented books can surprise you.

    • Perry Gaskill says:

      I understand what you’re saying, Cav, but would point out that a lot of military decisions are based on realistic priorities and compromise. Consider, for example, that going back about 200 years, it’s been apparent that an infantryman can reasonably carry roughly 65 pounds for a day-in day-out extended period. The equipment has changed, but the weight limit has stayed about the same.

      So the compromise becomes stuff like how much water and food to carry at the cost of weapons and ammo. All of which is aside from the upstream issue of government funding for it.

      Goure seems to me like a little kid talking to Santa who wants a machine gun, a particle-beam weapon, an F-35, a tactical nuclear hand-grenade, and a pony…

    • timactual says:

      “In 2012, Gouré questioned Obama’s “courage”, given the President’s reluctance to subject the American military to “costs” in order to impose a no-fly zone over Syria.[6]”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Gour%C3%A9

      I, too, regard him as a warmonger and a bit too hawkish. He is one of the swamp creatures that Trump talks about. Another defense “consultant” and “expert” (AKA BS artist) without any training or experience ( “…open-topped M-113s…”).

      You can learn more by reading the comments on sites such as this than you can from his article(s). Plus you get the bonus of a few laughs.

      • Roh-Dog says:

        “…open-topped M-113s…”
        I’m glad someone else saw this.
        Next he’ll complain about the pisspoor Stryker amphibious landings or the HMWWVs slurpie machine.
        This guy is an Asshat. Scratch that, he’s Major General Asshat of the 1st Assualt on Common Sense Brigade attach to the 49th Don’t Know What the Fuck I’m Talking About Divison (Forward).

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        timactual. Now, that’s a point I can sink my teeth into. Doomsday scenarios he’s good at, all of which require billions in expenditures. He is also a proponent of tac nukes. He reminds me of Peter Sellers as Dr. Strangelove:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mUCLHzWiJo

        • timactual says:

          Great movie. Thanks for reminding me; now I have to watch it again.

          Interesting how that opening speech by the Russian predicts the explanation of Reagan’s defeat of the SU.

  12. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    I found the author’s bio:

    https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/dr-daniel-goure/

    Can you say “POLICY BITCH”?

    I knew you could!

    • 5th/77thFA says:

      ^this^ Bitch needs to watch Red Dawn (training film HT to Roh Dog) and maybe reread Red Storm or Executive Orders from Tom Clancy. Granted all of those are novelistic “what ifs” but at the end of the there are still enough patriotic Americans, that are heavily armed, to make a tremendous difference on the “home turf.” God Forbid. In spite of the unpleasantness of the Blue Gray Bowl, us Southern Americans will stand shoulder to shoulder with all the other Americans and will be so busy kicking ass, that we will not have/take time to take names. Our biggest problem, IMHO, in a big shooting war is replacing expendable ordnance and equipment. The snow flakes and internal enemies should concern themselves with the potential watering of the Tree of Liberty, with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Ummm, just so you know, the capacity for training Navy recruits is 38,000 per year at Great Lakes. I don’t know how big the graduating companies are, but they are cranked through there weekly. Not to mention the Marine Corps’ aviation school nearby.

      I wrote up a spoof article a few months ago about converting Waukegan Airport to a military/Naval Air Station. The real possibility, since it is large enough for commercial jets, is that it could happen overnight.

      And don’t think we aren’t ready for that.

      • 5th/77thFA says:

        Wasn’t sure what the #s were on current training capacities for any of the services now a days. Concern with having the time and the cadre to train the new recruits. I hope we are ready for any surprises. Just having a plan in the file cabinet, or I guess now, a program in a computer; will that be enough? I remember the spoof about the Air Station and saw the tongue in cheek. You know, too, back when a lot of us were serving, we had more troops in just one theater, than we have total today. I just don’t trust the governments, including ours, any further than I can toss my F150. I remain concerned, daily, about all of our Girls and Boys, force of habit I reckon.

  13. FatCircles0311 says:

    This is hilarious because it’s usually the marine corps that is declared obsolete

    • Roh-Dog says:

      Not obsolete, secret weapon. Restrict you guys to Post for a week, 16 on 8 off, no booze, Field Day everything over and over.
      After that, tell y’all Russia thinks the Corps is gay, NASCAR sucks, Skoal is for pussies, faggots drink Bud Light and Mattis pees sitting down.
      I’m sure y’all be beating Putin to death with your antique muskets in a fortnight (only reason it took two weeks, every woman in Russia is also now pregnant).

      • jim h says:

        there is truth in this. and when they fight back, you can picture jim h and Roh-Dog sitting on the sidelines and making commentary like gene wilder referring to confronting mongo in blazing saddles:

        “no no, don’t do that. youll only make him angry…”

  14. PLASTIC DUCK says:

    Humans on a battle field will become increasingly redundant. There is a worse outcome that humans on the surfae of the planet will render themselves redundant

  15. jonp says:

    Is that a picture of Marines next to an article with “Army” in the title?

    The National Interest is a fine magazine with normally good writers. Thought provoking stuff and the amount of comments here show that the intent of starting a conversation was achieved.

  16. m0311 says:

    This site has gone to shit. I only came for the daily flogging of phonies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *