|Reviews for Sharpening the Sword: The Changing Face of War|
| Arej chapter 1 . 9/24/2005
Why am I reading so many essays now? Oh, nevermind. Nice job.
Too bad I depise war as well as guns, or I might vote. But I abhor violence, so this is not something I will do. I will, however, spread this idea to people more likely to vote and, thus, change the face of the country by in turn spreading the idea to others who spread it and on until it reaches the top...nice job.
| Aaron Tilmeran chapter 1 . 6/21/2004
Interesting essay on tactics and hardware, Mr. Sun Tzu Version 2.0. I fully agree with you.
| Haku chapter 1 . 12/15/2003
Very good Harron..bit wierd reading it now though, seeing as Saddam's been captured.
| Poiniard chapter 1 . 9/6/2003
A well-written essay, but wrong on one key point. What you are advocating has already started, and it began long before 9/11.
In 20, US Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki initiated a transformation to turn the Army into a lighter, faster force based around a family of modular new vehicles called the Future Combat System. These new units will have to fight both conventional and unconventional battles.
This decision was mostly based on two things: lessons learned from the Persian Gulf War and advancements in sensor technology (everything from satellites to UAV’s).
Getting the various intelligence agencies to work together is a whole different story, but I don't think sacrificing our conventional military forces is necessarily the best way to go about that.
| Mbwun chapter 1 . 8/27/2003
Very good essay. People have always said that the U.S. has a tendency to prepare for the last war, even though the next was is usually totally different. Well, we just spent forty years preparing for a war that thankfully never came, and it's going to take a lot of adjustment to get the U.S. Armed Forces equipped to handle the current threat of guerillas (worldwide, not just in Iraq).
As much as it pains this armor geek to say it, you're right about the M1s. First, though, I think that the Army is already working on something like that; over the next few years, they plan to phase out most of the M1/M1A1s and sell them to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else who we've deigned worthy of recieving these kick-ass tanks. This will leave the U.S. with a considerably reduced tank fleet of M1A2s that'll be organized into 3 or 4 brigades and assigned to the units that need them at the moment. The catch with that is that several nations that are hostile toward the U.S. maintain rather large tank forces-North Korea, for one. Granted, those tanks are inferior to the Abrams, but they've got a lot of them. We can thin those numbers with air support, but really, we don't have nearly as many Apaches as we'd like. The best anti-tank weapon in the world is still another tank.
~He Who Walks On All Fours And Apparently Knows A Lot About Tanks
| lili brik chapter 1 . 8/9/2003
A well-written, extremely interesting paper on war. Though I am known for disagreeing with many of causes and the motivations of some of the more recent wars, I find war in itself, and all of its accomplanying techonology, to be fascinating. Especially when it comes to adaptability-I liked your many historically-supported points about that. Very weel done-