How could any army thrive in an increasingly anti-military culture such as ours? One that cares more for diversity and sexual-assault programs than winning wars.
The part that isn’t understandable is how the Army still sustains itself on volunteers. The volunteers, particularly in the combat arms of infantry, artillery and armor, must be seeking something other than martial respect. Could it be, in the abysmal Democrat economy, something as pathetic as the old “three hots and a cot?”
The American army hasn’t won a war of any significance since the Japanese surrendered in 1945. Not that it couldn’t. But the pols undercut it every time.
“three hots and a cot?” A lot of them yeah, but the majority no. I saw this crap start in the late 60’s and it’s just gotten worse and worse. But the population by majority still has that undefinable “fighting spirit”, I run into it time again talking to young troopies, who are outstanding. It’s blare of propaganda from the left that’s distorted the true image and you just have to learn to ignore it.Let’s just say this, Scrib remember how bad off the army was say 71 to 76? Remember how some dedicated individuals turned it around? I don’t think we are nearly as bad as we were back then and that it can still be turned around, but it starts at home in our politics.
The quest to make our military equipment more and more efficient, and the amount of success we’ve had, enables the shrinkage in number of troops. Better weaponry has its limits, though. Remember the German tanks and planes (and Japanese planes at the start) in WWII. Far superior to anything we were using.
We overwhelmed them with numbers of inferior equipment, mostly. Except for a couple of planes, the Corsair in the Pacific, the Mustang in Europe. There are probably more examples, but I’m fresh out of brain cells.
“…it starts at home in our politics.”
Exactly. Unfortunately. So where are the starters? Except for a few veterans. I don’t see any with any influence.