 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA |
| Posts: | 1050 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
A man I greatly respected and I think who knew what he was talking about made a point that history has shown very few truly competant armies. Armies that create a cadre of rules and regulations and then actually use them instead of merely paying them lip service. Creating a level of professionalism that is more than just bluster. In other words he believed it far easier to pick out the incompetent military than the competent from history. He said the 20th Century produced just two: Israel and that of Nazi Germany... one of which was utterly destroyed by rank amatuers who took to the trade w/ great enthusiasm. He felt the 19th Century fielded but one: the British.
One of the requirements for a competant army from this man was that the general officer corps was chosen by quality instead of political manuever & favoritism. That alone immedietly disqualifies the CS... and frankly the US as well.
I hope that makes some sort of sense...