Quickly, the M16 was originally purchased by the Air Force and later adopted by the Army. Rifles should be bought based on the qualities required by the Infantry, not the Strategic Air Command. A weapon that is used to guard aircraft on a flight line and only sees use on a range, may not work in the Infantry world.

The whole up-armoring deal is a band-aid. Armor has to be designed in, not added on.

For a lot of reasons the two engine short field cargo aircraft is an Army aviation bird, the Air Force should mind its own business. The Air Force doesn’t have a mission that requires it.

We should have increased force size beginning on 9/12/01 as a prudent first step. It takes time to train people, and if you don’t need them, they can be released to the Reserves.

There’s more, as I say I be writing a post as soon as I can find the time to organize it.

Yeah, it’s cordial. Not friendly, not even especially polite. Just cordial. If you get condescending, then I’ll appologize. I know I don’t like being treated like a dupe or idiot just because I serve–which is the usual vibe form the war opponents I’ve dealt with.

The rifle is a red herring. Nothing wrong with the M4. The 416 is better? Maybe. I know I wouldn’t mind less time doing maintenance. But the M4 is a recent purchase. How much fiscal sense to dump a load of brand new weapons in favor of the next better thing? Let these get worn a bit and then maybe there’ll be something even better then. The XM-8 is based on a HK platform that uses the same piston drive bolt as the 416 and Congress skewered the money spent on that ordering more open comptetive tests just a year or so ago.

The M1114 ofers a lot of protection–in a platform that will last maybe half as long precisely because of the extra protection. The M1151 is just a bit better in both regards. But armor vs. threat firepower is the classic arms race. We add twice the protection and they add twice the TNT. At some point the ability to move and move quickly has to be factored in as well.

I agree that the Air Force should dump the F-22 and stick with the F-35 if only because the 35 is a joint platform (and far cheaper). I also think it’s a mistake to stop production on the C-17 when there’s no replacement in the pipe, that the Army should have more of it’s own tactical airlift, that axing the Crusader and the Commanche were probably good ideas (not so sure about Commanche), that the Army shoudl do it’s own CAS if the Air FOrce can’t be made to put any priority in it, that FCS is a major overreach no matter how cool it is, that there should me more Stryker brigades, that there should be more brigades, period, and that the current proliferation of uniforms amon the services is really stupid. So if we earn bona fides by disagreeing with the Pentagon, do I get any credit here, or does my support for the war and my mission cancel it out?

FWIW, I haven’t seen your sidebar, as I came straight to this post via Google blog search.

You think that’s cordial, RTO? I think it’s condescending.

The link to my military service and my direct line back to one of my great grandfathers is in the sidebar where it has always been. It’s not exactly a secret to people who stop by here, and it’s the reason there are blogs by vets on my blogroll.

In the last six years there have been major increases in the Defense budget, but the equipment issues of the regular military, Reserve, and National Guard have not been addressed. We went “to war with the Army” we had, and nothing has been done to fix the problems.

We apparently have money to throw at aircraft we don’t need, anti-missile systems that don’t work, robots with no function, but we can’t seem to provide a basic rifle that fires reliably in field conditions or troop transports that offer some protection.

I don’t appreciate my motives being questioned by you.

Perhaps you should reconsider making your statements in public?

I reread your post and my reply and I can’t find where I was anything but cordial. As for your pedigree with this issue, you don’t mention that in you rpost and sice only “the last 6 years.”

So, I suppose if you’ll tell me where the disconnect is and where I was supposed to have known better, I’ll appologize.

In all my years as a peace activist, I have never verbally abused the military. Well, OK, there were individual fools among the highest ranks who deserved my criticism on the issues; I wasn’t shy about saying so, and the DoD has frequently caught hell from me… but I never said a word against our serving rank and file. It’s people like your visitor who see fit to give you grief, and would surely give me grief if they got the chance. Who really has a political ax to grind here? Not you. Not me. In our very different ways, we serve the compatible causes of peace and security. And neither of us suffers fools gladly.

I got really loud when they pulled out local forces and equipment and we started to get scoured on the Gulf Coast with hurricanes, but when your governor is named Bush and your Congressman is a Republican nothing gets done.

Maybe politics is all you think about, but my military roots in this country go back to the French and Indian War in the middle of the 18th century. I’m a veteran of service in a line that goes back to the beginnings of this country and I don’t appreciate my motives being questioned by you. My Dad had more time in grade as a Master Sergeant than you have in service.

I saw the military pulled apart by the politicians during Vietnam and it’s happening again.

…

I’m a National Guardsman. In my 13 years, we’ve never had anything like all or even most of our equipment.

But now that it’s political hay, it’s important?

As for people, leave that out when discussing the current situation in Kansas. They have no units on deployment. Only ~500 Gurdsmen are deployed on individual orders, and some of those will be stateside schools and other TDY deployments, not OIF or OEF.