POST: The Russians Doing Joint Ops Right, by Paul McLeary, Ares, 8/19/2008
Frankly, putting the political and strategic implications aside for a minute, Russia's intervention in Georgia should strike us as more of a turn-on than turn-off. In the past, I've tended to write Russia off as a strategic partner not because the incentives weren't there but because the military and governmental capabilities had seemingly atrophied to such a profound degree. Georgia can be seen as disproving that perception.
I mean, if you want strategic allies who can go places and do stuff in a long war against radical extremism, we should be more impressed than dismayed.
But, of course, that requires us to view the situation with less emotion and to think more long term.
| Permalink |
Comments (2)
Just a thought.. If possible to arrange, would we get more bang for our buck paying countries like Russia and China to support combat operations inside the gap? I mean apposed to companies like KBR.
Posted by Tyler Sommerfeld | August 21, 2008 8:08 PM
Tyler: yes! this is part of Tom's thinking. our contractors cost a ton compared to peacekeepers from Russia, China or India. they like to do it because they get paid (not sure how or by whom). this is one reason Tom says we need to work the SysAdmin especially with the Chinese and Indians: they are the low-cost million-man armies. Tom sometimes calls them 'body shops'.
Posted by Anonymous
|
August 22, 2008 7:02 AM