Darts and Laurels
subscribe  |    email  |    print
Forum pick: From our online discussion boards

Posturing a military for the future necessarily involves assuming risk. Mr. Scharre’s argument is that that risk should be assumed on the ‘war-winning’ side of the Army, as opposed to the ‘nation-building’ one. That to me seems rather reckless.”

— ARMY COL. BILL BETSON (RET.) COMMENTS ON PAUL SCHARRE’S ARTICLE “A BALANCING ACT,” MAY AFJ (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/05/4537293)

Paul Scharre responds

“You raise an excellent point about the historical dangers of inaccurately predicting future wars. Some balance is required in order to be flexible enough to cope with a range of future contingencies. ... My intent is precisely to suggest, in fact, that no parts of a campaign ought to be favored over others, but rather that the war should be considered in its totality.”

Post your thoughts and continue the debate at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/forums.

  email  |    print  |    continue the debate
YOUR VIEWS
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Read our letters to the editor.
SEND A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Tell us what you think.
HOW TO SUBMIT AN ARTICLE TO AFJ
Interested in writing an opinion piece for the magazine? Read our guidelines
Subscribe  |  Renew  |  Customer Service  |  Advertising  |  Contact Us
For inquiries about reproduction or distribution of any materials contained herein, please click here.
Gannett
All content © 2013, Armed Forces Journal