Is ‘military effectiveness’ the only reason we have a military? And if we do have an effective force, why aren’t we winning?
When I read the first assertion, about the reason for having a military, made in the July issue of ARMY magazine, I paused and wondered.
When I read the first assertion, about the reason for having a military, made in the July issue of ARMY magazine, I paused and wondered.
When I read the first assertion, about the reason for having a military, made in the July issue of ARMY magazine, I paused and wondered.
The trust of the American people, writes retired Army Col. Don Snider, “must be constantly re-earned. This is done primarily by the profession’s demonstrated military effectiveness, the sole reason for its existence in the first place.” (My emphasis)
Effectiveness might be the leading, most important reason we have a military, but I doubt it is the sole reason. But I am hard put to list the others….
As for the second assertion: Gen. McChrystal argues in his new book Team of Teams that a military is only as effective as its ability to influence its environment. By that measure, I don’t think we are getting a lot of effectiveness for the buck.
U.S. Department of Defense
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.