Re: I told you so. [Hutchinson]

2/16/2001, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:
    > Rather than spend billions on systems that just modernize
    the forces, ("preparing to fight yesterday's war"), they
    seem to be going with the RMA (Revolution in Military
    Affairs), attempting to move to a new, more information
    warfare- based strategy.
    
    > Of course the money shifted from procurement into R&D will
    benefit some corporations, but it will certainly harm some
    in the short run.  So Bush & Co. are not just pawns of the
    military-industrial complex in some simplistic fashion, not
    based on this direction of policy.


Dear Richard H,

Hello again. 

I agree with you that the 'military-industrial complex'
theory focuses on secondary forces.

The record is clear that US military preparedness has always
been driven by strategic imperialist considerations.  The
profit-motive of weapons contractors, and their lobbying
power in Congress, is very useful in getting
administration/CFR plans approved and implemented.  But the
tail does not wag the dog, as you evidence above.

The question before us is: "What are the strategic objectives 
that are served by RMA?"

There's a simple five-letter answer starting with "C", and it 
rhymes with 'asian hegemon'.

rkm