Re: I told you so. [Hutchinson]

RKM-

Au contraire, I believe the target of the RMA is all and any potential
hegemonic rivals, including Japan, a Japan-China alliance, and/or the EU
or an EU/Russia alliance.

RH



On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Richard K. Moore wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>