On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, J. van Baardwijk wrote: [snip] > I know you do not want to be insulting, but your attitude could very well > be seen as insulting. Your post leaves the impression that for the United > States, other countries' soldiers are just cannon fodder.
I don't believe Gautam slighted anyone else's soldiers; as I read it, what he argued is that in terms of overall coordination, control, and support, most nations' militaries can't fight much beyond their own borders without the US's help. If that's the case, then US military leaders have a cost-benefit analysis to do: "If we fight jointly with nation X in the Middle East, will the destructive power they bring to bear be worth the extra cost the US will pay in support services for their troops and equipment. Plus, will it be possible for them to coordinate with our high-tech systems efficiently, or will they slow down our own operations as we try to accomodate them?" If Gautam's facts are right, then the conclusions which follow may very well be that a) it's too *expensive* for the US to use other nations' troops as cannon fodder -- the costs outweigh the benefits -- and b) outfitting US troops with other nations' gear will increase their likelihood of becoming cannon fodder themselves. Admittedly, if we're talking about military posturing, this isn't a flattering thing for non-US militaries to hear. But it in no way reflects badly on other nations' soldiers. It simply means, as Gautam already pointed out, that the US spends so much money on its military already that other nations simply can't keep up. Finally: making that point in no way implies that Gautam thinks other nation's soldiers are casually expendable as human beings or that they should be spent carelessly, which is what "cannon fodder" implies. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
