Thursday, January 13, 2005

Unbalanced For The Battle

Posted on the Inside Defense website today is this little piece of wonderful news:

[The Navy is not "correctly balanced and optimized for the world of the future." That's the conclusion drawn by none other than the chief of naval operations, Adm. Vern Clark, as reported today by Inside the Pentagon. It's the reason the Navy and Marine Corps have begun "sweeping internal reviews of their organizations and investment strategies to see what changes are necessary to provide capabilities required for the global war on terror."]

Allllrighty, THEN!!

"Correctly balanced and optimized", eh? Hmmmm.

So does this mean that our military is more focused on spider holes than satellites?

Or does this mean that SOMEBODY wants more money?

"War on terror" My gracious, where have I heard THAT phrase before?

Speaking of George Bush, his [Gag, Akk, Ptui!!] inauguration is coming up on January 20.

And a group of citizens [without any announcement] are going to turn their backs on George Bush's motorcade when it slithers on past.

Eons ago, people in some native cultures turned away as a group when someone was banished from the tribe.

And with that collective turn of the back: all connection between the tribe and that individual was severed.

Oh but if it was that easy now!

The United States of America has all the battles that it can handle right now. And I don't think that George Bush will take any of that away.

If we are ever going to bring our Country and its relationship with the rest of the world back into balance...

...It's going to take someone made of much, much stronger stuff.

[UPDATE 2008: Time has proven me right.]

No comments: