No doubt that MacArthur looked the part of a soldier and he was unquestionably brave, but he was also extremely image conscious and was unwilling to accept other people’s viewpoints. He had a gigantic ego and mommy issues.

when im cleaning the kitchen, i like to dab a few places and then spill the bucket all over the living room carpet. i call it island mopping. then i smoke my corncob pipe and get my pants wet for the cameras.

+1 to each of you.

try this. When you go somewhere, but are returning, just telling whoever you need to tell that you’re Douglas Macarthur, and then go on. They’ll figure it out probably.

Eventually, you can reduce it further. When I’m dashing somewhere, I just say, I’m Doug Macarthur.

when im cleaning the kitchen, i like to dab a few places and then spill the bucket all over the living room carpet. i call it island mopping. then i smoke my corncob pipe and get my pants wet for the cameras.

try this. When you go somewhere, but are returning, just telling whoever you need to tell that you’re Douglas Macarthur, and then go on. They’ll figure it out probably.

Eventually, you can reduce it further. When I’m dashing somewhere, I just say, I’m Doug Macarthur.

remember, darrell…defense was so much better in the bird/magic era too.

Tyus Thomas > Blake Griffith

Also, MacArthur was a dumbass. Most overrated general in U.S. history.

i like how he got more of his soldier’s killed than he needed to.

/he looks like a badass tho…right avatar?

Looking ahead, though, in the competition for tight defense dollars within and between the services, the Army also must confront the reality that the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements – whether in Asia, the Persian Gulf, or elsewhere. The strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they Army or Marines, airborne infantry or special operations, is self-evident given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response, or stability or security force assistance missions. But in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should “have his head examined,” as General MacArthur so delicately put it.

After WWI, the U.S. Tank Corps was disbanded because the lessons of armored warfare in northern Europe were not taken to heart and the Cavalry had a strong lobby in Congress. After WW II, all U.S. special forces (OSS, Rangers, UDTs) were disbanded because it was asserted that wars would be fought at long range with atom bombs and with large bodies of infantry and tanks clashing with one another. After guided missiles were introduced into the U.S. Air Force and the Navy, new fighters, namely the F-4 Phantom, were not given guns because it was assumed that all future air combat would be fought at a distance….apparently no one considered what happens when you run out of missiles.

There are other examples, but the point is that the history of warfare has a funny way of turning on its head any assumption we make about future wars and warfare based on past experience and current knowledge.

so when you watch an NBA game, instead of seeing jumpshots, backdoor cuts, pick and rolls, and dunks, you see a lack of self-awareness and self absorption? OK.

remember, darrell…defense was so much better in the bird/magic era too.

I do watch the NBA. I actually like basketball. The lack of self-awareness and the self-absorption with NBA players drives me nuts. It’s much easier for one NBA player to sink his team/coach than it is for a hockey, baseball or football player to do so. In the NFL, they just cut your ass. In the NHL, you’re a healthy scratch. In MLB, you get shipped off the minors or dropped in the order.

so when you watch an NBA game, instead of seeing jumpshots, backdoor cuts, pick and rolls, and dunks, you see a lack of self-awareness and self absorption? OK.

For the vets out there, do you foresee a larger cyber/unmanned system-centric DoD in our lifetimes?

not a vet, but obviously. what was the stat…1 out of 5 american forces in deployment right now is a machine or robot? something along those lines.

Now, that’s funny.

“‘Til the night closes innnnnnnn…”

Reading the comments regarding Army “right-sizing”, I would love to dive into a full post just on that issue.

Short answer – money is tight, and we can only afford so many beans and bullets. I don’t necessarily like it (I have friends in the Army and USAF). We just couldn’t justify Cold War levels of spending any more.

For the vets out there, do you foresee a larger cyber/unmanned system-centric DoD in our lifetimes?

Panama is expanding the size of the canal currently. It’s a project that’s been underway for a couple of years and is likely to take several more, but I don’t know that it’s going to be big enough to fit aircraft carriers.

yea…didn’t they just have a huge ass accident there too?

Au Revoir Shospenceanna!

lol.

/no 3′s to whatever actress played her

Looking ahead, though, in the competition for tight defense dollars within and between the services, the Army also must confront the reality that the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements – whether in Asia, the Persian Gulf, or elsewhere.  The strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they Army or Marines, airborne infantry or special operations, is self-evident given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response, or stability or security force assistance missions.  But in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should “have his head examined,” as General MacArthur so delicately put it.

Another thing about that article is that the U.S. Navy is already transitioning more ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

yea, that’s the big thing i got out of it.

then again, nobody expects the spanish armada!