The major's letter was certainly appreciated. I hope that my admittedly broad generalization does not contribute to interservice rivalry. It was not my intent to minimize the importance of naval and air power to defend American interests. Different eras require different proportions of ground, sea, and air power to balance whatever form of threat is currently dominant. I believe land threats are the most severe today, but too many people fail to understand that our naval and air power are virtually unchallenged.

My agenda is clear--restore balance to the debate by resisting the broad generalizations of air and sea power advocates who argue that distant firepower can solve our problems without risking our military personnel. Perhaps I should not have used "never" and "always" in my article. I certainly have a more balanced view of the relative importance of our various services than a strict reading of selected words would lead one to believe. Nonetheless, if that is how it is interpreted, it is my responsibility to convey a better representation of my views rather than assume that Navy or Air Force advocates will recognize that I respect their capabilities and motivations though I disagree with some of their arguments. I continue to defend my observations on the limitations of projecting naval power ashore, however, despite the obvious differences between 1805 and today.

Our Navy, Marines, and Air Force are good--very good--but they have clear limits. Defeating a resolute and numerous foe on the land is one of those limits. The Army is necessary for decisive victory and always will be when the objective is to control real estate and the people and resources contained there.

Brian J. Dunn

Home

You are visitor since September 1, 1998