America Doesn't Do Real War...

 ... period. The reason it doesn't do real war is because she doesn't know what it is. Because she doesn't know what real defense is, apart from tropes of "national interests", "we need to fight them there, to not fight them here", "democracy" and other bullshit to cover up expeditionary and imperialistic nature of the US military.  So, Gregory Daddis asks a reasonable question and raises a proper issue:

While much of the book is heavy with dense, analytical prose, “How Much Is Enough?” still asks useful questions that remain relevant for us today. How well are DoD budget practices aligned to U.S. foreign policy objectives? Are spending ceilings logical or “arbitrary”? Are some military services “entitled” to a certain percentage of the defense budget, and, if so, why? What is the relationship between spending on social programs versus national security? Perhaps most importantly, Enthoven and Smith argued for a “central plan” to drive resource requests and avoid duplication of effort. Once more, they encouraged spending criteria that supported the “national interest.” In evaluating forces structures and strategic mobility, weapons systems and nuclear stockpiles, analysts always had to keep in mind a central question: “for what purpose?”

Well, the issue, of course, is WHAT IS American nation and how its "national interests" are formulated? I agree--US "defense budget" is nothing but a jobs program and defrauding of the US economy. Moreover, I agree, that for all this spending the US continues to fall behind technologically and is incapable of REAL, as in large scale combined arms operations. Condescending references to "peer" or "near peer" warfare is an absolute BS. What is not a BS--it is inability, especially at the political level to grasp what COFM is. 

Senator Roger Wicker--a lawyer and a journo who was JAG, who penned this somnambulic BS in NYT in May...

America’s Military Is Not Prepared for War — or Peace

... has about zero grasp on how wars are planned and executed. JAGs, especially with "degree" in journalism are not educated on the virtues of Combat Effectiveness, Combat Stability and Force Designs. But these are crucial in order for him to understand why the United States lost the arms race and why the "rebuilding of the US Armed Forces" as he puts it this way will be mostly about "more cowbell"--same BS about replicating the TOE from 1990-s, the attempt to repeat the halcyon days of beating the crap from people who cannot shoot straight. And Daddies concludes the piece with seemingly common sense: 

In 1971, Enthoven and Smith were asking similarly hard questions because they believed it served the nation’s best interests. Undoubtedly, Senator Wicker feels similarly. But it’s worth voters engaging in this moment when the wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East seemingly demand more, more, more. Of course, we shouldn’t underestimate the threats we face. But surely now is the time to ask both our presidential candidates, “how much is enough?”

What can I say, the whole US military thinking is not about real wars, it is about who gets what domestically. It is a gravy train, for now. But changes are coming. In fact, they are already here.