If The Cars can come back, why not Gary Hart? One of ex-presidential candidate Sen. Gary Hart’s contributions (apart from showing Dems the labor-skeptical neolib way forward that they, and he, subsequently lost) was his championing of the “military reform” movement. One part of military reform seemed to get embraced by the Pentagon: flexible “maneuver” military strategy. Another part seemed to lose out: the reformers’ emphasis on smaller/cheaper/simpler weapons that could be purchased in greater numbers than big, complex, expensive weapons. In part (and I’m sure I’m oversimplifying) that’s because the expensive complex, high-tech weapons seemed to work well on the battlefield. But now those very technical advances may be bringing back the reformers’ smaller/cheaper vision in a modified form. There’s no bigger or more expensive weapon, after all, than the current top-of-the-line aircraft carrier battle group. But what if the mighty Gerald Ford could be sunk by a couple of relatively inexpensive Chinese missiles? Take it away, Great Satan’s Girlfriend:
“…The solution is obvious enough: match China’s move down the many-and-cheap scale by taking advantage of emerging naval [Unmanned Arial Vehicles] that are capable of landing on less-than-super-sized decks.
“…So you start experimenting with the real future – mother ships featuring waves upon waves of cheaper drones, while running out the lifespan string of the big decks.
“…Signaling to the Chinese that we will continue to match them on the major features of their catch-up strategy while likewise demonstrating that we’re moving on to the next generation of power projection – sort of a “I’ll call your new carrier and raise you my next-gen, drone-spewing mother ship!”
P.S.: G.S.G. is written in an anti-bureaucratic style the Pentagon could always use more of. Go ahead, follow her. You won’t be bored. …