perfect inverse logic -- if I can't fight, the enemy
won't attack. . . I guess it's the kind of logic which
comes from "if I have no money, no one can steal
from me."

I was in one fist-fight, as a kid, and I chose not to
fight back. . . just to see what would happen. . the
bully found me to be such an anomaly that there
was no fun in it, so he left.

maybe that's the logic. . but I would not bet the
farm on it.

peace through strength is my current motto, and
we are getting into real trouble by abandoning
that logic. -- j

Obama is effectively disarming America. I suppose he feels that if we are too weak to fight a war, we won't have to.

I totally concur. Using the F-22 for close air support is akin to using a Lamborghini for taxi service. ~ ASININE. Only the senior leadership would come up with such a stupid idea.

The most dumbest ideas are often made by people farthest away from the problem.

as another former usaf officer, I concur heartily! -- j, LtCol Ret

As a former Air Force officer, $5Au has little confidence in current Air Force senior leadership. One example, their absurd attempts to retire the A-10, a plane perfectly suited for close air support in battling ISIS. The Air Force claims it is to expensive to operate. They want to buy more F-22's with which to fill this role. The F-22 is a hell of a weapon. It is also incredibly expensive and designed primarily as an air superiority fighter. Unlike the armored A-10, it is vulnerable to small arms fire at low altitude. Only the intervention of key Congressional leaders has prevented the Air Force for making a grievous error.

President Zero is one such president, but fighting wars is done far too easily. The Canadians get involved rarely in wars, but do so against clear enemies. Their foreign policy regarding wars is probably close to what most countries' proclivities to war should be.

except that *some* presidents do not have the will
to fight. . no matter how evil the enemy. -- j

Even at 26% of what it was in the 1990's, the USAF is more than able to handle whatever would need to be handled. As much as I like military personnel and vets, if a president must use force (and it is used far more often than necessary), then you bomb the enemy to hell quickly and be done with it. A few days is enough.

p.s. my mistake in the title -- should be 1990s, not 1990's;;;
it was late and I was tired.

p.p.s. 47 divided by 188 is 0.2606,,, 26 percent

"Do More With Less" Part II. ~ Been there, done that. But I'm not worried, there will be another war to fix this in time. (SIGH)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.