It has been more than chipped away at. It has been smashed to bits, and ground to dust.

USAF is just as bad.

I tell my students how Wing Commander Robin Olds, frustrated with the crappy AIM-4 missile, had his maintenance guys re-wire F-4Ds to carry the AIM-9, without official sanction or permission. Why? Because he couldn't justify sending his guys into combat with inferior weapons. It was about combat. He got his butt chewed, but stuck to his position. (And still got promoted).

I ask my students: Would any SQ/CC or WG/CC do something like that today? In the training environment, would an O-6 say "No, we are NOT doing the latest upgrade to TIMS; it is a piece of crap that cost $4 million bucks!"

Hardly. Too worried about their next promotion, or 'Community Involvement' parade. It is about politics.

The days of innovative and creative thinking are crushed. We only do things that were done--as new ideas--in the innovative 1930s, 40s, and 50s. I honestly believe that if we had not done formation takeoffs and landings for the last 80 years, that if someone suggested it as a new idea today, it would be shot down immediately.

The problem is, the most effective warriors are those who are the most ruthless and organized, with superior numbers. Of these, ruthlessness is most important in my eye. Ruthlessness often involves creative thinking, risk-taking, and going against the standard-way. It worked for Atilla the Hun, the Muslim armies of the 800s, Ghengis Khan, the Japanese in the Pacific, and the Nazis. (The latter two only over-extended themselves). Compassion for the enemy was non-existant. Risk was assumed and accepted.

Modern western militaries have been forced into a no-risk, pacifist, merciful warrior mold by their political leaders. The composition and mentality of those forces is built to curry political favor over a broad public base, and satisfy vocal Political Action Groups with abundant money.

Superior weaponry can only go so far in equalizing that imbalance.