Old song: "2027 is the new 2030!"

New song: "2030 is the new 2027!"

Make sure you do your fives and twenty fives getting out of your vics so you don't step right smack dab into an ice patch.

Gotta be 'shoulder to shoulder' with the local forces, dontcha know.

The company commander is almost certainly in a key leader engagement with a high school hockey coach.

Great footage of Minnesota-wali, the local code of honor and hospitality.

Behavior like this is an affront to the profession. It is contrary to our training. It breaks the special trust and confidence that comes with the office.

I'd expect to be relieved for doing the same. I'd relieve a subordinate commander for doing the same.

This is another enduring theme of bringing the GWOT home. It causes the moral injuries from those wars to bleed freely again.

We were trained to a standard, upholding oaths to the Constitution abroad at great personal risk. And now see any semblance of those ideas torn asunder by GWOT LARPers.

All those books were just weight for my pack so I could work on my warrior ethos!

Can't let books get in the way of your education, bro!

🙃

This is a phenomenal story for so many reasons. Very proud of the PFC who stepped into the leadership breach.

Such a flawed game with inflated defeatist conclusions will, sadly, only serve as propaganda for the PRC. They will use it in their own information campaign to point to further deter anyone from defending Taiwan, the Taiwanese chief among them.

But how the game tries to get there - by creating an implausible scenario where the measurements are deeply skewed because the US is fighting alone, and not really fighting for anything in particular - strikes me as deeply flawed.

Wildly, the recommendations aren't bad, if taken on their own and outside the context of the game. They're nothing that will surprise anyone who has been studying this problem set. "Put more stuff in position to affect the fight now."

Okay, so we're going to enter a war with China IOT prevent adverse impacts to our economy? Fight a peer adversary to a standstill to preserve global markets? This is not how any of this works.

"... the U.S. vital national security interest and corresponding strategic objective is the prevention of the adverse economic impact of a conflict on global markets, trade, and our economy."

All the operational bits aside, the strategic conceit of the game is perhaps the biggest issue: "It is also our judgment that the retention or control of Taiwan is a critical operational objective, but..."