I'm not surprised. The rot at the top of any government entity never sees past it's own nose, thinking itself superior to all. No different than Pearl Harbor, also predicted by a military leader of that era, or Viet Nam.
Now one needs to ask the question, who gains from a weakened and inept US military and why would they want it weak to begin with?
I'm not so sure it is weak, just poorly led by those who climb the ranks as bureaucrats rather than real soldiers.
Administrative managers tend to promote doggedly compliant followers whose only redeeming quality is their ability to adapt to changes within the peacetime organization bureaucracy. However, that psychology is usually one conditioned to avoid wartime readiness. If that doesn't fall under the category of strategies to weaken a military, what does?
(post is archived)