CLICK HERE to share your thoughts or comments

Be sure to click "Notify me of new comments to this post by email"

CLICK HERE to share your thoughts or comments

2/10/2020

Last evening, World Affairs Council of the Desert’s speaker, Lt Col Dakota Wood (ret), Defense Programs Senior Research Fellow with the Heritage Foundation shared his first-hand experience of the need for increased strategic deployment of America’s military forces. Lt Col Wood is seen frequently on cable news advocating American global military strength. Imperative that we not lose our edge in gaining ground against rising national security threats. Nature of external threats—Russia’s continued aggression, China’s sustained bullying cyber-espionage, N Korea’s long-range missiles and failure to denuclearize and Iran’s sustained terrorist groups. We have made significant improvements in readiness but are still undersized and limited to regionalized responses. Much of our equipment is aging and outdated. In 1989 we had 770,000 troops on active duty — today 480,000. We need to step up our response capabilities.
Nancy DeLuna

7 Comments

Webmaster

Hi! My name is Linda Borses and I'm the Director of Operations of World Affairs Council of the Desert. We'd like to use this page to share some of our thoughts and ideas with you and you can share your thoughts and ideas with us. Our goal is to keep our members and friends engaged.

PLEASE
NO SPAM!
NO ADS!

Silver Ambassador Sponsors
$2,500

gary hufford

2/11/2020 07:31:52 pm

interesting overview but a little biased towards defense industry priorities and government defense spending

weapon systems have gotten more complex and hugely more expensive than in the past
so we cannot buy the same “number of units” as in the past.

i assume that given their unit costs the F22 and F35 are so good that one of them may replace 3 or 4 of the holder units

plus i believe closer integration with our allies and Nato maybe partial solution to our defense spending needs

jim miringoff

2/11/2020 08:57:48 pm

I watched at our table as many people ate their dessert first, before and while the speaker spoke, I have wondered in the past, why is dinner served after the talk? It is not just me, but others or many people have asked the same question ?

Jim McFarlin

2/12/2020 07:42:47 pm

As author of the 'Speaker first' format I am perhaps in the best position to address your comment. The idea for this format originated with the 'eat, then sleep' problem we were experiencing once attendees ate a full meal and perhaps had a glass or two of wine before hearing the speaker under the old format.

I can tell you, unfortunately from personal experience, that there is no better way to dissipate the energy of a speaker than to present him/her with a room full of nodding, sleeping heads. Also, under the old format, we experienced a significant exodus of attendees as soon as the speaker Q&A began. This is a rare occurrence today, although this is perhaps due to the quality of our speakers.

The proposal to change was thoroughly discussed, approved by the board and tested successfully for three months before making standard. While some may prefer the prior format, the vast majority of our members are comfortable with the current approach.

Thomas Riley

2/11/2020 09:12:00 pm

Seemed like Lt Col Wood was just presenting his standard Congressional lobbying deck. Slides were very hard to read (print and graphics) and he rattled through statistics too quickly. He obviously knew his subject but would have been more interesting if he presented options and discussed implications of each, rather than a simple pitch that we’re falling behind and need to spend more.

Allen F Shapiro

2/13/2020 12:39:41 am

Lt. Col. Wood's presentation was well-prepared and well-delivered. He introduced the audience to the ongoing work at The Heritage Foundation regarding its annual assessment of the US Military and its ability to carry out core functions. In particular, the 2020 assessment is sobering, reflecting marginally capable air, sea and land forces - confronted by multiple "confrontation" countries on multiple continents - with allies that are committed but woefully under-resourced - with rather expensive weapons systems in need of replacement or modernization - and with financial/budgetary constraints not readily overcome in the short or medium term. To repeat, that's all quite sobering.

Now, what was missing from this presentation? The speaker did not adequately address the strategic options to be considered by the US military with respect to “doing more with less”, with pros and cons. This would have been a welcome conclusion, but it would likely have required a great deal more time to prepare and present. Perhaps a very good future subject for the WACD?

For future WACD presentations, the speakers should be advised to share their insights not only about the problems/challenges of the particular subject area being addressed, but to also share some approaches to mitigate them - thus leaving the audience with a balanced understanding. I would welcome replacing the Q&A sessions (which can be of marginal value most of the time) with such a sequel. Food for thought.

2/13/2020 08:21:05 am

i agree with Mr Shapiro’s comments regarding the need of trying to present better balance of issues and concerns by the speakers when addressing issues related to public policy and influence.

Presenting speakers on similar subjects but having different perspectives may also be useful in order to give the audience a more balanced view of an issue.

Gordon and Eve Kramer

2/17/2020 09:46:36 am

We thought the speaker was very knowledgeable, informed and spoke well. The visuals however were too detailed to follow comfortably. Would have liked to hear him talk about the leverage that new technology such as drones could provide as an alternative to more manpower. Also some comment on the new Space Force Command and how that might affect the balance of military power.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Conversations