The other point I thought he made, which was kind of interesting—and I think it was in response to one of the questions over here—was with respect to our strategic needs.
In your paper you make the point that we generally aren't at the pointy end of any combat mission. We're kind of the follow-up guys, and that's been true back into World War II as far as I recollect, and the Korean War. Any time we've flown jets we don't do the pointy part; we come in afterwards.
Now the government, for whatever reason, wants to be at the pointy part--you know, first in and forget whether we have to use missiles or drones or anything like that. We want to have the first jets in.
My question is, why. Are we going to be fighting the Russians over the North Pole, or are we going to be fighting the Chinese somewhere? On a strategic threat assessment, how realistic is that, given that you'd like to be ready for everything but you're never going to be ready for everything?