Slashdot Mirror
How the Pentagon Got Its Shape
Pcol writes "The Washington Post is running a story on the design process for the Pentagon building and why it ended up with its unusual shape. In July 1941 with World War II looming, a small group of army officers met to consider a secret plan to provide a permanent home for War Department headquarters containing 4 million square feet of office space and housing 40,000 people. The building that Brig. Gen. Brehon Burke Somervell, head of the Army's Construction Division, wanted to build was too large to fit within the confines of Washington DC and would have to be located across the Potomac River in Arlington. "We want 500,000 square feet ready in six months, and the whole thing ready in a year," the general said adding that he wanted a design on his desk by Monday morning. The easiest solution, a tall building, was out because of pre-war restrictions on steel usage and the desire not to ruin Washington's skyline. The tract selected had a asymmetrical pentagon shape bound on five sides by roads or other divisions so the building was designed to conform to the tract of land. Then with objections that the new building would block views from Arlington National Cemetery, the location was moved almost one-half mile south. The building would no longer be constructed on the five-sided Arlington Farm site yet the team continued with plans for a pentagon at the new location. In the rush to complete the project, there was simply no time to change the design."
The snide response to that is "why isn't the full-time professional army winning in Iraq?" However, I personally believe that has less to do with the make-ups of the individual forces and more to do with the strategies involved on both sides. So I'm only going to point it out, and not make it.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
If the full-time professional army was allowed to fight like their enemies in Iraq do, then the situation there would be different.
It isn't flamebait if it is the truth.
--
Censored by Technorati
The easy answer is that in Iraq, you've got civilians, trained and untrained soldiers on two sides, and the soldiers from the US and its allies. The problem is that the first three groups all blend in together when they're not actively fighting, and the US and its allies are trying not to hurt the civilians.
If we were really at war with Iraq as a whole, we'd do much better. This was the case early on, when we were fighting Saddam's army. We still tried to minimize hurting civilians; we could have won even quicker if we didn't.
Yes, I said won. We won that first war, then got stuck in a no-win situation in the follow-on war to decide how to fill the power-vacuum we created. Bush's biggest crime here was starting the first war without a viable plan for winning or avoiding the second one.
I take your point.
Under a different username, I once got modded -1, Insightful for speaking the truth, and it trashed my account (I went from excellent karma to, um, terrible or awful or whatever it's called, in just one post.)
As my fake sig might suggest, I have little patience for words used to justify my speech being deleted/censored/moderated/whatever.
--
Censored by Technorati
Is this the way you honor your brothers sacrifice? He would have been real proud of you I'm sure.