I don't like this logic

Of note--and this may be more suitable for a twitter message than a blog, but doing the blog regularly is enough trouble for this distracted guy--I've been hearing a lot of the following logic, applied toward helping policy-makers decide whether or not to do something:

"England and the Netherlands and New Zealand do XYZ. They like it fine. We should do XYZ too."

Last time I checked, we an army that a lot of people call the best ever. Not just because of the equipment, but because of the level of education and training, and ability to implement advanced strategy. Since when did we decide that our best chance at improving was to look at armies that are on the downward path? Armies that are getting smaller, and in almost all matters, look to us for guidance and inspiration?

I hate this logic, and think that the people who use it do not have America's military's best interests at heart. The only time we should examine other countries' military forces is either when something isn't working with ours--and there's nothing that's broken, we're winning the wars we need to--or if we need a quick "upper," by examining the keystone-cops comedy hour that even a cursory examination of most of our allies inevitably produces. I do not include the Australians, British, Germans, French, or Canadians in that math, they all have very good and professional armies (still, I wouldn't take anything from any of them).

Cultural Relativism is racking up the wins.