From Scott R. Gourley, “US Army Leaders Stand up for FCS ahead of Review,” Jane’s Defense Weekly (11 Feb. 2009):

“This latter point is considered crucial at the moment, ensuring that future programmes have a relevance for current operations and sufficient pull through into legacy systems.”

Now, let’s all put our LSAT assumption-finding skills to work and find the assumption in the argument that future programs should have a relevance for current operations.  This only makes sense if we assume that the future is going to look like the present–i.e. what we’re doing now is all we’re going to do.  Otherwise, why would we want future systems to be relevant to current operations, which will presumably be past operations by the time these future systems come on line?  It only makes sense if we deploy the “future now assumption” so prevalent these days.

As I’ve said time and again, the assumption that what we’re doing now is all that we will do in the near to mid term is dubious at best, both on the grounds of logic and based on even a cursory look at what is happening in the world–e.g. Russian resurgence, Iranian defiance on nuclear issues and ongoing progress in missile technology, etc.  It is not at all clear that insurgents and roadside bombs are the only thing in the cards.