This label has been in the news lately. President Trump suggested that the Russian forces might not have the ability to fight a successful conflict with the Ukraine military. Ukraine is much smaller in physical size and certainly does not have anywhere near the same number of men in the military. Yet, Trump points out that after four years of fighting there has not been significant gains in territory. In fact, he even suggests that all of the areas conquered by the Russians could be taken back by Ukrainian forces. The reason? Russia might be a “paper tiger”. Vicious on the surface, but a hollow shell, empty inside, no muscle, and no teeth, claws or bones.

Almost at the same time, the Secretary of War, Pete Hegsmith, gives a speech to a large audience of senior officers that the US military must go through a massive physical readiness change. Physical training will be important. A fat soldier is a liability. Plus, an officer corps that is also fat is a worse liability. No more fat desk officers.

There was also a statement of returning to 1990 basic training standards. Standards that were developed for the volunteer army. Supposed this is far more rigorous than the current basic training standards. My assumption is that the Secretary is concerned that our military, officers and men, are “paper tigers”.

It’s an easy argument to make, except that the 1990 standards do not even closely match the 1970 standards developed for the Vietnam War. Off posts passes were given by the second week of training, bayonet training was cancelled as it was outdating and too violent. The New Army was not “hard charging”.

If we only go back to 1990 standards, it could falsely cause us to believe that we are in warrior readiness, a dangerous tactic when rattling sabers.

A true warrior will use anything as a weapon in order to kill the enemy, and training in edged weapons is the least that we can do.