posted
Okay, apparently the Bush administration has decided to send the 1st Marine division to Iraq. I can only assume they realized how politically disasterous sending National Guard troops for prolonged stays was and went looking for someone to substitute, as we certainly don't have enough people in the army take care of everything.
Out of the two bad choices, the Marines are probably the best, but this highlights how badly the military is understrength.
If people are wondering why sending in the Marines indicates it, its simple. The Marines are an assault force. They are trained for assault. They are equipped for assault. They are structured for assault. They are not, trained, equipped, or structured for occupation.
For instance, in the early days of the Iraq occupation, while the Marines were still waiting for enough of the army to arrive for them to pull out, there were several instances of interrogation gone wrong (as in, crossed the line of the Geneva convention's restriction on torture), of Iraqis by Marines. The reason? The Marines in question were never trained in interrogation. My Dad, who was a Captain when he was an active Marine, pointed several instances out of it to me as examples of how the invasion was being mismanaged -- if interrogation is needed, it should be policy to send the prisoners to a unit that is equipped and trained (and preferable assigned) for the task. Not kept in-unit when that is not the case!
I anticipate many similar problems relating to this simply not being the Marines' proper role.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeesh, this is bad in many ways. Beyond the occupation/assault distinction, this severely limits our ability to respond to developing conflicts elsewhere in the world. I suppose the two major/3 minor simultaneous conflict goal of our force realignment isn’t even being given lip service any more.
Maybe it is the best solution; it’s still a little scary.
It is good that we will be going to regular forces rather than extending the stays of reserve and National Guard forces.
What worries me more is...
Many of the National Guard units are logistical support units, tasked with and practiced in moving supplies and support to troops in the field. They also make up many artillery and military police units. Rotating these units back home might be for rest, refit and scarily reassignment to a new battlefield.
Couple that with the beginnings of sending our Airborne and Air Assault units back home. Hopefully, it is just to finish off duty rotations and get some of these very tired units some much needed rest back home. It could also be that something is in the works down the road. I'd imagine that it would be six months down the road.
If you wanted to attempt another assault, you'd want to rest and refit your assault groups as well as your logistical ones. If the country you wanted to assault was nearby where your troops had been previously stationed, sending the Marines there would be an excellent case of pre-positioning.
Hopefully, this is all a peaceful situation. But I've got to look at Iraq and see how close it is to Iran and to Syria.
If you see an announcement of more units being rotated out of Iraq and they are replaced by another Marine unit, or more tellingly an Armored division, then you know something is up. The same if you hear of our Light Infantry and Mountain divisions being brought back from Afghanistan and Iraq (both groups are fast deployment, offensive troops).
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, right now is the time to hope India and Pakistan really are heading towards peace, China won't try anything, North Korea won't try anything (and we've been making sure not to provoke them how?), and Africa doesn't flair up. And I've certainly missed several hot spots, but those are some highlights.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: but this highlights how badly the military is understrength.
You can't be serious. We are a domocratic nation with citizen soldiers. Nobody is forced to fight in the modern American military. Because of this, our military will remain small in comparison. But, as illustrated time and time again, we are unstoppable, the American people are very good at pulling the reigns of the military.
One thing to realize is that the military is only their for 'police duties' right now. All they're doing is replacing manpower. It's not like they will wipe clean the entire chain of command and replace it with people that don't know what they are doing.
Everybody in every branch of the military is trained from the get-go on occupation strategies. A military that doesn't know how to occupy an enemy's territory is useless. The Marine Corps are very professional and I trust them to get the job done.
posted
"One thing to realize is that the military is only their for 'police duties' right now."
Scottneb, your assumptions completely ignore the point: that the Marines are NOT satisfactorily trained for occupation and police duty, and are primarily an assault force.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am quite serious. While the military is one of citizen soldiers, to act like it is not possible to modify the size of the military through incentives and such is naive at best. The military has for years been practicing a policy of retirement -- don't offer particularly good incentives, or spend much effort, in trying to persuade people to stay.
And at the very least it definitionally demonstrates how the military is understrength for the current exercises -- if we didn't have the troops to occupy Iraq competently, we shouldn't have invaded (and note, I supported the invasion of Iraq).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that those of us debating this actually know definitively if the military is understrength or not. I personally believe that we are strong enough to do what is needed. The reason you see so many deployments is a result of the huge downsizing and modernization programs of the 80's and 90's. Our leaders saw the need for a "light and lethal force" long before any of this dropped. The military is no longer a lumber-in-and-sit-on-the-enemy type of force. We hit harder, faster and with more lethal results than any other military the world has seen.
If you're saying that the military is understrength in invading another country, that's probably true.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's say that the entire Army & Marine and their reserve components are sent out to occupy foreign territories. Can you name any nation or combination of nations that could dislodge them? Or successfully invade North America to create even a beachhead?
Really gotta quit listening to the propagandists for the military-industrial complex.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the 1st Marine in Iraq, I severely doubt we could project a staying force to any major conflict not in that immediate vicinity without abandoning Iraq to chaos.
And no, we're not capable of doing everything that needs doing. For instance, we no longer have enough aircraft carriers to be able to project force to anywhere in the world quickly. This is important because everywhere in the world there are countries that have enough military power to undertake lightning strikes on other nations and targets (ones we have a strategic or political interest in protecting), presenting us with a fait accompli if we do not get there in time.
Another way we're not capable of doing everything that needs doing: we are now unable to effectively respond to a major flare up (I mean, an invasion as could happen in so many places around the world) with enough force to decide the conflict.
And yes, there are plenty of forces that could stand up to ours. The Chinese army is expert at small force tactics, well trained, and simply huge. If China were to invade a country, it would likely take more than the entire Marine Expeditionary Force to stop them (and the Marine Expeditionary Force is all that could deploy in time that wasn't already there, besides some of the airborne units from other forces). Of course, the entire first division of Marines is deployed in Iraq, so that's no longer an option. There are other armies with impressive armed forces, India for instance. India's army in particular has a lot of field experience that much of the US armed forces lack.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our military definitely has sufficient strength. In fact, it has far more than sufficient strength. We could probably halve it without any significant problems if we cut in the right spots. We spend more on our military than all our major "enemies" combined.
There is a problem, I think, and that's with the structure of our forces. We have a military designed to fight a nation like Russia, still. It would be highly effective in an open war. The problem is, open war doesn't happen much these days, and when it does it is usually with a fairly weak third-world nation. Major powers just don't attack eachother, because they know such a war would be too costly for both sides. Instead, what we have is a War on Terror - a stealth war that involves surgigal assaults, delicate peacekeeping, and intelligence gathering. Our military is not set up to fight such a war effectively.
posted
If we sent the entire Army and Marines to occupy somewhere? Not with conventional weaponry. The key is understanding we don't have that option, and if we were to send everybody somewhere we'd have to bring almost all of them back within a very few months, our current armed forces are not designed to stay in the field for long in strength.
Plus, any concentration like that would seriously tempt some nations to sneak a few nukes in (in a way that prevented the immediate discovery of who did it).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, Tres, I think you're thinking of the military of 30 years ago. We just demonstrated we're not able to occupy effectively a couple of two bit countries.
We couldn't have a major ground war in Russia, not nearly (well, assuming the Russian army wasn't as pathetic as ours, which it basically is). For a better example, we couldn't undertake a ground war in China.
There are over 2.5 million chinese soldiers. There are fewer than 1.5 million US soldiers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing we (as a Country) need to determine is what is the role of our military.
The answer at the moment is many fold.
1) It protects our national borders. 2) It protects our Embassies and properties overseas. 3) It protects specific allies according to treaties. 4) It is able to quickly and efficiently be in a position to enforce our desires of Peace and Justice around the world. I do not mean that it will stop India and Pakistan if they get into a war or that it will arrest Kadafi, however it is capable of attempting either of those things, all in order to maintain the first three duties. 5) As a superpower with superweapons it demonstrates that power through shows of force and determination--if Iran starts misbehaving we send an Aircraft Carrier Group into the Persian Sea so that they know we are watching them. 6) Train our allies to be better soldiers.
While the need to stop the spread of Communism has fallen from our military's top duties, there have been some recent additions to its to-do list.
7) Help in the war against drugs. 8) Help in the war against terror.
Finally, there are four areas that it has been assigned duties that has questionable importance to those prime three duties.
A) Be an engine for social change--whether that was the integration of the forces fifty years ago, or the admitance of openly homosexual soldiers attempted recently. B) Improve local economies. (You can't close this base. It will kill the local economy) C) Improve the national economy by buying unneccesary big ticket items such as Tanker Planes, Air Craft Carriers, and Star Wars Styled Defence Shields. D) Save the environment.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: For instance, we no longer have enough aircraft carriers to be able to project force to anywhere in the world quickly
Show me the last major Super Carrier to be decommissioned. Our Navy keeps getting bigger and bigger. Ships and boats role off the assembly bays all the time in support of the Navy.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, we CRUSHED those two countries in open war. We barely had casualties. It would be absurd to call that a bad job. It was a perfect job - unneccesarily perfect even.
The problem was only in the period afterwards - the guerilla/terrorist war. And that just indiciates what I said before - that we aren't structured to effectively fight such a war. It's not an issue of size or manpower at all. It's an issue of training, weaponry, and (most of all) strategy.
As for a ground war in China, that's irrelevant. There won't be a ground war in China - neither of us would allow it. And if a war did begin somehow, it will be decided by air technology and nukes long before any ground fighting would begin. And even if we did succeed in occupying China, we could not hold it because it simply has too many people to restrain no matter what we'd try (unless they want us there).
A wise nation does not prepare their military to face any logically possible threat. That's overly costly and unfocused. Instead they focus only on the ones that are actually legitimate threats at the moment.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I could point you to at least ten Air Force Bases with their full regiment of aircraft sitting on their ramps.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, it would have been truly pathetic for us to fail to conquer those countries. Both countries had small militaries, neither government had much popular support, and we descended in overwhelming force. The only thing that would have given either side even a small ability to hold out for the short time is an NBC capability, which neither had (much to the chagrin of certain officials).
The thing is, we can no longer project that kind of force. The army by itself isn't even able to hold the places! Guess who it was that disrupted so much of the Iraqi army, for instance? The 1st Marine.
scottneb: the air force, while a formidable force, cannot hold territory, which is what is needed in many circumstances. They are ultimately a support force, though in certain circumstances can alter the balance of power in a region sufficiently (such as in Bosnia).
As for carriers, we have enough carriers to do it if they are all at sea all the time. Unfortunately, that is not possible. They require maintenance, shore leave, and upgrades to the latest technology regularly. And while we've been holding onto most of our supers, perhaps you'd like to peruse this list? http://navysite.de/carriers.htm Notice that we have, since 1993, decommissioned 4 supercarriers, most lately the independence.
The JFK just completed a nine month overhaul -- and will return for another year's worth in 2005. The Eisenhouer is out for repairs and refueling -- has been for the past two years -- and is only getting back underway this year (if things go on schedule). The Lincoln is in maintenance till May at least. That's 2 carriers out for maintenance at one time -- and until recently we had 3 out at one time, the current situation has required us to increase our tempo.
Note that our current carriers are being heavily overstressed, particularly the crews. Deployments have gotten longer and longer, such that ones over 200 days in a row are not uncommon.
posted
Oh, and the "CV63 through 75" bit is a bit misleading.
For one thing, I forgot about the Constellation and the America. The Constellation was decommisioned in 2003, and the America in 96. Those were CVN 64 and 65.
CVN 76 thing has actually been commisioned. CVN 77 is under way, slowly (funding has been a bit of a problem).
That makes it 12 carriers in commision right now. Minus the two or three that are in maintenance at any one time, that's barely enough to cover hot spots plus our own territory in times of peace -- and our operations lately have pulled several aircraft carriers to support, removing them from hot spots.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, it would have been truly pathetic for us to fail to conquer those countries. Both countries had small militaries, neither government had much popular support, and we descended in overwhelming force.
And who are we going to be fighting that doesn't have similar sized militaries? Nearly all the countries in the world have Iraq-sized militaries or smaller, and those that don't are major powers that are allies with us and that we're simply not going to be fighting head to head.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Both countries had small militaries, neither government had much popular support, and we descended in overwhelming force.
I think you said it all in there.
quote: That makes it 12 carriers in commision right now. Minus the two or three that are in maintenance at any one time
Find me another country that has that many carriers. In fact I don't think any other country has one Super Carrier, nor the amount of ships it would take to support a Super Carrier Group. I'll have to look into that some more.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming we won't be fighting someone is a bad way to make policy. It means if we're ever wrong about that, we're screwed. I'd much prefer to be able to fight anyone, and then be relieved when we don't have to. If we're going to be the big fish at all, we have to be the big fish all the way.
Will we fight China in the next year? Almost certainly not. Will we fight China in the next ten years? Call it 40-60 we will. Will we fight China in the next 50 years? I'd bet on it.
They're an up and coming empire, and its approaching the point where both all the good places to invade our under our protection (its nearly there) and where they need to expand again.
Also, say we went up against a not two bit military, and while we're still overextended. Lets choose a semi-likely one, like North Korea. Our casualties are going to be far higher, if we succeed in defending South Korea (we'd only attack NK right now if they went after SK or Japan or did something equally stupid, and far most likely of those is SK), and that we succeed in that defense is unlikely. The only immediate assault forces we'd have to draw on, the only forces we could immediately deploy, would be what of the marines we have left and some of the navy that is organized for such a purpose.
Our air force would be of limited use against the massive anti air force capabilities of NK.
And as for a way we could go to war with China, if we went to war against NK there's a decent likelihood China would come in on NK's side. Far more likely, given China's tendency to take the long view, is that they wait until we've conquered, occupied, and largely withdrawn from NK. Then they invade, suddenly and with overwhelming force, before we can respond.
We are not right now able to fight another war abroad with immediate and overwhelming force, which means any force we were forced to deploy would sustain heavy casualties.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not a matter of having more carriers than any other country, its a matter of having enough carriers to meet all our obligations. Read the links.
I didn't say we had fewer carriers than some other country, I said we didn't have enough carriers.
Yes, we could beat any one country in a stand up fight (assuming its not a nuclear power). The problem is that its rarely one country that has problems. Take the current situation, for instance. Because we decided to invade two countries, we are already forced to employ US troops in heavily suboptimal roles. We have already deployed large numbers of reservists in order to maintain our occupation of a couple minor nations (and we've really departed from most of Afghanistan -- only the bare shell of an occupation force remains). This demonstrates rather effectively the limits of the current military.
And having more carriers than another nation isn't that big of an advantage in many kinds of conflicts. Carriers are a response and long range strike force, like the air force, not a holding force. They project power, but are not intended to stay an assault on the ground. We need to have them to prevent lightning strikes by other powers which we would not be willing to go to war over after the strike is completed (this is what a fait accompli is), not fight a land war in asia.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I'm not sure I agree with you on everything there.
Let's look at the China and North Korea situation.
North Korea does have a large army, but a two-bit one. As one of the largest standing armies on Earth, there's something to be said for it. But, as to the capabilities of the army, North Korea stands below the old Iraqi army in quality of equipment and training. And remember, the Iraqi army in 1990 was like the 5th largest in the world.
North Korea's armed forces use handmedowns and copies of Chinese gear, which is typically a copy of older Soviet-era gear. Their infantry is poorly fed and motivated and does not feature the mix of anti-armor weaponry that arms most first rate armed forces. They also lack in communications and initiative. Their armor probably is no better than the Soviet T-62s (1962) with a few T-70s sprinkled into elite units. Neither tank stood up well in the conflicts with Iraq. They are expected to have an abundance of artillery, though, based on the old Soviet doctrine. While there are advantages to mass levels of artillery, they haven't got any of the higher tech advances that most first world armies use to increase their gunnery, i.e. radar counterbattery, GPS-equipped forward observers, laser-guided tube-launched munitions, cluster muntions or FASCAM (family air scatterable munitions -- cannon launched temporary minefields). Where they do pose a threat, however, is in the air and missile forces. Chances are good that they were big purchasers of the MiG-29s (almost a copy of our F-18s) and may have picked up some Backfire strike bombers in the big Soviet going out of business sale. It's also almost a guarantee that they have Chinese Silkworm anti-shipping missiles, and their Pyongyang missiles have been reported to have a range that could reach the mainland US. They also have nukes and chemical weaponry. While they might be reluctant to pop the nuclear cork, I couldn't imagine them having much of a problem using chemical weapons.
China... I don't think they would wade into North Korea against us, especially if NK starts the hostilities with South Korea. China would probably urge peace and then quietly turn its back on North Korea. I think a bigger chance of conflict between the US and China would be over Taiwan, which we see as independent and they see as a breakaway province.
Our carrier groups have been dispatched at least twice in the past decade when China began "military exercises" aimed at the coast of Taiwan. Both times the Chinese have backed off. Someday, they might not.
And then, we might find out exactly what a truly huge army can do with underclass weaponry. We've been taught that lesson once before and the Chosin Reservoir was a harsh teacher.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some reason my filter here at work won't let me access the last two links.
You make some interesting points, however none of them convince me of an undersized military. I do agree that change is absolutely neccessary in order to win these campaigns. I've seen far too many bureaucratic mistakes that are done more for a group or a persons career than for the military or America's safety. I would strongly emphasize the F-22 for that point.
Does the military need to get bigger? No Smarter? Yes! And quick!
quote:They're an up and coming empire, and its approaching the point where both all the good places to invade our under our protection (its nearly there) and where they need to expand again.
Need? Why would they need to invade anyone? Why would they even want to invade anyone?
The idea of invading other countries for national gain is obselete.
Consider.... 1. Terrorism has resulted in occupied territories being liabilities, unless the people there are willing to be occupied - see Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Northern Ireland for examples. There is a strong incentive NOT to expand, as illustrated by our desire to leave Iraq ASAP. 2. Globalism and free trade has eliminated the need to own territory for access to resources. Oil is the only exception, and that is largely due to its concentration in a few small and unstable locations. 3. Globalism has led to the fact that any war between any two major powers will hurt both more than any possible gains for either from said war. The economies of the U.S. and China would be absolutely and completely devastated by any stoppage of trade between us, because the organizations that produce output in each depend fundamentally on one another. 4. International alliances are such that the whole world will gang up on people who invade other people, unless of course they have a good excuse. Even America faces this problem now, losing support because many thought we had no good excuse for attacking Iraq. It's a formiddable cost. 5. Power in this ear can be gained more easily through economics and information than it can through warfare. 6. Nobody wants Nuclear War.
In short, the benefits of an "emerging empire" to invade other territories are few and far betweent oday, while the costs are massive. China is not irrational, nor suicidal. It will not risk an economic war, much less a nuclear war. That would be absurdly irrational.
In fact, I'd quickly bet no major world power invades any other major world power for at least 100 years - or until some massive change completely shifts the world order and eliminates globalism. It's a safe bet, though, because if it turns out to be wrong, there's a fair chance we'll all be dead anyway.
Economic battles and terrorism, on the other hand, can be expected.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the number of people in the military should be kept at a slightly larger size but especially a much larger level of experience (ditch the retirement policy and try to maintain an experienced enlisted) and certain military capabilities increased (I'm thinking mostly the carriers), but yes, I agree that its mostly smarter and faster that are required. I'm not out for a huge increase.
In fact, a lot of the "increase" in military size could be paid for in US base closings -- base closings which the military itself has repeatedly asked for, but Congress won't grant because the congresspeople for those districts oppose it. A lot of money is being thrown away for unneeded bases.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for your argument, Tresopax, I maintain my better off safe position, particularly as people have made that prediction before -- do you recall the Roman Peace?
There are wars going on all the time, all over the world, and imagining they'd go away, particularly if the world's largest enforcer of peace (that is, us) is unable to cover much of the world it used to, is not a safe assumption.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres I disagree, and I think that one of the major problems of our time is the fact that we *expect* static borders in geographic that have been in flux forever. A static border does nothing to solve the problem and sometimes increases it into a powder keg. If you really start looking at maps, there are quite a few places where borders are disputed, on almost every continent. Ethiopia is an interesting example for one. The Basque region in Europe is another. And lets not even get into the Balkans or the Stans.
posted
Oh, and then there was the War to End All Wars. And lets not forget that many people anticipated the demonstration of modern weaponry in the civil war would lead to an end of war as it caused such horrific casualties.
I'm not suggesting that a major power invade another major power. I'm suggesting a major power invade a minor power which touches off war with another major power. Same as starts most wars between major powers.
And as for the likelihood another major power will invade someone, the US is certainly another major power, and has invaded one or two places recently. I think one or two other countries might be more than willing to venture the same if they felt they could get away with it using a similar excuse.
Also, you don't understand how China works. They invade a place, then colonize with settlers, then absorb over a couple generations. It weakens them in the short term but greatly increases their economic base in the long term. There are more Chinese in Tibet than Tibetans, which is a major reason Tibet will never be freed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, we've got some bad snow up here. They're sending everybody home. I'll have to catch up tomorrow, don't do too much.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, Fugu might I point out that the Marines have been in Iraq since the beginning of the war, and are still their, doing a fine job of what you say they are not equipped, structured for etc.
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Plus, the current small deployment of Marines is not so much as an occupying force but as a counter-insurgency force (that is, in their assault role). The army is still the primary occupying force in the area. Their new deployment will be as the primary occupying force.
If you want to make assertions, back them up Rhaegar. Don't come to debate unless you come armed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, you don't understand how China works. They invade a place, then colonize with settlers, then absorb over a couple generations. It weakens them in the short term but greatly increases their economic base in the long term. There are more Chinese in Tibet than Tibetans, which is a major reason Tibet will never be freed.
The repercussions of England’s similar strategy in Ireland are still felt today, 350 years of racial and religious hatred later. Kind of depressing how old wrongs keep popping up, isn’t it?
posted
To my knowledge, scottneb is the only one in this thread currently serving.
If anyone else is, let me know, so i can know whose opinion to actually read and give weight to as having actual knowledge, and whose opinion to file in my 'speculation and hearsay' file.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
England faced other problems that resulted in them losing their territories. Tibet is part of China now, much as that makes me nauseous. They went in, they conquered, they molded the state to their liking, then they settled it.
Notice in particular the economic situation in Tibet, where incentives are causing rapid growth. China has not merely conquered Tibet, China has assimilated Tibet, just as they would assimilate any other neighboring country they conquered.
And if you want some examples of "empires" who have done similar things, you might look at the US. We've conquered and then assimilated territory at least a couple times, and I don't see it causing us big problems, largely because we filled it with settlers and were right next to it (just as China would be). Or then there's the reunification of Spain, which also seems to be holding together pretty well.
Lots of places conquer and hold and are strengthened by their conquest. Don't let yourself be blinded by "liberal's" (in this case people who don't read history) ideals about "evil empires".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Marines are probably the worst military branch we've got for things such as occupation, except perhaps for the Air Force and the Coast Guard. This isn't to say they're bad-they are in fact one of the premier basically-trained branches of the military in the world. It is to say that their mission is so wildly different than occupation it makes them less appropriate.
That said, I think they'll do well.
quote:But, as illustrated time and time again, we are unstoppable, the American people are very good at pulling the reigns of the military.
Hell, the Bucs thought they were unstoppable when the season started. Look where they are now, eh? That's the kind of consequence that will certainly accompany, eventually, statements like, "We are unstoppable." That's just a cautionary statement, not a criticism.
quote:I personally believe that we are strong enough to do what is needed.
The problem being defining terms like "what is needed". Of the numerous things we need our military to do, if we work the list so that it fits our military, then yes our military isn't understrength.
quote:The military is no longer a lumber-in-and-sit-on-the-enemy type of force. We hit harder, faster and with more lethal results than any other military the world has seen.
This I agree with. We do a great deal more with a great deal less-in terms of number of soldiers, that is. This doesn't automatically, however, mean we're sufficiently strong militarily.
I personally believe that it is the reputation of the American military, accurately believed to be utterly overwhelming and precise, is what's keeping problems with insufficient force presence down to a minimum. This is speculation, but I think that what's keeping us from having major problems is that there isn't a nation or group that's willing to take the first step-because that first nation or group gets the Kansas tornado treatment.
But if several groups from disparate regions took that first step, we'd start to see some major problems, I think. Fortunately this is unlikely because of the eff your buddy nature of foreign relations.
quote:Let's say that the entire Army & Marine and their reserve components are sent out to occupy foreign territories. Can you name any nation or combination of nations that could dislodge them? Or successfully invade North America to create even a beachhead?
Really gotta quit listening to the propagandists for the military-industrial complex.
Your propaganda being so much more appropriate, right?
If we sent our military together to attack one spot, then no combination of nations could dislodge it. But if we have to do it in, say, Africa, Asia, and South America all at once...are you saying we wouldn't face some problems? That's nonsense talking. Despite America's vast wealth, deploying a military sufficient to do the job in such widely seperated regions ain't cheap. One might even think a military-industrial complex was necessary, or something.
And that's the kind of thing a responsible nation plans for. You don't look at the most likely minimum level of threat or obstacle, and plan how to overcome it. You look at the most unlikely, most difficult threats and obstacles, and plan how to overcome those.
Fugu is right. Our justly-earned reputation is what's keeping us ahead right now, more than anything. And the fact that single nations aren't willing to take one on the chin when they go first.
quote:As for a ground war in China, that's irrelevant. There won't be a ground war in China - neither of us would allow it. And if a war did begin somehow, it will be decided by air technology and nukes long before any ground fighting would begin. And even if we did succeed in occupying China, we could not hold it because it simply has too many people to restrain no matter what we'd try (unless they want us there).
Huh? "Neither of us would allow it"? That was the idea behind calling WWI The Great War, you know. And nukes? A cursory study of history shows that having nuclear weapons doesn't preclude conventional war. Unless you're talking about a ground war in the Chinese nation, which I don't think was meant. No, what if China decided to go Tibetan on another nation nearby, one whose sovereignty was a vital national interest?
quote:A wise nation does not prepare their military to face any logically possible threat. That's overly costly and unfocused. Instead they focus only on the ones that are actually legitimate threats at the moment.
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense and very harmful nonsense. That's what France did with their Maginot Line. What happened to them? That's what America was doing after WWI and WWII. What happened to them? We were unprepared for WWII, and the Soviet Union gobbled up Eastern Europe.
You plan for logically possible threats because when the logically possible threat actually happens, you need to have a plan and a tool in place to deal with it. If you do as you say a "wise" nation does, you're only ready for the present "legitimate" threats of the moment.
Then, when someone innovates, you're screwed and people start dying.
I guess Iraq or China didn't know about the obsolescence of invasion for national gain, did they Tresopax?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if I join up, suddenly my opinion becomes worthwhile?
While I greatly respect our armed forces (and have several times considered joining up), I don't lie to myself that if I joined up (even as an officer) I would suddenly become an expert on military strategy and capabilities, even after training and such.
Also, I think if you reread the conversations between myself and scottneb, I think the disagreement is less as to what the US is capable of than what the US's obligations are and should be to cover.
I'd also like to point out that I showed you two links written in military journals which supported my views in at least one area (and really two), by people who are experts (and are/were in the military).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: So if I join up, suddenly my opinion becomes worthwhile?
Well, yeah. Pertaining to the current strength, morale, and capabilities of today's US Military, yes.
Even if you read a newspaper today, it's already 24 hours old and coming to you third hand after writers editors and fact checkers have chipped and chewed it.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu - I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. Just pointing out that that strategy has long-term consequences.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it amusing that joining up suddenly makes me privy to the strength, morale, and capabilities of today's military. It makes me feel so warm inside that we have created not just instantaneous information transfer, but fully train all our recruits in strategic capability evaluation. And miracles of miracles, they are all briefed on new developments in under 24 hours of an occurence, as you seem to be suggesting.
Besides, I tend to get my news from more realtime sources than newspapers.
Anyways, as I pointed out, I have several military opinions backing me up. I wasn't bringing up more because I think most of the people (including those not speaking up) I am arguing "against" discount military sources as biased. I brought the ones up I did because they do a good job of explaining the role of aircraft carriers today. Its not to be able to take on a particular navy, its to cover all our obligations around the world.
If you want another military source full of people who agree with me (not all of them, of course, and not in all particulars, but you'll hear a lot of what I'm saying there), borrow a copy of the Marine Corps Gazette from someone.
Thanks Rakeesh, didn't see your reply earlier .
Sorry about that, Dagonee, misread what you said. I still felt good getting the point out there .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not suggesting that a major power invade another major power. I'm suggesting a major power invade a minor power which touches off war with another major power. Same as starts most wars between major powers.
Possible, but I doubt it would be allowed to escalate. Because of globalism, the minute such a conflict began, stock markets would crash and the economy would decline rapidly for both major powers. Furthermore, since the development of nukes, no two nuclear powers have ever fought directly. And most of all, in today's unified environment, the world would come down united against any major power that invaded anyone. Even the more pacifist Europeans have shown no tolerance to this in the past 20 years.
quote:You plan for logically possible threats because when the logically possible threat actually happens, you need to have a plan and a tool in place to deal with it. If you do as you say a "wise" nation does, you're only ready for the present "legitimate" threats of the moment.
Then why don't we have troops massed at the border of Canada, just in case they invade? Why don't we have nukes aimed at Great Britain, just in case they decide to fire at us? Obviously, we don't prepare for every logically possible threat.
And the Maginot Line was stupidly ignoring a threat that should have been obviously real. If someone is sufficiently motivated to attack you that you are willing to build a defense like that, then you better be prepared for the fact that they will surely try to get around that defense.
quote:I guess Iraq or China didn't know about the obsolescence of invasion for national gain, did they Tresopax?
Iraq didn't know that, and they got destroyed because of their miscalculation. China conquered Tibet during the Cold War, long before the present order came about.
Note that the only major power that has successfully conquered any nation since the end of the Cold War is the U.S., and the only reason we successfully did so is because we promised to give it back.
posted
I find it particularly amusing you're asserting you do think that people in the military receive briefings on all new developments within 24 hours, though the other things are amusing as well. I greatly respect the military, I don't worship them as you seem to. I know a good number of people in the military, and they're just like other people. They are regularly wrong, just like you and I are. They have prejudices and they have lacks.
Does someone in the military have additional information that is useful in evaluations of the sort being made? Yes. Do they have some sort of "higher" knowledge and evaluation ability that makes any military opinion of greater value than any non-military opinion? No, and the very idea is ridiculous.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I still have the exact opposite opinion though. I take the opinions of our servicemen and women to the bank eons before anyone else on these matters.
No warrior wants war. It's their flesh that's going to be in the path of the harm. No one takes these kinds of decisions more seriously than the one who might bleed.
posted
Oh, I never thought you did. I don't either. I just didn't think they would further the persuasiveness of my arguments for many people, in and of being from the military.
Don't worry about the ticked off thing, I know what its like. I hope everything turns out well with whatever's been upsetting you.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I do disagree about taking them "to the bank eons before" any other opinion.
If we only listened to the military on military issues, we'd quickly (that is, within a decade or two) have a military dictatorship. Ambitious people would join the military and use their influence as "superior sources" to expand military power and take over. Civilian oversight of the military is one of the founding principles of this country.
If nothing else, that there are military opinions in both directions should persuade you that there's no magic quality to being in the military. Take Clark and Rumsfeld, for instance, they have very different ideas about the employment of the military.
I do respect the opinions of those in the military, and I will respect those opinions more the more likely they are to be trained and experienced in making them. For instance, I'd trust most officer's opinions on strategic considerations over most enlisted's. Not because the officers are superior, or more intelligent, but because they are trained in it and have done it in the past.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If we only listened to the military on military issues, we'd quickly (that is, within a decade or two) have a military dictatorship. Ambitious people would join the military and use their influence as "superior sources" to expand military power and take over. Civilian oversight of the military is one of the founding principles of this country.
Which is why crazy people like me have the luxury of listening to them and taking what they feel is neccessary to heart. Because we have good, decent, moral soldiers and leaders in our military, being that things are not designed in a way that lends itself to loopy dictator types being able to take advantage and weild terrible power.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So now you're qualified to judge which things a soldier says are worth listening to and which aren't?
I happen to agree, in general, but this seems inconsistent with your earlier statement that you'd take a soldier's opinion eons before a non-soldier's.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
