Draw Down

[Strike For The South]

1919 and 1946 we drew down American forces at the end of the cold war we did not.

This has in turn led to a massive military industrial complex which indirectly forces the United States to meddle in the affairs of the others, engage in long, drawn out, tyrannical wars of occupation, and send 0000s of working class men to their graves while 99% of the American people on feel the war at the gas pump and even then it's only a couple of pennies

A large standing military force is an obstacle in a free society, so why do we have one?

Terrorists would be better fought on a much smaller scale and more indirectly through support of democratic movements

China the only forseeable threat on the radar will never be invaded and will never invade and worst case we still have enough nukes to destroy the galaxy

So why?

[Vladimir]

Because.

[Strike For The South]

Because.

:angry:

[Fisherking]

I think you should check on the military strength of the US

You will find that we did a massive draw down.

We went from 16 Division to what we have now.

Also all of those combat units are much smaller. Old Infantry Platoon 38 New Infantry Platoon 16. That is two men more than a squad in the Marines.

Don’t confuse Manpower with Budget.

You cut more troops and the New York City Police will be the largest armed force in North America.


Get the big boys to stop playing with big toys if you want to save money but a larger force is a good idea.

[Strike For The South]

I meant the budget as part of the draw down. I know there was a superficial manpower drawdown but we still spend more than the next 16 countries combined and have bases in 100+ other sovrigen states

Why? The world is changing these things are archaic money wasting relics

America was founded as a reaction against this sort of imperialism and that's what this is benign as it may be

[PanzerJaeger]

It is actually not that massive, and should probably be a bit bigger until Afghanistan and Iraq are conclusively decided one way or the other.

The US has ~1,478,000 active duty soldiers and ~1,458,000 reservists. Even in the midst of two wars, military expenditure is only 4.7% ($692 Billion) of GDP.

Russia, while comparatively destitute after the Cold War, has ~1,027,000 actives and ~754,000 reservists, and spends about 3.5% ($61 Billion)of their GDP on the military.

China, on the other hand, has ~2,255,000 actives and ~1,200,000 reservists, while spending 2% ($100 Billion) of GDP.

You'll note that US military spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated from other comparable (population, geographical size, and world power status) nations despite being in two conflicts.

And to answer your question directly, there was no major draw-down after the Cold War because there was not that much to draw down. America never mobilized for the Cold War and had already shifted to the volunteer force. Reagan gets a lot of credit/hate for expanding military spending, but it was really trivial comparatively. There was a gradual peace-time decline in spending and personnel throughout the '90s though.


https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/800px-US_military_personnel_and_expenditures.png

Note that during the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam to a lesser extent, there were large increases in personnel and spending followed by drops. There was no such increase during the '80s to precipitate a decrease.

The question I think we need to be asking ourselves is "can we get more 'bang' out of our $700 Billion investment?" I think that is what Rumsfeld was attempting to do before 9/11 and what Gates is doing now. The Military-Industrial complex fights for every project regardless of its worth, and it is the Defense Secretary's job to decide what is truly valuable.

[Strike For The South]

Comparing us on the simple scale of boots is once again archaic. See the gulf wars.

The budget is currently ~24% of the budget could we knock that down to 20 maybe even 18 and still get all the vital Tech we need? The way military engagments will be fought in the future? And of course while your GDP graph is nice is does not address the added stress on the taxpayer or the deficit spending we need to do to make up the shortfall

It's an apples to oranges comparsion, facts are facts we spend 45 cents for the worlds dollar on defense

I mean what happens when the economy grows? Just spend more and more as long as we stay below the mythical 4%? GDP only takes into account the size of the economy not the reality.

Cutting 100 billion out of the budget sure would help, GDP be damned. I'm not talking about GDP here, I'm talking about the tangibale effects on the taxpayer.

What about the moral and ethical issue of bases?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Comparing us on the simple scale of boots is once again archaic. See the gulf wars.

The budget is currently ~24% of the budget could we knock that down to 20 maybe even 18 and still get all the vital Tech we need? The way military engagments will be fought in the future? And of course while your GDP graph is nice is does not address the added stress on the taxpayer or the deficit spending we need to do to make up the shortfall

It's an apples to oranges comparsion, facts are facts we spend 45 cents for the worlds dollar on defense

I mean what happens when the economy grows? Just spend more and more as long as we stay below the mythical 4%? GDP only takes into account the size of the economy not the reality.

Cutting 100 billion out of the budget sure would help, GDP be damned. I'm not talking about GDP here, I'm talking about the tangibale effects on the taxpayer.

What about the moral and ethical issue of bases?

Mixed thoughts, Strike. You are correct in that only one conventional threat -- China -- exists as things currently stand. Unless and until they develop a realistic sealift capacity, their ability to threaten our interests is limited to political machination, which you rightly note is best handled by political machination and not weaponry. Barring a resurgent Russia, that's it for viable conventional threats.

However, I think you mis-characterize the "small wars" in which we are engaged. Strikes against terrorist cells and guerilla bands ARE best handled by small and usually specialized units. However, projecting foreign policy requires nation-building and propping up friendly regimes and the like. Those missions require boots -- there is little in the way of the force multipliers we enjoy in other contexts.

[Strike For The South]

However, I think you mis-characterize the "small wars" in which we are engaged. Strikes against terrorist cells and guerilla bands ARE best handled by small and usually specialized units. However, projecting foreign policy requires nation-building and propping up friendly regimes and the like. Those missions require boots -- there is little in the way of the force multipliers we enjoy in other contexts.
I agree but not this many boots nor this amount of spending. Nation-building is the new colony, I have no problem with the United states supporting democratic movements but I refuse to ever send men in to change the outcome of an election we didn't like and I will also not support those that use violence even if to attain a democratic state

I feel (and I know I'm an idealist) this is not what America stands for and we become no better than Europeans at that point. Simply playing games with brown peoples countries.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....I feel (and I know I'm an idealist) this is not what America stands for and we become no better than Europeans at that point. Simply playing games with brown peoples countries.

That is unkind, Strike. We have mucked about with the domestic affairs of numerous countries including Russia, Serbia, Kosovo, Greece, Canada, UK/Eire as well as the "brown peoples" -- don't like that term -- you note. We will mess around with anybody and race has little to do with it.

[Fisherking]

I agree but not this many boots nor this amount of spending. Nation-building is the new colony, I have no problem with the United states supporting democratic movements but I refuse to ever send men in to change the outcome of an election we didn't like and I will also not support those that use violence even if to attain a democratic state

I feel (and I know I'm an idealist) this is not what America stands for and we become no better than Europeans at that point. Simply playing games with brown peoples countries.

Yes but they make people rich.

Like they say the Democrats are run by Wall Street and the Republicans are run by Big Business.

Those superficial manpower cuts took us from 16 divisions to 8 but that is just on paper. Those divisions are also missing one combat brigade each and the Battalions in those divisions are also much smaller than the Reagen era units by a big factor.

The Navy has been cut in half and the Air Force is cut too. (I don’t have figures for them)

At the same time the Reserves and National Guard have also been seriously downsized.

Military Appropriations come from Congress and Congress adds pork. Try cutting a program in a Congressman’s district and the howls will keep you awake for weeks.

To add to that the smaller force structure requires a lot of hi tech gadgets to keep it running and doing the work of 5 or 6 times more men. And the R&D to keep them current.

With current requirements troops spend more time overseas than in the states training and refitting.

It has cut way past the fat and into the bone already. That tiny down curve in the 90s of PJ’s graph was half the armed forces.


If you find a way to fight the fraud and waste you will have done what no one else has been able to do since Alexander.

I am sure the last people to disagree with your deployment philosophy would be the men on the ground.

[Strike For The South]

Corporatism in America is a big problem and goes hand in hand with this

Good we need more of it. More cuts.

I'm fully aware of the power politics at play here, I'm fully aware of what must be overcome. The point is we never look at military spending objectivley and when we do it devolves into this. Replace the congressman with someone who will cut the program. The beauty of America baby.

Your bemoaning the men on the ground is something I agree with but the only reason we are cutting into "bone" is because we are in a horrible war based on nothing more than power politics, the other we bungled and are now bogged down.

We tear families apart and then push them to the corner when they come home. America doesn't feel this war like it should, and that is a problem Americans I don't think truly know what it's like to be AT WAR. Save for those poor ol'boys we send because they wanted to go to college or were drawn into due to lack of job prospects.

If history tells us anything its the rich mans war is fought by those with no stake in it. Why, when we have the power to change things do we still allow the old gaurd to dictate where our friends and family die?

[Fisherking]

If you want a smaller military you can look forward to more contractors like Black Water and so no.

If you had adequate forces you wouldn’t need those guys.

If you want no military get your self a white flag. Someone will want to take you on.

[Strike For The South]

If you want a smaller military you can look forward to more contractors like Black Water and so no.

If you had adequate forces you wouldn’t need those guys.

If you want no military get your self a white flag. Someone will want to take you on.

If we weren't involved in wars we didn't need to be we would need no contractors.

Where did I say I want no military? Don't twist my words, I am simply asking we shed old style thinking and ask ourselves some ethical questions.

Trying to scare me with your invader strawmen isn't going to work

[Fisherking]

If we weren't involved in wars we didn't need to be we would need no contractors.

Where did I say I want no military? Don't twist my words, I am simply asking we shed old style thinking and ask ourselves some ethical questions.

Trying to scare me with your invader strawmen isn't going to work

If a 16 man infantry platoon didn’t scare the hell out of you then you just don’t know when to be scared.

[Strike For The South]

If a 16 man infantry platoon didn’t scare the hell out of you then you just don’t know when to be scared.

:rolleyes: I have a better chance of being struck by lightning while having sex with a man than I do someone invading the United States

I remain unimpressed and unmoved

Not to mention the fact we could mobilize if we needed to like ya know every other point in American history. The fact you are already resorting to boogeymen shows there really is no base for this spending other than an interventionest agenda

[drone]

If we weren't involved in wars we didn't need to be we would need no contractors.
What are these "wars" you keep going on about?

[Fisherking]

LOL the US has an army about the right size to defend Kansas and he thinks it should be cut so we won’t go on any adventures.

Adventures are the province of politicians and if they can’t find anyone else they’ll send the Boy Scouts. At least until they can start a draft.


Just so you understand the equation; In Vietnam we had platoons of Infantry that were about 48 men with body armor and M-16s. A company was 250 combat troops. We had 16 Divisions and about 18 more in the Reserves.

Today an infantry platoon has 16 men with body armor and carrying M-16s. A company is about 48 combat troops. We have 8 divisions missing one third of their paper strength and another 7 or so in the Reserves and they are not up to strength either.

The big advantage those 16 men have over the 48 is a GPS. That way the Lieutenant has a harder time getting lost when you give him a map.

[Centurion1]

strike your wrong.

[drone]

The big advantage those 16 men have over the 48 is a GPS. That way the Lieutenant has a harder time getting lost when you give him a map.
:laugh4:

So the current platoon these days is 2 squads, 2 fireteams each? Or did they just eliminate the SAWs and grenadiers?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Strike is completely right here. All this talk countering him amounts to nothing more than "You are going to get invaded if you make drastic cuts." (lol) "Troop platoons are already from here to here and if you make them from here to here, America will collapse." (lol) "You can't change the system, it is too cemented into the political culture." (lol)

All in all, fear mongering and apathy at the system are the reasons why we should not reduce the military portion of the budget from 25% to 20%. Great reasons guys.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I agree but not this many boots nor this amount of spending. Nation-building is the new colony, I have no problem with the United states supporting democratic movements but I refuse to ever send men in to change the outcome of an election we didn't like and I will also not support those that use violence even if to attain a democratic state

I feel (and I know I'm an idealist) this is not what America stands for and we become no better than Europeans at that point. Simply playing games with brown peoples countries.Dangerous isolationism!

You have been listening too much to commies, fascists, Islamists, and Noam Chomsky. They'd all want America out.

If the Americans had stayed in Europe after 1919 there would never have been a WWII.
If the Americans had stayed in Europe after 1945 there would never have been a WWIII. As indeed, the careful reader wil note, didn't happen.

Meanwhile, the Koreans and Japanese are most happy with the American presence. And as for me, if I were an Iraqi or Afghani, I think I'd prefer the Americans over Saddam or the Talifascists.

[Fisherking]

:laugh4:

So the current platoon these days is 2 squads, 2 fireteams each? Or did they just eliminate the SAWs and grenadiers?

That is about it. And the reason is not that the troops are better or better equipped.




Strike is completely right here. All this talk countering him amounts to nothing more than "You are going to get invaded if you make drastic cuts." (lol) "Troop platoons are already from here to here and if you make them from here to here, America will collapse." (lol) "You can't change the system, it is too cemented into the political culture." (lol)

All in all, fear mongering and apathy at the system are the reasons why we should not reduce the military portion of the budget from 25% to 20%. Great reasons guys.

No! The difference in troop size is a major factor in capabilities. The reason for the size change is because of the M-2 Bradley.

It costs more and can’t carry enough men. Where the M-113 carried 13 men the M-2 carries 4.

16 men can not do what 48 once did even with a more powerful taxi cab. It is men on the ground that count in a fight or to accomplish a mission.

It was not a doctrinal change because the men are more efficient. It was because the transport wouldn’t carry more and they couldn’t get the okay for more of them.

The truth is that a platoon does what a squad did and a company does the job of a platoon and so on up the line.

It doesn’t stop there either. Tank units have a 20% reduction in size and there are only about half as many of those unit now.

The Divisions only have two Brigades and their 3rd Brigade will be made up from the Reserves should it come to mobilization.

The Department of Defense keeps telling the politicians they are not able to take on two major operations at once, though that is ignored and so they do a half way job of it, as is evident from events.


The politicians will have there adventures if you cut the military to six men and a dog. Not having the forces to do it with just means you place the lives of your men in greater jeopardy.

Our forces have never been large enough to defend our territory. But as you say the likely hood of invasion has not been great. But a lack of capability increases the likelihood that someone is going to call your bluff.

Most Americans don’t understand military matters. They haven’t needed to. They just know that we have troops and they cost money. If there are less troops then that should cost less money.

Americans also think that their troops can’t be beaten. Haven’t we won almost every war we ever fought?

When politicians order troops to a place and men get killed people want the troops brought home.

That sends a strong message, like it our not.

Not having the troops to accomplish the mission, what ever it is, usually means you are going to lose, if not the war then a lot more troops than you would have if you did the job right in the first place.

DoD doesn’t work in a vacuum. They get missions and tell politicians what whey need to do them.

Politicians usually want it done with half the men at half the cost and you military tries to accomplish the mission with what they have. They didn’t pick the mission they just do what they are told.

That is where it stands.

Cuts mean doing more with less.

If you don’t like the mission talk to the politicians.

Having a strong defense doesn’t mean they have to be used. It makes it less so.

When they are weak and asked to do too much is when you find it all unacceptable.

If you have less troops chances are good that you have to use them more.

If they can’t do the job now what do you think you have with 25% less?

[a completely inoffensive name]

If they can’t do the job now what do you think you have with 25% less?

An army politicians can't send into foreign countries. Which is exactly what we need. No problem if the army can't fight two wars if we are not fighting two wars in the first place.

[Fisherking]

An army politicians can't send into foreign countries. Which is exactly what we need. No problem if the army can't fight two wars if we are not fighting two wars in the first place.

It is not two wars, it is two deployments. If it were wars you would be looking at scores of Divisions and not the amount you have today.

You will never have an army politicians can’t deploy. They won’t make that restriction so long as they have troops.

[Strike For The South]

Dangerous isolationism!

You have been listening too much to commies, fascists, Islamists, and Noam Chomsky. They'd all want America out.

If the Americans had stayed in Europe after 1919 there would never have been a WWII.
If the Americans had stayed in Europe after 1945 there would never have been a WWIII. As indeed, the careful reader wil note, didn't happen.

Meanwhile, the Koreans and Japanese are most happy with the American presence. And as for me, if I were an Iraqi or Afghani, I think I'd prefer the Americans over Saddam or the Talifascists.

It is not Americas job to ensure democracy around the world nor is it Americas job to crave out little sections of countries and hace a "prescence" Both things fly in the face of all that is holy

[Louis VI the Fat]

It is not Americas job to ensure democracy around the world nor is it Americas job to crave out little sections of countries and hace a "prescence" Both things fly in the face of all that is holyWhere will you counter China? At the Rockies? At the Mississippi?

Or would you rather build a viable set of alliances with Korea, Japan, and others in the region? This maintains democracy, stabilises the region, and empowers Americas allies to defend themselves.


Yes, Jefferson's much maligned entangling alliances. But unlike in Jefferson's time, people nowadays can fly planes to sneak attack American harbors and skyscrapers.

[Strike For The South]

Where will you counter China? At the Rockies? At the Mississippi?

Or would you rather build a viable set of alliances with Korea, Japan, and others in the region? This maintains democracy, stabilises the region, and empowers Americas allies to defend themselves.


Yes, Jefferson's much maligned entangling alliances. But unlike time, people nowadays can fly planes to bomb American harbors and skyscrapers.

We can maintain alliances without a "prescence". Like you say planes can now transport things, sometimes even men and material.

These fantasies of US cities being bombed and a Chinese occupation are tin foil hat at best

I realize you are merely playing devils adovacate but it grows tiresome, the only real reason the military budget hasn't been cut is because a few powerful people make an absolute killing.

[Fisherking]

You are espousing Isolationism and asking that the US withdraw from the world stage.

Who fills the void and how does that offer the US security?

[Strike For The South]

You are espousing Isolationism and asking that the US withdraw from the world stage.

Who fills the void and how does that offer the US security?

yes no

I don't care who fills the void, military installations on soverign soil is ethically wrong and crippilingly exspensive.

[Fisherking]

yes no

I don't care who fills the void, military installations on soverign soil is ethically wrong and crippilingly exspensive.

OMG!

Then why is Andy Jackson one of your heros?

[Strike For The South]

OMG!

Then why is Andy Jackson one of your heros?

Isolationism and a withdrawal from the world stage are not completley intertwined

Because he was an orney arrogant bastard who killed men for disrespecting him

Not to mention his two regerts in LIFE were that he did not kill more people

I have very different metrics for admration than most people

[Centurion1]

acin what experience do you have with the military?

and a 16 man platoon is the norm now. two squads and two fireteams. 8 men to a squad. do you understand the reprecussions of fighting with a 16 man squad when your not fighting scum with antiquated weapons using terror tactics. what those numbers can result in if you were to fight a real army even one like North Korea.

the military is already stretched thin to cut more manpower would be foolish and unwise. the US needs the biggest military in the world for many reasons. Your isolationist policy is bull and completely untenable.

and military installations on sovreign soil are not ethically wrong...... many countries welcome american bases. even in japan the minority want to remove the base.

cutting manpower doesnt save money. cutting r and d does. you want our soldiers to go out with inferior weapons and protection and fight with antiquated weapons systems? How about you save some money from something else in government like healthcare or social security. The military does more for jobs and the ecconomy than both of those.

[Fisherking]

Isolationism and a withdrawal from the world stage are not completley intertwined

Because he was an orney arrogant bastard who killed men for disrespecting him

Not to mention his two regerts in LIFE were that he did not kill more people

I have very different metrics for admration than most people

So his adventures in Florida and treatment of the Indian Tribes have no effect on you, yet they are the very same as the actions you are condemning?

odd...

[Centurion1]

So his adventures in Florida and treatment of the Indian Tribes have no effect on you, yet they are the very same as the actions you are condemning?

odd...

lol undoubtedly worse. but we forgive people we put on money i guess

[Strike For The South]

acin what experience do you have with the military?

Means jack all


and a 16 man platoon is the norm now. two squads and two fireteams. 8 men to a squad. do you understand the reprecussions of fighting with a 16 man squad when your not fighting scum with antiquated weapons using terror tactics. what those numbers can result in if you were to fight a real army even one like North Korea.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Not only is this style of thinking archaic and doesn't realize we have no enimies left to fight who don't use terror tactics. It complelty assumes we could never draw up when shit really hits the fan

Which it won't becuase conventional warfare espacillay between major powers is on the way out, no one is stupid enough to risk invasion and occupation. It costs to much


the military is already stretched thin to cut more manpower would be foolish and unwise. the US needs the biggest military in the world for many reasons. Your isolationist policy is bull and completely untenable.


That's why we are closing the bases. I have plans for everything!

and military installations on sovreign soil are not ethically wrong...... many countries welcome american bases. even in japan the minority want to remove the base

If you don't thing having armed men on another countries soil is wrong then there is something wrong with you. There would be a shit storm if someone tried that here


cutting manpower doesnt save money. cutting r and d does. you want our soldiers to go out with inferior weapons and protection and fight with antiquated weapons systems? How about you save some money from something else in government like healthcare or social security. The military does more for jobs and the ecconomy than both of those.

Lol, once again the cost of forigen installtions is a big deal, sure some R&D will be cut but with a smaller force we will get more bang for the buck. And I would also ask you to please not question my patriotism, that gets us nowhere

[Strike For The South]

So his adventures in Florida and treatment of the Indian Tribes have no effect on you, yet they are the very same as the actions you are condemning?

odd...


lol undoubtedly worse. but we forgive people we put on money i guess

A morally reprehensible action but this is thrid time the arguement has diverted to something other than the budget

You can lulz me with gotcha moments all you want but it doesn't change the fact people are dying, debt is rising, and America is betrating her principles

[Kagemusha]

Maybe you guys should only develop or buy a decent AFV? Bradley carries 4 men and its main purpose is to carry people around.Talk about bang for a buck! :P

[Fisherking]

A morally reprehensible action but this is thrid time the arguement has diverted to something other than the budget

You can lulz me with gotcha moments all you want but it doesn't change the fact people are dying, debt is rising, and America is betrating her principles




It depends on which principles you are talking about.

Cutting the military will do zip to fix it either.

The first thing you have to do is elect someone with principles...good luck with that one.

Elected Politicians put us into the conflicts and only Elected Politicians can get us out.

You are blaming people who don’t want to get shot at and forgetting who put them there.

Besides it is a strange way to handle it.

If you think the police screwed up a raid do you demand cuts in the police force?

[Strike For The South]

It depends on which principles you are talking about.

Cutting the military will do zip to fix it either.

The first thing you have to do is elect someone with principles...good luck with that one.

Elected Politicians put us into the conflicts and only Elected Politicians can get us out.

You are blaming people who don’t want to get shot at and forgetting who put them there.

Besides it is a strange way to handle it.

If you think the police screwed up a raid do you demand cuts in the police force?

Wars of invasion, militiraized principalities across the globe. A military budget which is adding to the debt when it quite frankly doesn't need to be there. The American people put them there, we supported war becuase we don't feel it. We listend to Bush because WMDs are teh scary and it's quite simple to whip up a populace.

The onus falls on the citizen

[Fisherking]

But the point is valid.

Do you fire the police force for the mistakes of city hall?

The forces are for security. When they are deployed they are no longer security. When you don’t have them then some bully is going to get cocky.

There are thousands of programs that can be cut from Government but you chose defense.

Go to city hall and demand they cut costs by cutting the police and see what people think...

[Strike For The South]

But the point is valid.

No it's not, analogies are cancer to debate but I'll induldge you

Do you fire the police force for the mistakes of city hall?

You do if they are quartering themselves in homes, costing more than we can afford, and are unecessarily bloated.


The forces are for security. When they are deployed they are no longer security. When you don’t have them then some bully is going to get cocky.


Yawn, again with this non-exsistant threat.

There are thousands of programs that can be cut from Government but you chose defense.


Oh trust me I have more, lots more.

Go to city hall and demand they cut costs by cutting the police and see what people think...

The budget is fine here, I do have issues with the PD but once again, cancer.

[Fisherking]

No it's not, analogies are cancer to debate but I'll induldge you


You do if they are quartering themselves in homes, costing more than we can afford, and are unecessarily bloated.



Yawn, again with this non-exsistant threat.


Oh trust me I have more, lots more.


The budget is fine here, I do have issues with the PD but once again, cancer.
No it is not. It is the same.

They are your security in a world where others want to hurt you.

Is Homeland Security going to save you? In fact those would be the first place I would cut.

They are window dressing and DoD is your wall.

If they are doing something wrong it is because you the American People are allowing Politicians to get away with it.

Why blame the people who are doing as they are told?

I am sure politicos love this sort of thing. They get off while the workmen get all the blame.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It is not two wars, it is two deployments. If it were wars you would be looking at scores of Divisions and not the amount you have today.

You will never have an army politicians can’t deploy. They won’t make that restriction so long as they have troops.

You can redefine the word war however you like, but the fact is that when you send your military into an active conflict, that is a war. The amount we pay everyday is the amount needed to pay for a war, by simply having troops on the ground in active duty with a purpose to kill an enemy, you are operating a war, even if the enemy is only a rabble of AK-47 thugs.


acin what experience do you have with the military?

and a 16 man platoon is the norm now. two squads and two fireteams. 8 men to a squad. do you understand the reprecussions of fighting with a 16 man squad when your not fighting scum with antiquated weapons using terror tactics. what those numbers can result in if you were to fight a real army even one like North Korea.

the military is already stretched thin to cut more manpower would be foolish and unwise. the US needs the biggest military in the world for many reasons. Your isolationist policy is bull and completely untenable.

and military installations on sovreign soil are not ethically wrong...... many countries welcome american bases. even in japan the minority want to remove the base.

cutting manpower doesnt save money. cutting r and d does. you want our soldiers to go out with inferior weapons and protection and fight with antiquated weapons systems? How about you save some money from something else in government like healthcare or social security. The military does more for jobs and the ecconomy than both of those.

Don't change the number of people in a platoon or a squad or whatever, just reduce the overall number of platoons and squads. Keep the groups in sizes that work optimally and reduce the amount of groups by X.

Cutting manpower does save money because whether you want to admit it or not, operating hundreds of manned military bases around the world and the logistics of keeping them fed and operational is expensive.


You are espousing Isolationism and asking that the US withdraw from the world stage.

Who fills the void and how does that offer the US security?

Who cares who fills the void? There is no threat. China is not a threat. How many times does that need to be said?



EDIT: Like I said before, the arguments keeps coming down to fear mongering over a non existent threat and an inability for the military to perform, which are both absolute bunk.

[Centurion1]

there are still viable threats to american security which operate on a conventional methodology.

and you have no idea we could all wake up tmmrw to a military coup in china by some radical militant. hypotheses are in the end hypotheses. because we said there would never be another major war after ww1 we were woefully unprepared for ww2. dont make the mistakes history has already made.

[a completely inoffensive name]

there are still viable threats to american security which operate on a conventional methodology.

and you have no idea we could all wake up tmmrw to a military coup in china by some radical militant. hypotheses are in the end hypotheses. because we said there would never be another major war after ww1 we were woefully unprepared for ww2. dont make the mistakes history has already made.

We prepare ourselves for the reality which presents itself today. Attempting to prepare for all possible outcomes in this world is foolish and overextending, which I think supports what Strike has been saying from the beginning.

EDIT: WW2 is a bad example, anyone who had an ear turned to the global politics could see the writing on the wall for 5 years before the war began. I have seen time magazines from the late 1930s that make you wonder out loud, how could they have not known. People did know, which is why many in the US worked to help the UK, those that didn't want to help the Brits, did so out of national interest (the isolationists).

[Centurion1]

We prepare ourselves for the reality which presents itself today. Attempting to prepare for all possible outcomes in this world is foolish and overextending, which I think supports what Strike has been saying from the beginning.

a reality in this day is that however much americans like to twiddle their thumbs and say nope couldnt happen to us conventional warfare with a modern opponent (hell even an opponent a generation behind us) is possible and could very well happen.

[a completely inoffensive name]

a reality in this day is that however much americans like to twiddle their thumbs and say nope couldnt happen to us conventional warfare with a modern opponent (hell even an opponent a generation behind us) is possible and could very well happen.

Who? Please don't say China.

[Centurion1]

china has no interest in us beyond economics or even beyod east asia but she does have designs on certain allies of ours which could create difficult situations if we didnt hasve the forces to back them up.

just because a nation isnt our equal doesnt mean they cannot inflict massive destruction on our forces. say north korea. they are a powder keg especially with Kim Jong Il getting older.

[a completely inoffensive name]

china has no interest in us beyond economics or even beyod east asia but she does have designs on certain allies of ours which could create difficult situations if we didnt hasve the forces to back them up.

just because a nation isnt our equal doesnt mean they cannot inflict massive destruction on our forces. say north korea. they are a powder keg especially with Kim Jong Il getting older.

There are no complications with China if we reduce forces. The blood of a nation is its economy. China is refusing to outright back North Korea publicly 100% because it is now so invested in the US even its long time ally is looking to be a liability. The only thing they are worried about from South Korea isn't capitalistic ideology but a hostile nation on its borders. But sooner or later it will see that Korea, when it unifies will have the same issues Germany had when it reunified with destitute east germany. So at least in the short term (25 years) a unified Korea will not be high on the threat list.

North Korea is nothing. If you think their puny arsenal can do anything to America, you are sadly mistaken. They can send 10 of their crappy missiles, 5 will crash on their own and 5 will be shot down by us before it crosses over Hawaii. North Korea is a danger to South Korea and a political liability to China. Nothing more.

[Major Robert Dump]

I truly think the big problems with costs started when we began outsourcing during Vietnam. It was originally intended to cut costs and foster ingenuity through competition, but anyone who has served in the last 20 years should knows that is a joke, and if you think its not a joke. I'm not saying all of the contractors and providers are a ripoff, but many of them are, and there is an immense amount of job security.

Google the Army Mentor scandal to see a recent example.

I have been to 3 branch/career specific schools, and at all 3 schools I had instructors who were teaching methods/platforms that were developed by a company that said instructor either currently or previously worked for. The logistics program the Army uses for deployments is absolute garbage, was 2 million cost overrun and had many bugs that we would have to "learn to deal with." The men who taught us how to use this program swore it was the best thing since sliced bread, and our somehow managed to give us the most non-intensive course on how to use the program, and turned daily 8 hour practical hands-on classes into 4 hour classes with 2.5 hour lunch breaks. Were they lazy, was there just nothing more to teach because the program wasn't complete, or both? I don't know, but they most certainly were not worth their $40 per hour salary, and they got paid the same no matter how long the classes were.

Another example: during training we field tested equipment that was pawned off on us by school staff. Those school staff got paid as consultants. We actually filed a complain because in one of the training exercises the equipment got destroyed (because it was crap) and the staff threatened to make us pay for it. We learned through the complain process that what they were doing was perfectly legal thanks to loopholes.

On an unrelated note, there are other ways to cut defense costs that would stifle tradition but be effective nontheless. For example, elimination of the Airborne program. We send thousands of soldiers through the program each year and then pay them more for being Airborne qulaified. They are also rewarded with more bling for making more jumps, which in turn ruins their knees. So we are paying soldiers more for destroying their bodies for being qualified at doing something they will likely never, ever, ever use. I can't help but chuckle every time I see a fat little admin or truck driver wearing their airborne wings, and I chuckle even harded when those with the wings rub it in the face of those without.

Now, Air Assualt, we need to keep that one, but airbornwe needs to go.

[Centurion1]

hey i need to go to airborne school first i want to be generation three

[Centurion1]

if you dont think conventional war with korea would be a bloodbath you are sadly mistaken. sure we would win and handidly but the damage down to our forces wouldnt be anything to scoff at.

[drone]

You can redefine the word war however you like, but the fact is that when you send your military into an active conflict, that is a war. The amount we pay everyday is the amount needed to pay for a war, by simply having troops on the ground in active duty with a purpose to kill an enemy, you are operating a war, even if the enemy is only a rabble of AK-47 thugs.
Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars. If they were, Congress would have said so. As it stands, they are deployments by the executive branch, funded by the Chinese. Part of this argument is that the financial costs of maintaining these deployments are somewhat invisible to the US population. We may be at "war", but our economy is not on a war footing, and the population does not feel the pinch (yet). If it did, the political pressure to either get out or resolve as quickly as possible would be much greater than it is now. Or maybe we wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

[Major Robert Dump]

hey i need to go to airborne school first i want to be generation three

Don't worry, I doubt the Army will ever scrap the program, because then we would have to come up with new cadences.

[Fisherking]

Cutting bases and cutting troops are two totally different things.

We went through massive base closures in the 1990s and what is left was what Congress wanted to keep.

You may think them unimportant but each one has a serious purpose.

We have discussed troop levels and if you can't see there are not enough to do the jobs we have without any surprises or contingencies, that is your choice.

All I can say is that it is one of those things no one is happy paying for but if you need it then it has already paid for its self.

Don't confuse your disagreements and disenchantment with operations with the value of the organizations.

You just won't see that it is a political issue you have.

The people who serve or have served didn't do it to get rich.

It is not an easy job even in peace.

They are looked down upon by people who have not the slightest idea of what they sacrifice and endure.

They take the blame and abuse brought on by politicians and the uninformed.

If you won't see its usefulness that is your choice.

It just strikes me as the same as those who see no usefulness in algebra or physics. They encounter it daily but don't see it...

We must simply agree to disagree.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars. If they were, Congress would have said so. As it stands, they are deployments by the executive branch, funded by the Chinese. Part of this argument is that the financial costs of maintaining these deployments are somewhat invisible to the US population. We may be at "war", but our economy is not on a war footing, and the population does not feel the pinch (yet). If it did, the political pressure to either get out or resolve as quickly as possible would be much greater than it is now. Or maybe we wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

Just because the costs have not hit the American citizen, does not make our army fighting on foreign soil fighting an "engagement" or what have you instead of a war. There are many ways to pay for a war, you can take the easy way out and borrow more or you can prep the economic for war status, to make the American public less resistive to conflicts, Congress chooses one of the other since the second half of the 20th century.

Let us be honest here about we got ourselves into here. We got attacked, and declared a War on Terror. We then invaded Afghanistan, and two years later, Iraq. What does everyone say when we talk about Iraq and Afghanistan. We call it the Iraq War. We call it the War in Afghanistan. No one says Operation Iraqi Freedom anymore. The public recognizes what these "conflicts" are. Prolonged wars against insurgents. Merely pointing out the fact that Congress worked around having to make it official does not revoke the reality of the situation.

EDIT: Are we to start calling the Vietnam War, what it really was under your definitions, the "Vietnam conflict/engagement"?

[Major Robert Dump]

I think the fact that we can wage "war" (however you choose to define it) without Americans personally feeling the financial pinch is one of the biggest problems in our society today. It lowers accountability amongst leaders, it enables people to toy with the lives and governments of others, and it encourages profiteering. Out of sight out of mind.

On the other hand, my country is filled with people who don't think it is okay to shoot a burglar crawling through your teenage daughters window at 2 AM, so maybe it's better the public has less say with military matters when the enemies come knocking.

[Centurion1]

Don't worry, I doubt the Army will ever scrap the program, because then we would have to come up with new cadences.

lol can you imagine if the term ranger was not used anymore...... american pt the world over would grind to a halt

[a completely inoffensive name]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

According to this, we have more personnel in Germany than we do in Iraq right now. Do we need 58,000ish troops in Germany to repel a Russian invasion?

[Fisherking]

ACIN

I didn’t refer to them as wars more because of how few troops are there.

Wars are fought with armies and army groups. When you have something less than a division in one place and not much over a corps in the other they just don’t rise to that level of intensity.

It was not to denigrate the fact that their is combat I was just trying to get you to understand how very small our armed forces are.

Another way to think of it is that in an intense war situation our whole military including marines, reserves, and national guard could cover a line 75 miles long with no back up.

We are involved in low intensity combat ATM so they stretch one division that covers 5 miles to cover hundreds of miles and we still don’t have the men to do the job even with all the high tech stuff.

It comes down to needing that man on the ground...and we don’t have them.

This by its self leads to more casualties, military and civilian. A few men are a lot jumpier than a bunch. There is courage in numbers. Jumpy men make more mistakes and everyone pays for that.

You can tell there is not enough command and control too. Youtube Videos of tanks running over cars, the pows abused. All of that points to not enough people doing too big a job.

The military can’t order enough troops to do the job, only the politicians can, and they won’t because the people won’t stand for it and they won’t get reelected.

The graft and corruption is in the system because Congress and the POTUS put it there. That was past of course but the ones now won’t get rid of it. Campaign Contributions!

Anyone working for the government or military can tell you about it but only the elected officials can do anything to change it. So it is just a circle.

We need honest men working for the people and if any of them are elected, I don’t know them.

[Fisherking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

According to this, we have more personnel in Germany than we do in Iraq right now. Do we need 58,000ish troops in Germany to repel a Russian invasion?

Considering that almost all of it is Air Force Airlift Command and Military Hospitals and Headquarters units what would you say.

Is it cheaper to fly from New York or Seattle than it is from Germany and do we ship all the injured to the states direct?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Considering that almost all of it is Air Force Airlift Command and Military Hospitals and Headquarters units what would you say.

Is it cheaper to fly from New York or Seattle than it is from Germany and do we ship all the injured to the states direct?

The fact that we need a super base in a foreign country so we can ship troops and material to more foreign nations that are even further away from us tells me that we have an empire. Empires crumbled under their own weight sooner or later, and I would rather minimize the damage.

We do not need an army that can properly fight a foreign conflict because we don't need to fight these conflicts. Afghanistan and Iraq show improvement, but at what cost? I know MRD can and has told me of the good that is being done by people like him. But the local people are still resistant and not 100% supportive, which makes this conflict liable to reach another 3 years on top of the nearly 10 years it has been.

I do not believe we need to invade countries and build them up to support democracy anymore. We see now how large majority Muslim countries such as Tunisia and Egypt are being rocked by internal cries for democracy. Sooner or later, the public will demand more from its government and our job as the promoter of democracy is to send food when the government cuts it off, provide proxies when the government tries to censor the internet, and send troops only when the public has demanded for external forces to help with the regime change, no sooner.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN

I didn’t refer to them as wars more because of how few troops are there.

Wars are fought with armies and army groups. When you have something less than a division in one place and not much over a corps in the other they just don’t rise to that level of intensity.

It was not to denigrate the fact that their is combat I was just trying to get you to understand how very small our armed forces are.

Another way to think of it is that in an intense war situation our whole military including marines, reserves, and national guard could cover a line 75 miles long with no back up.

We are involved in low intensity combat ATM so they stretch one division that covers 5 miles to cover hundreds of miles and we still don’t have the men to do the job even with all the high tech stuff.

It comes down to needing that man on the ground...and we don’t have them.

This by its self leads to more casualties, military and civilian. A few men are a lot jumpier than a bunch. There is courage in numbers. Jumpy men make more mistakes and everyone pays for that.

You can tell there is not enough command and control too. Youtube Videos of tanks running over cars, the pows abused. All of that points to not enough people doing too big a job.

The military can’t order enough troops to do the job, only the politicians can, and they won’t because the people won’t stand for it and they won’t get reelected.

The graft and corruption is in the system because Congress and the POTUS put it there. That was past of course but the ones now won’t get rid of it. Campaign Contributions!

Anyone working for the government or military can tell you about it but only the elected officials can do anything to change it. So it is just a circle.

We need honest men working for the people and if any of them are elected, I don’t know them.

I am quoting your post for the truth that is in the statement I bolded.

EDIT: Also, I just want to say that the fact that they won't order more troops because they know the public is against it should tell us something right there about these conflicts.

[Xiahou]

We tear families apart and then push them to the corner when they come home. America doesn't feel this war like it should, and that is a problem Americans I don't think truly know what it's like to be AT WAR. Save for those poor ol'boys we send because they wanted to go to college or were drawn into due to lack of job prospects.This statement is without any basis in reality. We have a volunteer force. And our force is a cross section of America, not "poor ol'boys". I wouldn't make such wide generalizations that cast aspersions on why they serve.

PJ presented some lovely charts and data which you basically ignored because they didn't follow your storyline. I guess that's fine if you started this thread just to preach instead of debate. :shrug:

[Centurion1]

the military is a career path and often a family tradition...... the military doesnt recruit convicts anymore.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Xiahou: not really. If you take PJ's numbers for it, the fact emerges that about 1 in every 100 people in the USA is either reservist or on active duty, with about 1 in 200 people on active duty. Russia is even worse, but China has a positively tiny army considering its size (if you assume the USA army to be normal sized).

[Strike For The South]

This statement is without any basis in reality. We have a volunteer force. And our force is a cross section of America, not "poor ol'boys". I wouldn't make such wide generalizations that cast aspersions on why they serve.

PJ presented some lovely charts and data which you basically ignored because they didn't follow your storyline. I guess that's fine if you started this thread just to preach instead of debate. :shrug:

I did on post 7

Are my posts filled with indignation? Yes it's just more fun that way

[PlusPlayer1]

nvm

[Furunculus]

Comparing us on the simple scale of boots is once again archaic. See the gulf wars.



he didn't, i direct your attention to the green line on the graph.

while america does spend a lot on defence he is right to note the (attempted) reforms of rumsfeld and gates, along with the following question:
"The question I think we need to be asking ourselves is "can we get more 'bang' out of our $700 Billion investment?"

[Slyspy]

As far as I can tell those graphs show two things. They show military expenditure against GDP. Am I right in thinking that in general GDP has generally increased, thus meaning that military expenditure comes from a larger pot? Likewise with military service as a percentage of the population. I might be reading the graph wrong though.

[lars573]

the military doesnt recruit convicts anymore.
If you bet on that you'd have lost. As the US is one of the only nations I've heard that still offers a green unifrom in lieu of a neon orange one.

[drone]

Sorry for the delay, I got caught in a 4 hour, 6 mile commute through snow and abandoned vehicles to get to a house without power last night.

There are many ways to pay for a war, you can take the easy way out and borrow more or you can prep the economic for war status, to make the American public less resistive to conflicts, Congress chooses one of the other since the second half of the 20th century.
And therein lies the problem.


Let us be honest here about we got ourselves into here. We got attacked, and declared a War on Terror. We then invaded Afghanistan, and two years later, Iraq. What does everyone say when we talk about Iraq and Afghanistan. We call it the Iraq War. We call it the War in Afghanistan. No one says Operation Iraqi Freedom anymore. The public recognizes what these "conflicts" are. Prolonged wars against insurgents. Merely pointing out the fact that Congress worked around having to make it official does not revoke the reality of the situation.
We did not declare a war on terror, Bush 43 told Congress we were starting one. Congress loves this fact, because it allows people to think we are in a war, without them being responsible for it. Full-blown CYA. Afghanistan and Iraq started out as "operations", for political reasons, given the OK by men and women too scared of the political consequences to defend their constitutional powers. I know it's a war, you know it's a war, and the soldiers know full well it's a war. But the government doesn't think it's a war, because it's not. Hence the shenanigans.

EDIT: Are we to start calling the Vietnam War, what it really was under your definitions, the "Vietnam conflict/engagement"?
I was always fond of "police action". ~D We didn't declare war for that one, and look how well it turned out. After a couple more of these involvements, maybe we will realize why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 is not in Article 2.

[Centurion1]

you bet on that you'd have lost. As the US is one of the only nations I've heard that still offers a green unifrom in lieu of a neon orange one.

ex cons are not cons.

and its only because of the shortage of manpower available in country right now. and its still a negligible number