View Full Version : Is the U.S. Military Too Small?
Interesting read from the Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/849ienyw.asp), making very cogent arguments that our military is way too small for its current mission load.
An Army of Lots More Than One
by Frederick Kagan
07/07/2003, Volume 008, Issue 42
THE ARMED FORCES of the United States are too small to support the missions required of them in the post-9/11 world. In many of the situations we now face, using troops on the ground is nonnegotiable, and America has too few of them. If that assertion seems counterintuitive given the impressive performance of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq, two numbers may help drive it home: Of the 495,000 troops in the U.S. Army, 370,000 are already deployed around the world.
The destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq has always been rightly seen as only the first step in a reorientation of America's security policy toward the Middle East. If the United States proves to have eliminated the Baathist regime in Iraq only to replace it with chaos and violence, we clearly will have failed to enhance our security. The threats, to be sure, will be different. The imminence of Saddam's development of weapons of mass destruction posed a clear and present danger to the United States and its citizens at home and abroad. Chaos in Iraq will pose a less obvious threat, but the danger to Americans will be no less substantial.
We have already seen how chaos and civil war in Afghanistan in the 1990s provided the breeding ground for terrorists and a haven for the bases where they trained. If U.S. forces are reduced or withdrawn too soon, similar conditions in Iraq will nurture the al Qaeda operatives of the future. The U.S.-led attack could end up bringing about the very threat that prompted it in the first place--the proliferation of Iraqi weapons to terrorist organizations--if we do not finish what we have begun by establishing a stable and peaceful regime in Iraq.
This will not be accomplished, however, without the prolonged deployment of significant numbers of American ground forces. Smart weapons cannot keep peace. They cannot get schools and hospitals running, or keep electricity and water flowing, or keep hostile neighbors from attacking one another, or provide a police presence to deter looters and criminals, or hunt down and capture individual terrorists, interrogate them, and learn from them the nature of the organizations to which they belong, or find traces of a WMD program hidden carefully in a country the size of California. Only soldiers and marines can accomplish these tasks, and, given the size and complexity of the country, only in fairly large numbers. Given the unrest and political chaos that currently engulf Iraq, it is hard to imagine that the United States will be able to withdraw any significant portion of its 146,000 troops from that country in less than a year without compromising our vital objectives.
The problem is that we cannot maintain such a large force in Iraq for a year without seriously damaging the Army and harming our ability to pursue other critical objectives. Given the normal requirement to have two units at home for every one deployed, the 11-division-equivalent U.S. Army could support a three-and-two-thirds division commitment to Iraq indefinitely--at the cost of having no forces available for operations anywhere else in the world. But the current deployment is the equivalent of more than five divisions (the 101st Airborne, 4th Infantry, and 1st Armored divisions, two brigades of the 3rd Infantry Division, the 2nd and 3rd Armored Cavalry regiments, the 173rd Airborne Brigade, and elements of the 1st Infantry and 10th Mountain divisions).
In addition, more than 200,000 reservists and members of the National Guard have been called up to support the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and on the home front. Some of these troops have been deployed for more than a year, many of them earning a fraction of their civilian pay. There is reason to fear that the hardship on them and their families may damage recruiting for the Guard.
Within months the U.S. leadership will face a difficult choice: reduce the commitment to Iraq regardless of whether the country is ready for such a reduction, or extend the deployment of many of these units indefinitely. The first choice is unacceptable because it may well compromise our ability to achieve our objectives in Iraq. The second will do great harm to the Army.
It is not merely that soldiers in Iraq are under strain from having to be peacekeepers and warfighters simultaneously and from coming under periodic attack at the hands of the populations they are trying to police, or that morale in those units will deteriorate as their deployments extend with no clear end in sight. Units engaged in peacekeeping (if it can be called that) in Iraq are not training for war. The more forces we maintain in Iraq, the fewer we have available to face other potential enemies. Right now there is hardly a single division in the U.S. Army that could take the field as a unit without our hurriedly withdrawing important elements from Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, or Afghanistan and sending them to war without the opportunity to retrain them. That is an unacceptable situation.
Nor can we look to our allies to help us. All of the European states have cut their armed forces so dramatically over the past decade that they are not capable of deploying large forces to Iraq. The British are already maintaining half of their deployable forces there. Virtually none of the European states has the command, control, and communications facilities required for the job, let alone the strategic transportation capabilities needed to get forces to Iraq and sustain them there. Furthermore, states like France and Germany that vigorously opposed the war have demonstrated an equal unwillingness to support the peace we have imposed on Iraq.
It is time to stop pretending that the United States can prosecute a war on terror, conduct peacekeeping operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia, and maintain the security of the homeland without a substantial increase in the size of the armed forces. General Shinseki, the recently retired Army chief of staff, warns us to "beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division army"--and even he understates the problem. In truth, the armed forces need an increase in size of at least 25 percent.
The current military structure was designed in the 1990s when all the talk was of a "strategic pause" and a prolonged period of peace. What pause there was has vanished, and it is not peace that now looks likely to be prolonged. Expanding the armed forces to match the missions they must perform is an urgent task.
Banquo's Ghost
06-01-2006, 22:18
Yes, it's way too small if it is intended to be an imperial army.
:inquisitive:
Yes, it's way too small if it is intended to be an imperial army.
:inquisitive:
:rolleyes: Let's not start that shall we.
Yes, though, our military does need an increase in size.
Well if they want to keep on making strategic blunders they need a bigger army. Or they could spend some more on intelligence gathering instead.
CBR
AwesomeArcher
06-02-2006, 00:58
Yea, lets not start the whole political satire, we have already heard enough of it. I think we do need to expand it, although i wouldn't mind cutting back on the troops we have overseas.
Papewaio
06-02-2006, 01:50
Australia is in a similar position with half of its army forces soon to be deployed overseas (we have a tiny army btw). Mainly in Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomon's along with a small amount of rotations to units with other nations forces and UN peacekeeping duties.
But less and less people are joining up... the primary cause hasn't been touted as fear or poor morale... it is the crap pay rates and lack of a career ladder once you leave.
When used as a power projection force - which seems to be the current doctrine of the overall command - then the force is too small. The current optempo of many units does not give them the ability to recover from one operation before they are gearing up for the next one.
The current doctrine as I understood it was to maintain the Military to do at least two low-mid intensity conflicts at once and be able to support with military force one of our allies in necessary.
Last time I looked the United States military is committed to two peacekeeping missions, and two low-mid intensity conflicts. Along with the requirements needed to maintain the force's warfighting abilities - troops are not getting enough down time.
It is interesting to note studies from WW2 about battlefield rotations and troop moral. If one as to take a comparision of battlefied rotations of WW2 armies and compare it to the optempo of the United States Military today (and I dare say the United Kingdom's) one would probably discover some interesting statistics and trends that are very similiar.
KukriKhan
06-02-2006, 03:55
When used as a power projection force - which seems to be the current doctrine of the overall command - then the force is too small. The current optempo of many units does not give them the ability to recover from one operation before they are gearing up for the next one.
The current doctrine as I understood it was to maintain the Military to do at least two low-mid intensity conflicts at once and be able to support with military force one of our allies in necessary....
Yep. "Two-and-a-half-wars" has been the Holy Grael of US military planners since the early 80's (in those days, it was thought: hold the USSR in the Fulda Gap, repulse North Korea, and help an allie - probably UK, Oz, or Canada, but maybe someone else - somewhere.). 2 distinct theaters requiring air, armour and logistics, plus a 'half-war' requiring Spec Ops and intel support - with limted logistics.
To fullfill that 2.5 goal, we're understaffed, I think. We're using our reserves as though they were regular troops, when they are orignally organized to quickly train-up militias and volunteers into a useable force . And over-using them. And, as Redleg reports, tightening rotational schedules to the maximum stretch point.
rotorgun
06-02-2006, 04:00
Looked at with a purely objective point of view, I would tend to agree with Redleg. Unless sufficient native forces can be produced to offset operational requirements, the Army is too small by far. When one factors in the numbers of contractors that are doing what logistics units should be doing, ie. maintenance, transport, messing facilities, engineering, etcetera, than it is undeniable. Compare the situation to the Cold War period in former West Germany. The forces permanently stationed there were the equivelent of a reinforced corps with many supporting units from Army headquartes. There were also other units from the other Nato countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Finland, and the Budeswher of Germany. All in all, there were probably about 3-500,000 American soldiers there, depending on the year. This was from 1945 until the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. This is the kind of commitment that wins a war of idealologies. This is what we are facing in the Middle East, a war of ideas. I don't even want to think about what will happen if the situation with Iran turns hot. :shrug:
BHCWarman88
06-02-2006, 05:25
Retruict More People.. Have Better Pay,etc....
Yes, the US Army is too small. The rest of the US military is still large enough to engage on another front.
The US Army has always been to small ever since the end of WWII. Withing 5 years of WWII the US Army had been cut so much that it had it's hands full with the Korean war which 5 years before would have just been another theatre of operations. Vietnam has again a use of too few troops. The little wars of the 1980's though is what the US opts for nowadays.
I think the problem is that the US recongnizes it's position in the world as the only Superpower (at present) and has faith in it's high tech army. We put our money in machines so we don't need manpower, the idea being that all these combat mulitipliers will reduce the amount of troops needed for the job. The US has always maintained a large Navy and since WWII has always had a large Air Force but the Army is always the one that's neglected. Up to the 1980s the US Army was never more high tech than the Soviet Union, the Tanks were about equal and so were the small arms, trucks, and other vehicles.
Only in the 1980s when the Army was switched over to a smaller yet all volunteer Army and given the modern equipment it needed to have an edge over other armies. When the Cold War ended the American people didn't see a need for a large army anymore and began reducing troop numbers. After the Gulf War against the "battle hardened fourth largest army in the world" our complete faith in machines was proven and more troop reductions were done with the Bush and Clinton administrations. The idea being that with our machines being so badass all we need to do is bomb them to hell and send the army in to wipe out what's left. We thought we could just maintain our Air Force and Navy to prevent war against us and just have an Army for small regional conflicts not protacted conflicts.
What was not seen though was that with the end of the Cold War and the rise of Islamic extremism that the US wouldn't be able to withdraw into it's tradiontal isolationist shell. Instead the US was drawn into Somalia but at the first bit of heavy casualties (low considering the number of troops sent) the US had no taste for that type of war and withdrew leaving Somalia to itself. After the last weapons inspecters were forced out of Iraq in 1998 instead of the US opting for UN action to force Saddam to comply we were content to just do a a demonstration of force with a few cruise missiles and airstrikes in Operation Desert Fox.
So in effect (sorry for being too wordy) the US has an Army big enough for small regional conflicts but if the US wants to be able to still be feared by "rogue nations" and be able to carry out that fear the Army needs to be enlarged. It's sad that the Army that could fight the Germans and Japanese at the same time (granted we had a few years to buildup) can't occupy nations the size of Iraq and Afghanistan and not be able to at least threaten a nation such as Iran.
Now when the Bush administration leave the White House I believe that regardless of what party wins the US will still try to project itself across the world. Look at the calmor over Sudan once there was a "cause" to go in and this was from groups that opposed the Iraq invasion as well. If the US wants to retain it's status as a military superpower it needs to increase the size of the Army and the US public needs to get used to casualties. If you look at even the last 40 years of wars the idea that a nation could invade and occupy a foriegn nation of a different religon and internal factions that hate each other and do it for 3 years with only 2500 deaths would be thought of as dreamy. In the Korean war the deaths were about 2500 a month, Vietnam was about 6000 a year. The 80 casualties of the gulf war spoiled the US public. If the US still wants to project force overseas it needs to get used to bloodshed (as bad as that sounts), either that or just resign to itself and let the UN handle things completely. You can't do both.
AntiochusIII
06-02-2006, 09:26
Yes, it's way too small if it is intended to be an imperial army.
:inquisitive:Well, it needs to be an imperial army. The doctrine of Power Projection requires that. Well, actually, no; but the doctrine of Power Projection coupled with the need to actually occupy the "secured" lands require an imperial army, if you mean by a large one.
I'd advocate the expansion of the military, though of course selfishly I will never join; but to be honest, under current spendings I'd rather not harm society more. What the hell is with the Pentagon spending so much money on whatever they're doing? :dizzy2: Could some military experts or those who were/are in the military explain to me what are they doing with all those treasure troves being budgeted to them every year? Is it a blackhole or are we just trying to keep a tech lead? Does it require such money to actually work?
English assassin
06-02-2006, 10:05
Banquo's reference to an imperial army was not (should not have been) a troll.
If you think that empires fall/dominant powers collapse because of "imperial overstretch", and if you think that notwithstanding the large amounts you already spend on your military it is too small for the missions asked of it (and that seems to be the case), then if I were American I would ask myself not is the military too small, but how can I reconfigure my conduct so that the USA's continued status as the world's dominant power is assured whilst reducing the demands on my military to a level managable within the present (or preferably a reduced) budget.
After all, in purely economic terms, every extra grunt you recruit is a grunt consuming on the public payroll, who might otherwise be in private industry generating wealth in your economy, no insult intended to the ex-servicemen on the board.
Its equally likely that you have the wrong military, but then, no sooner will you scrap 90% of your MBTs on the grounds you don't need them than 3 million north Korean troops will come swarming over the DMZ no doubt. Did anyone ever correctly econd guess the next war?
If that means that you have roughly 100.000 troops stationed in the whole of the USA, ya definatily to small, that is what we have for tiny little holland.
well that is a bit exagarated but how could you possibly deal with an invasion?
Mount Suribachi
06-02-2006, 10:34
So in effect (sorry for being too wordy) the US has an Army big enough for small regional conflicts but if the US wants to be able to still be feared by "rogue nations" and be able to carry out that fear the Army needs to be enlarged. It's sad that the Army that could fight the Germans and Japanese at the same time (granted we had a few years to buildup) can't occupy nations the size of Iraq and Afghanistan and not be able to at least threaten a nation such as Iran.
But the difference is in WW2 the US had conscription to produce those large armies. And they were fully backed by the armies of Russia, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Free French, Free Poles etc etc...Whereas now they are all volunteer, and whilst they have allies helping them out, its just a brigade here, a battalion there.
As others have pointed out, the US have always planned on the 2.5 conflicts doctrine - and they are fighting their 2 conflicts. Part of the problem is I thin they always reckoned on at least 1 of those conflicts being in Europe and/or Korea, and neither of them are, but they are still required to maintain standing forces there to fulfill their treaty obligations (NATO) and as a sensible precaution (Korea).
English assassin
06-02-2006, 11:10
well that is a bit exagarated but how could you possibly deal with an invasion?
Hmm. Canada and Mexico, they can probably handle. Anyone else has to go by sea. Past 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers, and if I counted correctly 49 Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarines, plus all the other toys.
So unless they get attacked from Mars they are probably going to be OK.
doc_bean
06-02-2006, 12:09
Yes, more money to the troops, less money to wasteful products without application.
You need the middle class to want to join more, it seems, with all those college programs and such, that's it's mostly "poor" people joining up.
Hmm. Canada and Mexico, they can probably handle. Anyone else has to go by sea. Past 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers, and if I counted correctly 49 Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarines, plus all the other toys.
So unless they get attacked from Mars they are probably going to be OK.
Also last time I checked NATO was still binding. So if the only country in the world (china) that would want to, and would perhaps have the ability to mount an attempt (you are right they would never get through the navy) they would then still have to deal with being at war with all of western europe +australia/NZ.
Of course assuming those countries backed their NATO obligations. If they backstabbed us and didn't, there are a few countries we could still count on no matter what(UK being at the top of the list).
So 100,000 soldiers with the capability to draft millions (16,000,000 Americans were in the military during ww2) is more than enough to hold off the tattered remains of any force that managed to make it past the US Navy until more units were drafted and reinforcements from allies arrived.
x-dANGEr
06-02-2006, 12:44
It's sad that the Army that could fight the Germans and Japanese at the same time (granted we had a few years to buildup) can't occupy nations the size of Iraq and Afghanistan and not be able to at least threaten a nation such as Iran.
They fought the Germans and Japanese as organised forces.. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan as Vietnam, the people doesn't want to be conquered (You may call it 'freed', but nah, it really isn't), and so they will resist.
One more note about Afghanistan, go to any village and you will find at least a quarter of the men in it 'taken by soldiers', and by that I mean to that evil prison in Cuba, got my point? USA is fueling hate for it in the souls of the countries she's currently standing in, resulting in an even harder time for their army.
the people doesn't want to be conquered (You may call it 'freed', but nah, it really isn't
Yes. That's why 70% of them voted. Gotcha slick.:2thumbsup:
If the USA intends to continue with it's oil crusades against all the oil-rich countries, then yes the U.S. Military is too small and if they ever get attacked by another superpower they are gonna be in big trouble.
Hey look what the lord just dragged in! Haven't seen you for a while here :balloon2:
Kagemusha
06-02-2006, 13:31
If you want to have more troops available.I think the obvious place where to release those would be Europe.There is no more Soviet Union and Russia doesnt pose a serious threat of Invasion to Europe.So how about redeploying the V Corps and Southern European Task Force?
If that means that you have roughly 100.000 troops stationed in the whole of the USA, ya definatily to small, that is what we have for tiny little holland.
well that is a bit exagarated but how could you possibly deal with an invasion?
That's when all the unregistered pistols and assualt weapons the populace owns come into play. ~;)
As the least glamourous branch of the military, the US Army usually gets the short end of the budget stick. If they continue to be treated like they are now, it really will be an Army of One.
AggonyDuck
06-02-2006, 17:45
There were also other units from the other Nato countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Finland, and the Budeswher of Germany. :
Just want to point out that Finland has never been a NATO-country
.~;)
If you want to have more troops available.I think the obvious place where to release those would be Europe.There is no more Soviet Union and Russia doesnt pose a serious threat of Invasion to Europe.So how about redeploying the V Corps and Southern European Task Force?
Last round of the BRAC commission was supposed to review just that.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2006/20060503_5009.html
http://www.brac.gov/docs/final/ExecutiveSummary.pdf
But it seems the politics and costs of removing the United States Military from Europe once again entered into the equation about what best to do with the United States Military. This is probably the best written piece available on the web for the general public.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence=1
However here is where some of our forces are leaving
http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2006/Mar/17-794340.html
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence=3
For anyone interested that is where I would suggest one start to research the answer to such a question as posed by Kagemusha is by the way is a very valid proposal that has been addressed.
I found this site while researching the possible withdraw of US Forces from Europe but have not read it completely yet, but found the initial browse through interesting.
http://www.assembly-weu.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/rpt/2003/1819.html
rotorgun
06-02-2006, 18:19
Just want to point out that Finland has never been a NATO-country
.~;)
I beg your pardon AggonyDuck. I stand (well actually sit) corrected. I had always thought that your country was a memeber. I guess it was because the former Soviet Union had invaded in the past, and I figured that Finland would want to be a member for protection.
As far as pulling out the V corps and Southern Task force goes, I don't think it ties in with the strategic aims of the PNAC plan. It may be phsycological, but I don't think that they fully trust the Germans and the Russians. After WWII and the Cold War which followed, the U.S. government has always kept a jaundiced eye on these two nations.
Mount Suribachi
06-02-2006, 18:39
One more note about Afghanistan, go to any village and you will find at least a quarter of the men in it 'taken by soldiers', and by that I mean to that evil prison in Cuba, got my point?
Last I heard, Gitmo held about 600 prisoners. I find it hard to believe that the rural population of Afghanistan is 2,400 men. And many of those 600-odd (granted, more have been through) are non-Afghans.
Kagemusha
06-02-2006, 18:45
Thanks for the information Redleg.Il give it a little bit of reading.:shakehands: Rotorgun.Finland wasnt part of of NATO,neither Warsow pact. There is still talk in here about joininig NATO,but majority of people are against that.Im not sure what are the reasons behind that we dont want be militarily allied.We just dont.~;)
There are never enough weapons. There are never enough soldiers. There are never enough victims.
one thing is certain, there are enough fools.
mercian billman
06-02-2006, 19:35
Yes, more money to the troops, less money to wasteful products without application.
You need the middle class to want to join more, it seems, with all those college programs and such, that's it's mostly "poor" people joining up.
Wouldn't increasing salaries just continue to encourage more "poor" people
to enlist? Military salaries aren't great, but it does pay the bills and if your unmarried and have no children like most younger service members, it really isn't that bad.
It's not mostly poor people joining up either, there are people from poor backgrounds, but the majority would probably be considered working class or lower middle class.
One thing I would do to get more people to join the military is to eliminate certain enlistment requirments. Tattoos, underage drinking/DUIs, juveniles records etc. can all leave a person barred from enlistment, there's more but I really can't think of them right now.
While some of the requirments make sense, others do not; tattoos for instance. Alot of the Marines I know have tattoos on their forearms, yet for someone with tattoos on their forearm to join the Marine Corps they need a waiver. It's rediculous, that someone cannot join the Marine Corps if they have a tattoo on their forearm, but once their in nobody cares.
Underage drinking/DUIs are another issue that are overblown, they have no real affect on someones ability to fight; if someone's an alcoholic that's a problem, but one or two drinking offenses doesn't necesarily make someone an alcoholic.
If the US military wants to increase it's size we have to accept the fact that the "quality" of new enlistees will decrease. But that's okay, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out proper comm procedures and you definately don't need a clean police record to fire an M-16.
Ironside
06-02-2006, 19:47
Thanks for the information Redleg.Il give it a little bit of reading.:shakehands: Rotorgun.Finland wasnt part of of NATO,neither Warsow pact. There is still talk in here about joininig NATO,but majority of people are against that.Im not sure what are the reasons behind that we dont want be militarily allied.We just dont.~;)
It's the idea that if someone invades, it's so bad that the countries that you would ally with would help you in any case. But you're still unbound so that if a big war happens you might survive it without any scratch, instead of getting involved by default. All the advantages without the disadvantages.
During the Cold war this and the "do not awake the tiger" was the reasons why not Finland and Sweden joined NATO. Both countries was (and still are) still very NATO oriented though.
Banquo's Ghost
06-02-2006, 20:32
Thank you, EA.
My post was not intended to be a troll, but to highlight my view of the main issue, which is that US politicians don't really seem to know what role they want the USA to play. That's why I bolded the 'if' and included the inquisitive smiley. An 'imperial' army not only imposes the will of its government by threat and projection, but also by occupation. I accept that the term 'imperial' provokes emotional responses, but it is a word fit for purpose. If there is a more descriptive word, please advise me and I will use it.
Iraq is a good example of a decision to project power without having thought about the necessary troops committed on the ground, for the necessary time, and suffering the necessary casualties - the realities of a pseudo-imperial (nation-building, regime change, whatever is preferred) adventure, rather than the defensive action it was sold as.
Whatever the ambition of the current US administration, I don't believe the American people will ever want to become the 'imperial' power that some neo-cons have written about.
Perhaps unconsciously, the size of the army perhaps reflects this unease?
Another question to those who are advocating the increase in Army numbers (quite innocent, I promise, I'd like to know your opinions :smile:): Given the inevitable casualties associated with projecting power via land force engagement, and the observed impact that has on recruitment, can the Army be increased to the necessary size without conscription?
doc_bean
06-02-2006, 20:38
Wouldn't increasing salaries just continue to encourage more "poor" people
to enlist? Military salaries aren't great, but it does pay the bills and if your unmarried and have no children like most younger service members, it really isn't that bad.
It looks to me like most people are just using the military as a stepping stone, so if you want to enlist more people you either have to make the stepping stone better or make it possible or even desirable for people to have longer military careers.
It's not mostly poor people joining up either, there are people from poor backgrounds, but the majority would probably be considered working class or lower middle class.
Yes, that's what the "" were for, but reading these forums it seems like a lot of people are joing up to get a cheap trip through college. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that won't convince people who can easily afford college as much.
If the US military wants to increase it's size we have to accept the fact that the "quality" of new enlistees will decrease. But that's okay, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out proper comm procedures and you definately don't need a clean police record to fire an M-16.
If you can keep the influx of people about the same and can retain more people, you will have a bigger army. Similarly, if you can get people who are interested in a military career but won't pursue because there's more money to be made in the private sector, to enroll because of increased wages, you get a bigger pool of candidates. There's no reason per se why the quality of recruits has to go down imo.
Kagemusha
06-02-2006, 20:55
It's the idea that if someone invades, it's so bad that the countries that you would ally with would help you in any case. But you're still unbound so that if a big war happens you might survive it without any scratch, instead of getting involved by default. All the advantages without the disadvantages.
During the Cold war this and the "do not awake the tiger" was the reasons why not Finland and Sweden joined NATO. Both countries was (and still are) still very NATO oriented though.
But that doent aswer to it completely,becouse either of our Nations didnt enter NATO after the Soviet Union fell.Even Estonia is now in it. I believe becouse of the WWII there was and still is an opinion here that others wouldnt necessary come in for the rescue if we were invaded and becouse of that the independent capacity of defence is still very big deal in here.:bow:
Ironside
06-02-2006, 21:32
But that doent aswer to it completely,becouse either of our Nations didnt enter NATO after the Soviet Union fell.Even Estonia is now in it. I believe becouse of the WWII there was and still is an opinion here that others wouldnt necessary come in for the rescue if we were invaded and becouse of that the independent capacity of defence is still very big deal in here.:bow:
Our capacity was more built on the principle of holding the Russians at bay until reinforcements come or die trying. Official neutrality, unofficial NATO membership. Could explain the disarm and focus shift of the Swedish army today.
As for todays situation: It's simply "why change that has worked well this far?" For the eastern nations joining NATO = closer connections with the west and "never again".
And then we have that NATO contains US and US got a habit of goofy around a bit and that could make NATO countries stuck in something they didn't exactly approve. :bow:
And uhm more on-topic. The US would either need to increase thier troop number or optimize thier occpational capacity on thier boots on the ground. Probably both, if they're going to be able to properly handle an occupation of a country larger than Iraq (and even Iraq itself).
Tribesman
06-03-2006, 01:27
It is not that the military is too small , it is just that the politicians half-baked ideas are too big .
scooter_the_shooter
06-03-2006, 01:53
The military can never be big enough; It's like money you always need more.
Regardless of Japan and Germany having been organized forces the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan requires more troops and there should enough troops available to fufill this mission and invade and occupy Iran if it were nessasery. An invasion of Iran will require a lot of troops with such mountainous terrain and their working together with the North Koreans they could fight for a conventinal war for at least a few months. All those caves and tunnel networks will need to be cleared out by ground pounding infantry which takes away almost all the technological advantages we have over Iran. All the bradleys and abrams in the world can't clear tunnel networks. This type of warfare will cause heavy casualties to the US and then there'd also be the difficult task of occupying captured territory which will require shooters to protect our supply lines and such. The only plus to this over the current war in Iraq is that at least their wont' be much foriegn funding of terrorist seeing as Iran is currently funding and training a lot of our problem groups in Iraq.
One problem as many of you have pointed out is with a volunteer army there's no way to get the required troops. There's currently a war going on and any half wit will know that hurts recruiting efforts. So what should be done?
It is not that the military is too small , it is just that the politicians half-baked ideas are too big .
This is one of the reasons armies are needed to go when diplomacy and politics have failed. If more troops had been available for Iraq from the get go I'm sure the situation wouldn't be as bad as it is now. I'd still expect violence and terrorism but at the minimum the insurgents from Syria and Saudi Arabia could be sharply reduced and all those ammo depots that went unguarded with the Iraqi Army was disbanded could have at least been protected form the wholesale looting that happened to them. The Army doesn't decide national policy but it should be fully capable of carrying out whatever is asked of by the President and Congress.
Samurai Waki
06-03-2006, 08:10
You don't need a large Army to be an Imperial Power. The British Empire managed to secure 1/4th of the Globe with an Army of around 50,000 Stationed Overseas for low intensity conflicts. Of Course, at the time the Royal Navy was nigh' on unstoppable.
Yeah but that's in the days of gunboat diplomacy. The US can't simply bomb the crap out of Iran or sieze all it's ports without complete international outrage. I wish it were simple enough still that a battalion of Marines could just sieze Iran's refineries and then make them barter with us to get them back.
And frankly the Royal Marines could kill or massacre whoever they wanted without international outrage. With today's media even the accidental death of civilian will provoke international outrage. Not to mention today's frowning on the razing of cities.
Banquo's Ghost
06-03-2006, 08:44
You don't need a large Army to be an Imperial Power. The British Empire managed to secure 1/4th of the Globe with an Army of around 50,000 Stationed Overseas for low intensity conflicts. Of Course, at the time the Royal Navy was nigh' on unstoppable.
To paraphrase Edmund Blackadder, that was because the industrial British were occupying countries where any insurgents were armed with particularly sharp fruit.
To paraphrase Edmund Blackadder, that was because the industrial British were occupying countries where any insurgents were armed with particularly sharp fruit.
:2thumbsup:
Yes, it's way too small if it is intended to be an imperial army.
:inquisitive:
Personally I agree with Banquo, but I will not go further because I do not what it start an arguement.
:focus: Let me draw one comparison.
Armed forces of the USA: 495,000 Total, 125,000 Stationed in the US
Armed forces of the Peoples Repulic of China: 1,000,000 Approx Total (W/ another 1,000,000 Reserve Forces), Locations Undisclosed.
You decide, whether it is too small.
EDIT:
You don't need a large Army to be an Imperial Power. The British Empire managed to secure 1/4th of the Globe with an Army of around 50,000 Stationed Overseas for low intensity conflicts. Of Course, at the time the Royal Navy was nigh' on unstoppable.
The British Empire at its peak actually covered 1/5 th of the globe.
Strike For The South
06-03-2006, 16:16
No its a good size but when I went to the army all american bowl a couple of months ago the milatry there didnt strike me as tough. They look like that werid kid who comes to school in full camo and no one talks to. The milatary should be reserved for drug addicts alcholics and other forms of bad asses. Not guys who cant get laid.
the US has a perfectably reasonably sized military considering it´s population and economic importance, a peace loving country would have no problem with a military of this dimension.
Now...considering that the US government seems to be of the opinion that you can´t go more than a year or two without starting a war.....~:rolleyes: ....I see how they can be spread a little thin....:juggle2:
the US has a perfectably reasonably sized military considering it´s population and economic importance, a peace loving country would have no problem with a military of this dimension.
Now...considering that the US government seems to be of the opinion that you can´t go more than a year or two without starting a war.....~:rolleyes: ....I see how they can be spread a little thin....:juggle2:
Of all the conflicts (wars) that the United States have ever been involved in how many have been started by the United States? I am sure you know the answer given your statement here....
You will also discover that the United States Government and the involvement in wars is spread over more time then just a year or two between conflicts.
Generalizations based upon only the last 5 years are often inaccurate as hell.
:dizzy2: :book:
Of all the conflicts (wars) that the United States have ever been involved in how many have been started by the United States? I am sure you know the answer given your statement here....
You will also discover that the United States Government and the involvement in wars is spread over more time then just a year or two between conflicts.
Generalizations based upon only the last 5 years are often inaccurate as hell.
:dizzy2: :book:
very well....point taken...
I´ll take out "started by the United States" and exchange it for "started by the current American Administration"
It´s more accurate like that.....
mercian billman
06-04-2006, 06:19
It looks to me like most people are just using the military as a stepping stone, so if you want to enlist more people you either have to make the stepping stone better or make it possible or even desirable for people to have longer military careers.
Yes, that's what the "" were for, but reading these forums it seems like a lot of people are joing up to get a cheap trip through college. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that won't convince people who can easily afford college as much.
If you can keep the influx of people about the same and can retain more people, you will have a bigger army. Similarly, if you can get people who are interested in a military career but won't pursue because there's more money to be made in the private sector, to enroll because of increased wages, you get a bigger pool of candidates. There's no reason per se why the quality of recruits has to go down imo.
I agree with most of what you say except that, retaining more people and keeping the same influx of people will take longer, than simply easing recruiting standards. Easing recruiting standards won't necessarily lead to a decrease in quality either, for instance some services won't let you enlist if you have a GED. To me this is ridiculous, there's really no difference between someone with a GED and someone with a high school diploma.
mercian billman
06-04-2006, 06:39
No its a good size but when I went to the army all american bowl a couple of months ago the milatry there didnt strike me as tough. They look like that werid kid who comes to school in full camo and no one talks to.
That's probably because they just graduated from boot camp, within a year (depending on what they actually do) most of them will be a lot harder. That's because after you put up with so much BS you just stop caring and just do your job.
The milatary should be reserved for drug addicts alcholics and other forms of bad asses. Not guys who cant get laid.
You'd be surprised how many virgins are in the Marine Corps. When I first got to my platoon I expected everybody to be well versed in strip clubs and prostitutes, but half of my platoon (including myself) is made up of virgins.
Strike For The South
06-04-2006, 06:54
point taken:2thumbsup:
I have allot to leran eh
AwesomeArcher
06-04-2006, 07:22
Wouldn't increasing salaries just continue to encourage more "poor" people
to enlist? Military salaries aren't great, but it does pay the bills and if your unmarried and have no children like most younger service members, it really isn't that bad.
It's not mostly poor people joining up either, there are people from poor backgrounds, but the majority would probably be considered working class or lower middle class.
One thing I would do to get more people to join the military is to eliminate certain enlistment requirments. Tattoos, underage drinking/DUIs, juveniles records etc. can all leave a person barred from enlistment, there's more but I really can't think of them right now.
While some of the requirments make sense, others do not; tattoos for instance. Alot of the Marines I know have tattoos on their forearms, yet for someone with tattoos on their forearm to join the Marine Corps they need a waiver. It's rediculous, that someone cannot join the Marine Corps if they have a tattoo on their forearm, but once their in nobody cares.
Underage drinking/DUIs are another issue that are overblown, they have no real affect on someones ability to fight; if someone's an alcoholic that's a problem, but one or two drinking offenses doesn't necesarily make someone an alcoholic.
If the US military wants to increase it's size we have to accept the fact that the "quality" of new enlistees will decrease. But that's okay, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out proper comm procedures and you definately don't need a clean police record to fire an M-16.
Also the military prepares you for later in life. Being a U.S. Marine like my dad looks pretty darn good on a resume. If you can handle all the bs in the army you can handle most any job out there.
No its a good size but when I went to the army all american bowl a couple of months ago the milatry there didnt strike me as tough. They look like that werid kid who comes to school in full camo and no one talks to. The milatary should be reserved for drug addicts alcholics and other forms of bad asses. Not guys who cant get laid.
I wouldn't really like drug addicts and alcoholics defending my country. Most of those "weird kids" could kick the you know what out of you.
Strike For The South
06-04-2006, 07:31
Bad attepmnt at humor my apolgies.
rotorgun
06-04-2006, 18:19
Stepping back a little and looking at the whole picture, it's a little hard to figure out what the strategic vision of the current administration is. Rumsfeld keeps claiming that they want a leaner, tougher, more technologicaly superior armed force, capable of projecting power quickly to any front. That's alright with me, so long as we don't keep opening up too many fronts, which is what they appear to be doing. We Americans are a very task oriented people. We like to see recognizable and reasonable goals which can be accomplished without breaking the economy or causing too many casualties. I don't see this happening when so much "saber rattling" is going on with so many other so called "rougue" nations. It's sort of like that little Looney Toons character Chickenhawk that takes on Longhorn Leghorn....."I'm just a Chickenhawk lookin' for a Chicken!" The problem is that Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Syria, China, and who knows who all, are just a little smarter than ole' Leghorn.
:sultan:
I don't think that the American people will support a policy of aggresive "imperialism", such as is outlined in the PNAC document and the Strategic Planning Guide authored by some of the current members of the Bush administration. To accomplish these strategic goals, a much larger army will be needed IMHO. Does anyone see a draft on the horizon? The middle class would probably not stand too much of that for the likes of the oil barons. I don't have much of a choice, because I am a career soldier. I can't see that the younger generations will stand behind such a plan to dominate, no matter how "benignly," the world and spread "democracy" abroad. Negotiations, with the exception of with terrorists, could surely accomplish the same goals with far less expenditure in lives and money. The only people against such a course are probably the military defense industrialists who stand to make a fortune by a long term war. BTW, I doubt that their children will be joining us in any great numbers.
GiantMonkeyMan
06-04-2006, 19:09
i think instead of enlarging the US Army they should train it better... i would prefer 50 well trained soldiers with experience to 200 trained soldiers fresh out of the recruitment stations
Banquo's Ghost
06-04-2006, 19:10
Good post, rotorgun.
:2thumbsup:
x-dANGEr
06-04-2006, 23:01
Yes. That's why 70% of them voted. Gotcha slick.Voting doesn't mean acceptance for the millitary move USA did..
Last I heard, Gitmo held about 600 prisoners. I find it hard to believe that the rural population of Afghanistan is 2,400 men. And many of those 600-odd (granted, more have been through) are non-Afghans.
I haven't got something from my mouth.. I heard that in a documentary about the situation in Afghanistan a few months back.
rotorgun
06-05-2006, 02:44
Good post, rotorgun.
:2thumbsup:
Thank you. Although I agree with GiantMonkeyMan that quality is better than quantity, one still needs to be able to secure one's gains in the little game of world domination that we are playing.
:end: As the Russians were fond of saying "quantity brings a quality all its own."
The other equation not being factored in by many who blindly accept the Rumsfeldian rhetoric of the modern day doublespeak is just how many military functions are being handled by civilian contractors. This is also greatly affecting reenlistments in many logistics and combat arms fields. Why reenlist for being an aircraft mechanic, vehicle mechanic, truck driver, avionics and communications repairer, infantryman or M.P. (security forces) when one can do the same job for KBR, L3 Vertex, Dynacorps, etc. for over four times the pay of a PFC or a SP4? Would you remain in the Army unless you were already a career soldier? Incidentilly, many of these companies are part of the United Defense Technologies Inc., just one of the corporate entities that is a member of a large investment group with direct ties with the Bush family. (No, this is not some kind of conspiracy theory. It is a documented fact.) Not bad for a bunch of former damnyankees turned :cowboy:, eh?
“I think instead of enlarging the US Army they should train it better... i would prefer 50 well trained soldiers with experience to 200 trained soldiers fresh out of the recruitment stations”. Here you’ve got a problem. To keep a check point, and in a guerrilla war it is something you have to do, you need men. Trained or not, your soldiers will have to do 4 hours rest 2 hours guard. And you can’t keep the same platoon on the same post for various reasons, one being they will loose their training…
And training for what? I was trained to fight the Red Wave which could have swept across Europe. Didn’t happened, fortunately, but the basic training of ALL modern armies is completely irrelevant confronted with the dissymmetric war concept.
The enemy never played the game you planned. No Iraqis will attack head on an Abram. The insurgent/terrorist knows the US soldiers are armoured of Kevlar with a fire doctrine which is basically fire enough to stop the enemy to do the same. So, they invent the Side Road bomb.
People thought it was not Vietnam because no jungle. No need, towns are good enough for urban guerrilla. And tanks and APC suddenly became well, put aside.
Like the French and the Spanish during the Rif War (1919-1926), the US and the Coalition of Willing controlled the territory covered by their shadow. Not that the population is ENTIRELY against them, but the fighting minority is enough to make the life difficult for them.
For the moment, there are no war opponents who are Pro-Iraqi resistance. That is probably because the Islamism roots of the most visible movement. But, if the Iraqis should succeed to expel this element and base their guerrilla on Nationalist Movement, things can change.
I am afraid, to destroy the guerrilla Us and others will have to sent more troops, better quality or not, if they want to succeed to conduct search and destroy operations, to walk in the ills, the mountains, the marshes and the valleys of Iraq to find the weapons, to rebuilt the schools and to repair electricity and water supplies.
rory_20_uk
06-06-2006, 13:58
Unfortunately whilst they are searching and destroying, then proceeding to rebuild the place you've just bombed does not impress the locals. Ingrates, I know...
America et al was wanted in 1991. There was a good chance areas would be taken without a fight and the people would welcome the Americans. Well, we stood as Saddam slaughtered the very people we told to revolt. Funnily enough they have not forgotten that.
So we sent in on a pretext that was so weak it would be a joke unless the USA was behind it. Much easier for Saddam to create an "us and them" divide - which still exists.
More troops to search and destroy? More Marines to loose it and kill some locals? More men who never wanted to be there and resent the locals almost as much as they are resented?
You can put down insurgents with an army that is hated by the inhabitants. The Russians showed us that after WW2. You just kill people and deport until there is no fight left in anyone, then move in others to completely destroy all hope.
That is not possible. Nor is winning whilst men are prepared to die to harm the Great Infidel.
~:smoking:
“That is not possible”. It is. The allies succeeded against the werewolf in Germany, with not so much reprisals.
But you are right, even with this example. You have few examples about a successful war against guerrilla, and most of them were conducted with a absolute brutality and disdain for the human lives (not speaking about human right).
To avoid any misunderstanding I will speak about the crushing of the Vendeean Rebellion by the Revolutionary French Republic. Receipe: Group the population in camps and shoot against all people outside the camps is the summary. One infamous General reported to the Government:” I have to prisoners to be blame for. I put all of them on the blade of Freedom”.
rory_20_uk
06-07-2006, 18:49
In Germany there was almost no resistance. The 5 year war along with 1,000 bomber raids may have had something to do with this as well. And the rationing of food and other products. Whilst the war was ongoing there was far more fear of the Russians than the Allies (the brigades to fight communism, the attempt at a seperate peace). Many were relieved to be in the West. Knowing things can be worse is a powerful motivator to be content.
~:smoking:
rotorgun
06-08-2006, 01:55
In Germany there was almost no resistance. The 5 year war along with 1,000 bomber raids may have had something to do with this as well. And the rationing of food and other products. Whilst the war was ongoing there was far more fear of the Russians than the Allies (the brigades to fight communism, the attempt at a seperate peace). Many were relieved to be in the West. Knowing things can be worse is a powerful motivator to be content.
~:smoking:
Indeed, and then one must remeber that the West Germans were not all that culturally different then the western allies. It is not so in Afghanistan or Iraq and never will be. These people will always hate us, as they did the British, and the Turkish before. Perhaps only a policy of relocation of the dissidents would be sucessful. Then were would we be with the spreading of democracy? It all boils down to wether or not the coalition has the will to be as ruthless as the insurgency. For the record, these are not the ideals that I was raised to believe that the United States is all about. We were not invited, and so therefore are not considered liberators, but invaders-the same way that I would feel about any army trying to do the same in my country, that is, change my way of life.
One of the peculiar things about modern warfare is that the speed doesn't allow people to adjust to having lost yet. In WWII the war was drawn out and the end came slowly and predictably. The civilian population felt the terror and grew tired of the war and the soldiers had to endure combat for years upon years. When the end came they were glad for an end to fighting. In Iraq the actual "war" lasted only 3 weeks. The time needed for the Iraqi civilian to accept defeat hadn't set in and many Iraqi soldiers embarrassed by another defeat by the Americans and this time an occupation as well weren't ready for surrender yet.
rotorgun
06-10-2006, 01:06
One of the peculiar things about modern warfare is that the speed doesn't allow people to adjust to having lost yet. In WWII the war was drawn out and the end came slowly and predictably. The civilian population felt the terror and grew tired of the war and the soldiers had to endure combat for years upon years. When the end came they were glad for an end to fighting. In Iraq the actual "war" lasted only 3 weeks. The time needed for the Iraqi civilian to accept defeat hadn't set in and many Iraqi soldiers embarrassed by another defeat by the Americans and this time an occupation as well weren't ready for surrender yet.
You make some good points, but like the North Vietnamese, they may have lost the battle, but they can win the war in the end. The North Vietnamese were patient, and fought the only kind of war that they could hope to win, a guerilla war. The Iraqis, largely the Sunni, are also doing the same. If they hope to have a voice in the future, they must keep the Shiite population in fear and the Coalition forces frustrated to force a political outcome desirable to their goals. If they can get the coalition to leave in failure, than they can then reclaim the power that they lost after the fall of Saddam Hussien. The only way to resolve the situation is for the coalition to provide assurances that the Sunnis will have a reasonable say in the government. The problem is that most of those that were in power were Saddam's former thugs, with whom no compromise is possible. Of course, this is only MHO, and I welcome other views.
“the North Vietnamese, they may have lost the battle, but they can win the war”: Right and wrong. They won the war because the US forgot that war in a political act, the extension of politic. The Vietminh/Vietcong/NVA most of the time had the initiative of the battle. It started when they wanted to, and ended when they decided to. The illusion given by the Air Lift tactic and the Air Cavalry gave to the US they had the upper-hand but it was a self built representation.
“They fought the only kind of war that they could hope to win, a guerilla war”: They fought the only efficient war in this case. A total war, including battles, assassination, media, politic and guerrilla, all what was needed. Thanks to the Media, they bring war in the USA without even sent one soldier…
“The Iraqis, largely the Sunni, are also doing the same”: They are trying but:
The North Vietnamese ideology (communism) was seen as “progressist” at the time and had a lot of sympathiser within other country and could be linked with other “progressit” movements (Nasser, Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique and all the left over for the de-colonisation) and to gain sympathy even in the USA (the so-called Vietnicks).
Perhaps with the elimination of Zarqawi the Iraqis will be able to redeploy their image around nationalism and defence of the Country. But, for now, they were unable to have sympathisers in the USA or UK. People who are against the war are not Insurgent Sympathiser. They want the boys back.
Until the image of Fascist / Extremist / Fundamentalist / Muslim / Suicide Bombers and link with Al Qaeda is alive the Iraqis insurgents won’t be able to gain this external support they need to win.
That is why if, a let’s say, a Secular Charismatic Leader should emerge from their ranks, it is now. That is why I am NOT convinced that the Zarqawi’s death is good news on a long term for the Coalition. Call me cynical but he was the best enemy you can dream in a long term: Foreigner, ruthless and no possibility to win. He had no chances to federate all the insurgent movements under his banner
“In Iraq the actual "war" lasted only 3 weeks. The time needed for the Iraqi civilian to accept defeat hadn't set in and many Iraqi soldiers embarrassed by another defeat by the Americans and this time an occupation as well weren't ready for surrender yet.” Hum, they were defeated even before the war started. They knew it. But, yes, it was still a humiliation.
And no official surrender was done. During WW2 the Germans officially surrendered and same thing happened for Japan. Nothing similar for Iraq, and even worst, the disbanding of the army, what a disdain: You are not worth to keep, you are not a danger…
Banquo's Ghost
06-10-2006, 11:48
But, for now, they were unable to have sympathisers in the USA or UK. People who are against the war are not Insurgent Sympathiser. They want the boys back.
That's not entirely true, Brenus, though your overall point is well made. There are many groups, particularly in Europe, which sympathise overtly with the insurgency, and wish defeat on the coalition for political capital.
They include anti-americans, anti-imperialists, islamists, and many other shades of opinion. Yes, they want a withdrawal, but mostly they want a bloody nose handed out to discourage adventures like this in the future. They tend not to care much if the 'boys' come home in transports or body bags.
There are also groups that have separatist aims in line with some of the insurgent groups too.
I have met some fairly rabid stop-the-war people, as well as some thoughtful ones. Their one defining characteristic is that they appear not to have thought about the bloodbath that would follow an early withdrawal without rebuilding the nation of Iraq.
“There are many groups, particularly in Europe, which sympathise overtly with the insurgency, and wish defeat on the coalition for political capital”. Well, I don’t know however it will be difficult for them to organise mass protest in support of Suicide Bombers and to fundraise for their movement.
rotorgun
06-11-2006, 03:21
The Vietminh/Vietcong/NVA most of the time had the initiative of the battle. It started when they wanted to, and ended when they decided to. The illusion given by the Air Lift tactic and the Air Cavalry gave to the US they had the upper-hand but it was a self built representation.
While the Vietnamese and the Vietcong may have had the initiative is mostly true. The the tactics of Air Mobility were no illusion. The Vietnamese lost almost every battle they fought with the US forces, even large scale ambushes. The illusion was created in the minds of those in Washignto DC who deluded themselves that their strategy of 'containment' was working. The only way to have won that war was to invade North Vietnam IMO. Cut off the head, and the snake will die.
Thanks to the Media, they bring war in the USA without even sent one soldier…
No argument there. It is just one of the weaknesses of a 'Democratic free press' in my country.
The North Vietnamese ideology (communism) was seen as “progressist” at the time and had a lot of sympathiser within other country and could be linked with other “progressit” movements (Nasser, Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique and all the left over for the de-colonisation) and to gain sympathy even in the USA (the so-called Vietnicks). Perhaps with the elimination of Zarqawi the Iraqis will be able to redeploy their image around nationalism and defence of the Country. But, for now, they were unable to have sympathisers in the USA or UK. People who are against the war are not Insurgent Sympathiser. They want the boys back. Until the image of Fascist / Extremist / Fundamentalist / Muslim / Suicide Bombers and link with Al Qaeda is alive the Iraqis insurgents won’t be able to gain this external support they need to win. That is why if, a let’s say, a Secular Charismatic Leader should emerge from their ranks, it is now. That is why I am NOT convinced that the Zarqawi’s death is good news on a long term for the Coalition. Call me cynical but he was the best enemy you can dream in a long term: Foreigner, ruthless and no possibility to win. He had no chances to federate all the insurgent movements under his banner
Very true. This is one of your more profound statements, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Hum, they were defeated even before the war started. They knew it. But, yes, it was still a humiliation. And no official surrender was done. During WW2 the Germans officially surrendered and same thing happened for Japan. Nothing similar for Iraq, and even worst, the disbanding of the army, what a disdain: You are not worth to keep, you are not a danger…
The fact that the government, ie. Saddam Hussein and company, went into hiding made this impossible. The Baath party loyalists are still a force in bieng until they can be neutralized politically. Where are they? Syria? Iran? Probably the first, as intelligence reports seem to indicate. What should be done? Will we need to invade Syria to eliminate the threat?
Banquo's Ghost
06-11-2006, 10:05
Is the US Military too small?
Goodness no. If anything, it's too big. There is no excuse for a military as big as we have, unless you accept the fact that its main role is international deployment, to play World Police. Which stirs up anti-american emotions, and thus requires an even larger military.
If you want my opinion (of course you do), we should seriously downsize the military.It costs a fortune as it is, and I don't think most Americans would agree with its function. It needs only be large enough to protect our country from invaders.
:2thumbsup: You've been missed, GC.
Geoffrey S
06-11-2006, 10:11
It's big enough to fight a war and win against most nations; it is however too small to be an effective occupying force without getting bogged down and losing its most effective quality, flexibility.
Geoffrey S
06-11-2006, 11:46
A myth. What hampers our ability to occupy other countries is the politically correct nature of modern war. If we started terrorizing civilians, mass-slaughtering, killing anyone of political significance, starting up a good 20 or 30 more Abu Graihbs (torture and all), ect. ect. we could pacify Iraq in another year. But that's just not going to happen.
If. I was referring to the current army and the current political view on what is allowed, not to some hypothetical situation where the US starts using precisely those tactics it abhors. If the views remain the same and the US wants to keep up a humane image, yet wants to effectively occupy a large region then a larger military force is necessary.
The fact that you state that is not going to happen undermines any relevance such a view could have. Sure, if you'd use nukes the problem would be solved; but that's just as hypothetical a statement as you presented and just as irrelevant.
Banquo's Ghost
06-11-2006, 12:01
The fact that you state that is not going to happen undermines any relevance such a view could have. Sure, if you'd use nukes the problem would be solved; but that's just as hypothetical a statement as you presented and just as irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant - firstly because GC's opinion is as valid as anyone else's, but also because the US has taken some faltering steps down that road in the current administration's bid to implement its neo-con philosophy.
There have been serious abuses of human rights. I don't believe the American people will ever allow the scenario GC describes, but it has stayed remarkably silent while acts of brutal occupation have taken place.
Encouragingly, the conscience of the ordinary citizen is now beginning to be disturbed, but it's not hard to see how a few more incidents like 9-11 might allow a government to start implementing occupation tactics as described.
Geoffrey S
06-11-2006, 13:15
It's not irrelevant - firstly because GC's opinion is as valid as anyone else's, but also because the US has taken some faltering steps down that road in the current administration's bid to implement its neo-con philosophy.
There have been serious abuses of human rights. I don't believe the American people will ever allow the scenario GC describes, but it has stayed remarkably silent while acts of brutal occupation have taken place.
Encouragingly, the conscience of the ordinary citizen is now beginning to be disturbed, but it's not hard to see how a few more incidents like 9-11 might allow a government to start implementing occupation tactics as described.
Fair points. The reaction to isolated moments of brutal tactics however leads me to believe that the American public would never stand for systematic large-scale brutal tactics as described, which is why I considered it too hypothetical a situation to be considered as a serious alternative. Should there be more such attacks like 9-11 I would think there would be more long-range bombing rather than another attempt at occupying a nation such as Iraq.
More boots on the ground won't solve the problem if the methods remain inadequate.
More troops would allow greater presence and a quicker response time. In particular it'd allow greater control of the borders; although foreign terrorists probably aren't as directly important as they're made out to be they are a destabilizing factor that if negated can no longer divide the Iraqi population as they have been doing. Their main goal is to divide the Sunnis and Shiites, which prevents meaningful political development.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.