Draw Down

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?

Because.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Because.

---

:angry:

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.

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

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/y1...penditures.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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

....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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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?

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.

strike your wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

---

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 in Jefferson's time, people nowadays can fly planes to sneak attack American harbors and skyscrapers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

yes no

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