State of the US armed forces

Inspired by the Iran thread, a question I really don't know the answer to.

Assuming that the US holds to it's commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, what else can the US military currently do? Can it launch another major offensive (I doubt this), minor peace keeping? Nothing?

And how much would be needed to cahnge this. Would taking troops out of Afghanistan (hopefully to be replaced by others) free up enough to allow another major offensive? Or is Iraq a sea anchor on the US armed forces, and they will be handicapped for the near future?

As of now some of the bigger threats to global security ie Iran , North Korea are getting away with pretty much anything because the U.S is strechted to thin and we cant do much at all. supposedly the first massive recall of troops from iraq will be in spring 2006 and that might just be feasible. As for Afghanistan we only have about 5,000 troops there many special ops so they might be there for awhile longer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dgb

Inspired by the Iran thread, a question I really don't know the answer to.

Assuming that the US holds to it's commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, what else can the US military currently do? Can it launch another major offensive (I doubt this), minor peace keeping? Nothing?

And how much would be needed to cahnge this. Would taking troops out of Afghanistan (hopefully to be replaced by others) free up enough to allow another major offensive? Or is Iraq a sea anchor on the US armed forces, and they will be handicapped for the near future?

---

Well while flipping around the TV dile on day in 2004 I came across a CNN report on the state of the US military and it said the US army has 425,000 active duty personell and about 150,000 active duty marines. These are organised into about 15 divisions for the army and 5 for the marines (I'm estimating wildly anyone who knows better please correct me). Now the words reaching my ears are that the US has 150,000 boots on the ground in Iraq from both the marines and the US army right now. Also that the third infantry division is permanantly stationed on the Korean DMZ (the border between north and south). Plus air elements a few brigades of armour and artillery. There is also the bases in western Germany, but they have been reduced to the bare minimum as they serve no purpose now except being the economy of several German towns.

Now as to Afghanistan, it is being secured by a multi-national force of about 8 nations. Basically nato plus a few others. Each has sent a contingent of about 2000-5000. So really there are negledable US forces there.

Info on every unit in the army:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/

And where (all the non black ops) units are:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...eployments.htm

Enjoy. I know the site is rather complicated, but it is full of good info.

Azi :bow:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/british/images/77vc.jpg

The US military can destroy the offensive military capabilities of any nation on earth without the use of nuclear weapons within a matter of days and destroy the infrastructure of said nation within weeks.

At that point it gets tricky. Ground troops are stretched thin and the US would most likely have to keep said nation bombed to the stone age until they come to the bargaining table or the US is able to compile enough troops to invade.

The US military can destroy the offensive military capabilities of any nation on earth without the use of nuclear weapons within a matter of days and destroy the infrastructure of said nation within weeks.
Yes of course they can ~;)
Now do you mean the US can do it without using nuclear weapons , or do you mean they can do it to countries that do not have nuclear weapons ?
Since more and more countries are getting nuclear weapons then maybe their conventional military strength is becoming irrelevant .

At that point it gets tricky. Ground troops are stretched thin and the US would most likely have to keep said nation bombed to the stone age until they come to the bargaining table
Pehaps it would be better and cheaper if they stayed at the bargaining table in the first place .

The UK should hopefully have more troops to back you up with soon thanks to the large scale reduction of the Home Guard in Northern Ireland.
Because we know you can't win without us ~;)

Al khalifah , did you hear the good reverend speaking of the proposed troop reductions yesterday ?
"treason , appeasement , betrayal , a stab in the back...No Surrender" :dizzy2:

Ian Paisley is a silly old sod. It's hateful old men like him that prevent real progress being made in Northern Ireland because their minds are bitter and they poison the youth of the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Now as to Afghanistan, it is being secured by a multi-national force of about 8 nations. Basically nato plus a few others. Each has sent a contingent of about 2000-5000. So really there are negledable US forces there.

---

The US army is allready stretched too thin. Afghanistan cannot possibly be called secured. US control is mostly around Kabul with some other urban pockets. The rest of the country is a heaven for warlords, ex taliban leaders, drug lords and taliban/al qaeda elements. Iraq will eventually become liek that or possibly worse ( a north korea like state ) when the majority of the US troops pull out.

Its not a matter of the US army stretched too thin. Its a matter of the innability of a modern army ( and not only the US army ) to maintain proper and effective occupation of a whole country because of the way resistance is being conducted today. Dirty offensives will meet dirty defence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

The US army is allready stretched too thin. Afghanistan cannot possibly be called secured. US control is mostly around Kabul with some other urban pockets. The rest of the country is a heaven for warlords, ex taliban leaders, drug lords and taliban/al qaeda elements. Iraq will eventually become liek that or possibly worse ( a north korea like state ) when the majority of the US troops pull out.

Its not a matter of the US army stretched too thin. Its a matter of the innability of a modern army ( and not only the US army ) to maintain proper and effective occupation of a whole country because of the way resistance is being conducted today. Dirty offensives will meet dirty defence.

---

*laugs at illusion of Iraq and Afghanistan* ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

the US has 150,000 boots on the ground in Iraq

---

This means there are 75,000 soldiers there? ~;)

Quote:

---

This means there are 75,000 soldiers there?

---

No it dosent. Every soldier gets at least two pairs of boots so you would have to cut that number in half also. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Its not a matter of the US army stretched too thin. Its a matter of the innability of a modern army ( and not only the US army ) to maintain proper and effective occupation of a whole country because of the way resistance is being conducted today. Dirty offensives will meet dirty defence.

---

World War 2 - shows that it is not just a today thing. The French and Russians showed how people can fight an occupation army.

The French also showed how a people can collaborate with an occupation army. ~;)

Quote:

---

The French also showed how a people can collaborate with an occupation army.

---

Yopu shouldnt ave gone there. The same can be said of the new Iraqi government in the eyes of many. Not that I agree with that position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The French also showed how a people can collaborate with an occupation army. ~;)

---

and this trait you specifically attach to the french? I wonder... is the french the only people who ever betrayed their country...?

I dont like the gaullist myth of the great French Resistance.. Its the same line of thinking that got France on the Security Council.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

and this trait you specifically attach to the french? I wonder... is the french the only people who ever betrayed their country...?

---

Nope, we had the same thing in in the US back in the Revolution. We sent all those traitors to Canada, which might explain some attitudes and beliefs of our northern neighbors...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I dont like the gaullist myth of the great French Resistance.. Its the same line of thinking that got France on the Security Council.

---

Your ancestors fought against the Nazis better than the French I suppose...?


Is it just me or you always get jumpy when it comes to the strong resistance that eventually led to the demise of the nazis? Its time you face the facts...


To the main discussion:

Now to collaborators and quesling governments. Indeed history repeats itself. The nazis were creating quesling local governments ( like the US does in Iraq ) and they would also hire a lot of locals as security forces ( like the US does in Iraq )...and indeed, where these governments substituted dictarorships then they were even called 'democratic'.....

Considering the famine and the lack of work that nazi occupation caused its no surprise that a lot of people collaborated with them. Most of them fled their countries or 'had accidents' soon after the Nazis left. One such person from the Ukraine was revealed in the US yesterday I think and faces deportation.

I am sympathetic to most human beings. However for collaborators I always make an exception, they dont even hold animal status to my eyes.

Quote:

---

Your ancestors fought against the Nazis better than the French I suppose...?

---

Nope, my ancestors were Nazis.

Quote:

---

Is it just me or you always get jumpy when it comes to the strong resistance that eventually led to the demise of the nazis? Its time you face the facts...

---

I get tired of countries that had their asses handed to them glorifying their (pathetic) attempts at resistance while not even acknowledging collaboration. :furious3:

Quote:

---

The US military can destroy the offensive military capabilities of any nation on earth without the use of nuclear weapons within a matter of days and destroy the infrastructure of said nation within weeks.

---

Except Israel*

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Nope, my ancestors were Nazis.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

I get tired of countries that had their asses handed to them glorifying their (pathetic) attempts at resistance while not even acknowledging collaboration. :furious3:

---

I come from a country where the resistance operated airports, held its own fleet , kept large parts of the country virtually nazi free and cost the nazi regime shitloads of resources.

Its time to read the facts and see that the nazis had to fight as much at the fronts as they had to fight behind them. Constant sabotaging and the loss of troops enentually took their toll and the nazis lost at the front as well. To deny this, despite all historical facts, isnt much different than to deny that the nazis killed jews.

Collaboration was never hidden,where you have heroes you ll have traitors and no nation is immune to this, its just that the collaborators were mostly killed or fled after the nazis pulled out, as collaborators always do. The stigma of having a collaborator in the family still exists in some places today 60 years after.


P.S: Its not a matter of who had his ass handed in the beginning, its always a matter of who gets his ass handed to them at the end...and that was the Nazis. Some of them really thought that they d be welcomed in the countries they occupied , its an illusion that still looms around.

Quote:

---

Its time to read the facts and see that the nazis had to fight as much at the fronts as they had to fight behind them. Constant sabotaging and the loss of troops enentually took their toll and the nazis lost at the front as well. To deny this, despite all historical facts, isnt much different than to deny that the nazis killed jews.

---

Are you really trying to say that resistance movements in any European countries caused the loss of the war? Maybe the Russian partisans had a significant impact, but not the others.

The facts are that the Nazis had a very successful occupation technique. In many countries they were able to play the populations against each other, and in many others they were able to draw recruits.

Some countries such as France were easy to occupy, and some like Greece were a bit tougher, but neither had a significant impact on the Nazis ability to wage war. As i said earlier.. the myths of glorious resistance are just that - myths.

Quote:

---

Collaboration was never hidden,where you have heroes you ll have traitors and no nation is immune to this, its just that the collaborators were mostly killed or fled after the nazis pulled out, as collaborators always do. The stigma of having a collaborator in the family still exists in some places today 60 years after.

---

In many countries the Nazis only needed a token force as they could play the collaborators against the "patriots".. that part is downplayed if not ignored by many.



PS. Do you really have to make vague links between the Nazis and the Americans? Remember where that innuendo lead last time... ~:eek

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Except Israel*

~;)

---

Yup, we armed them better than we armed Saddam. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Nope, my ancestors were Nazis.

---

Same, my great uncle fought in the Wehrmacht during Overlord. I hate it when people tend to deamonize my family over their actions in the past. The truth is that they were all good people, every last one of them. They fought for their nation, and there is nothing wrong with that.

The French resistance did nothing, and the French, on a whole, did very little in World War Two. Also, in regards to Vichy France, I'll have to say that Henri Philippe Pétain saved many French lives by creating the Vichy state.

Anyway, back to the topic.

The US can currently take out any nation, we, like all nations at this time, don't have enough men to occupy the nation effectivly. That can be solved simply with a draft or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Are you really trying to say that resistance movements in any European countries caused the loss of the war? Maybe the Russian partisans had a significant impact, but not the others.

---

well, by 1942 the Nazis had commited about 600,000 men to Yugoslavia, that's 38 divisions that weren't available for El Alamein or STalingrad.

Just sayin, props where they are due.

Wow. I think this discussion needs to cool just a little.

PanzerJager and Kaiser, I tend to agree with you on most points. But the nazi convo is a tad much for me.

I will concede that Nazi Germany displayed innovative and forward thinking military prowess. Nazi Germany was one of the most powerful military states in the history of the world.


But let us be very very clear on this topic. The aims of Nazi Germany were purely evil. The actions of Nazi Germany were purely evil. These were not men defending their country, they were men conquering peaceful neighbors and decimating populations. I think any nationalistic feelings that you gentlemen obviously feel about the history of your country are slightly misguided. I am deeply saddened to see pride replace shame.

By comparison, it would be like me in America proclaiming the brilliant economic strategy of Slavery.

To get back on topic:

The U.S. held two strategic visions for our forces.

(1) To be able to fight and win two major regional wars at the same time. The two nations that this applied to most were Iraq and Korea at the same time.

(2) That has modified quite a bit. Now, the U.S. strategic vision is to be the "international spearhead". It is the intent of U.S. policy to lead the world in a war, rapidly destroying an enemy with overwhelming force and ability. The idea is that the U.S. would special in the entry, and that NATO/EU/etc would handle the low intensity conflict that followed.

The problem with our current philosophy is that it requires allies to accomplish. You can't piuss everyone off and then expect them to follow your "grand vision" of free-nation world military strategy.


And all comparisons between the U.S. and Nazi Germany are disgusting. You people make me sick. We could easily carpet bomb anyone and annihilate entire populations, but instead we choose to use pinpoint accurate missles and risk our men in combat to avoid civilian casualties. We don't slaughter innocents, take slaves, or engage in genocide. We want freedom for Iraq. Freedom dammnitt. I will not believe my Marines have fought and died for imperialism. I will not believe that I am part of an evil military force, bent on world domination. My Marine Corps and the soldiers in my brother Army fight for the love of peace, stability, and human rights. It is about dignity, honor, respect, integrity. What the hell is wrong with you people?