Draw Down

[Strike For The South]

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

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

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

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

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

So why?

[Vladimir]

Because.

[Strike For The South]

Because.

[Fisherking]

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

You will find that we did a massive draw down.

We went from 16 Division to what we have now.

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

Don’t confuse Manpower with Budget.

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


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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

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

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

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

What about the moral and ethical issue of bases?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

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

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

What about the moral and ethical issue of bases?

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Fisherking]

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

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

Yes but they make people rich.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

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

Dangerous isolationism!

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

[Slyspy]

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