The need for large numbers of standing armies is gone. Cyber warfare is the future. Of course we'll still need armed forces, but pitched battles like WWII are over. Our money should go to a mix of high tech and decidedly low tech as well.

We can cut the budget without changing the mission. We've got a crap ton of unneeded hardware and projects. The whole system isn't based on making our military strong, it's based on feeding defense contractors.

(02-17-2018 10:23 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Biden, if he was interested.

Trump is too obnoxious for you, but you'd be okay with Biden???

Pardon me, while I LMAO.

Ab so frickin lutely. No comparison. Hope you didn't shart yourself.

(02-17-2018 12:45 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  We can cut the budget without changing the mission. We've got a crap ton of unneeded hardware and projects. The whole system isn't based on making our military strong, it's based on feeding defense contractors.

This^ part of capitalism run amuck. Defense is a sacred cow so every greedy bastard in America wants to suck on this tit. Then complain about red tape and bureaucrats.

(02-17-2018 12:45 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  We can cut the budget without changing the mission. We've got a crap ton of unneeded hardware and projects. The whole system isn't based on making our military strong, it's based on feeding defense contractors.

The first problem is that we really don't know WTF the mission is. Are we still in the Bretton Woods model of defending the free world and protecting its trade routes? Or are we into something different? Without clearly defined missions and from that derived concepts of operations (CONOPS), we don't know how to organize or what to buy or build.

Here's the way I see it. We have three existential threats--nuclear, cyber, and terrorism. Defending against those needs to be at the top. There are three potential hot spots--Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the China Sea--each with its own wanna-be hegemon--Russia, Iran, and China, respectively. If we can keep any of the regional conflicts from spreading further, and can work with allies to maintain a balance of power in each region sufficient to prevent dominance by the would-be hegemons, then we have achieved success.

I don't think the force to accomplish that looks like the one we are building.

(02-17-2018 10:28 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 04:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  We don't import very much oil from the Middle East. Most of what we protect is headed to Europe and Asia.

The US ambassador to Iraq told Saddam we didn't consider Arab-Arab disputes our business and he invades Kuwait and we made it our business, helped by fake propaganda such as the story about stealing incubators and dumping Kuwait babies out to take them.

We go to war and then since Saddam is still in power, Saudi Arabia is worried about future attacks by him and they offer the US places to base troops.

Bin Laden, rich and motivated, is offended that US troops "occupy" the country and are present at Islamic holy sites and declares war in 1996.

The terror campaign reached its peak on 9/11.

The result is now we not only have troops in Saudi Arabia but we've added Iraq and Afghanistan and the UAE and Oman and Turkey and Pakistan some of those not particularly stable and places where there are plenty of disgruntled people who aren't happy we are on the side of the current government.

We need to scale back.

So it’s OUR fault we were attacked, unprovoked, on 9/11, and the ME is now overrun with fatalistic lunatics?

Got it. Guess Pearl Harbor was our version of wearing a too short skirt on a public street after dark?

Got what we’s deserving.

Nah, this is a culture war, a battle of freedom vs. submission to a tyrannical, dictatorial, brutal cult of centuries past.

Thanks. I’ll take my chances on US.

I suppose if you are a binary thinker, then sure it's our fault.

The world is a messy place and history has shown repeatedly that every action has consequences, many unintended.

If the US doesn't take a big swath of the southwest from Mexico in the Mexican-American War, Germany doesn't have that to use as bait to offer to help Mexico retake those lands if the Mexicans will keep the US too busy to help in WWI. That telegram proved to be the tipping point to get the US to enter the war against Germany even though Mexico had zero interest in fighting.

Brits don't draw some arbitrary lines on maps that split up ethnic groups a lot of the mess in the mid east never happens.

Bin Laden was murderous ass with an agenda who was going to wage a terror campaign against someone. Our choices led him to choose to fight us rather than potentially devoting his energy to liberate Muslims still under Soviet control or to try undermine the Saudi royal family's control of Saudi Arabia.

(02-16-2018 04:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think Rand Paul is correct regarding the military. I'd start with removing our military from the ME and seeing where it goes.

I question any significant presence in Europe. I would close those bases first, see how that goes.

(02-17-2018 05:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 12:45 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  We can cut the budget without changing the mission. We've got a crap ton of unneeded hardware and projects. The whole system isn't based on making our military strong, it's based on feeding defense contractors.

The first problem is that we really don't know WTF the mission is. Are we still in the Bretton Woods model of defending the free world and protecting its trade routes? Or are we into something different? Without clearly defined missions and from that derived concepts of operations (CONOPS), we don't know how to organize or what to buy or build.

Here's the way I see it. We have three existential threats--nuclear, cyber, and terrorism. Defending against those needs to be at the top. There are three potential hot spots--Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the China Sea--each with its own wanna-be hegemon--Russia, Iran, and China, respectively. If we can keep any of the regional conflicts from spreading further, and can work with allies to maintain a balance of power in each region sufficient to prevent dominance by the would-be hegemons, then we have achieved success.

I don't think the force to accomplish that looks like the one we are building.

I think this concept goes beyond just the Bretton Woods system and is basically the concept that America is the hegemon that ensures the stability of the free trade system. Just like in the late 1800s we had the Pax Britannica, the world has operated under Pax Americana. Even though the dollar isn't pegged to a gold standard, it is still the default currency used for international transactions. I've complained a lot about U.S. military being in the ME and all over the world. However, it does seem to be the price to pay to ensure American leadership of the free trade world - and the boost it gives to the U.S. Dollar.

(02-17-2018 10:10 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 05:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 12:45 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  We can cut the budget without changing the mission. We've got a crap ton of unneeded hardware and projects. The whole system isn't based on making our military strong, it's based on feeding defense contractors.

The first problem is that we really don't know WTF the mission is. Are we still in the Bretton Woods model of defending the free world and protecting its trade routes? Or are we into something different? Without clearly defined missions and from that derived concepts of operations (CONOPS), we don't know how to organize or what to buy or build.

Here's the way I see it. We have three existential threats--nuclear, cyber, and terrorism. Defending against those needs to be at the top. There are three potential hot spots--Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the China Sea--each with its own wanna-be hegemon--Russia, Iran, and China, respectively. If we can keep any of the regional conflicts from spreading further, and can work with allies to maintain a balance of power in each region sufficient to prevent dominance by the would-be hegemons, then we have achieved success.

I don't think the force to accomplish that looks like the one we are building.

I think this concept goes beyond just the Bretton Woods system and is basically the concept that America is the hegemon that ensures the stability of the free trade system. Just like in the late 1800s we had the Pax Britannica, the world has operated under Pax Americana. Even though the dollar isn't pegged to a gold standard, it is still the default currency used for international transactions. I've complained a lot about U.S. military being in the ME and all over the world. However, it does seem to be the price to pay to ensure American leadership of the free trade world - and the boost it gives to the U.S. Dollar.

Not to mention that the future one world gov't requires our leadership.

(02-17-2018 10:10 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 05:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 12:45 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  We can cut the budget without changing the mission. We've got a crap ton of unneeded hardware and projects. The whole system isn't based on making our military strong, it's based on feeding defense contractors.

The first problem is that we really don't know WTF the mission is. Are we still in the Bretton Woods model of defending the free world and protecting its trade routes? Or are we into something different? Without clearly defined missions and from that derived concepts of operations (CONOPS), we don't know how to organize or what to buy or build.
Here's the way I see it. We have three existential threats--nuclear, cyber, and terrorism. Defending against those needs to be at the top. There are three potential hot spots--Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the China Sea--each with its own wanna-be hegemon--Russia, Iran, and China, respectively. If we can keep any of the regional conflicts from spreading further, and can work with allies to maintain a balance of power in each region sufficient to prevent dominance by the would-be hegemons, then we have achieved success.
I don't think the force to accomplish that looks like the one we are building.

I think this concept goes beyond just the Bretton Woods system and is basically the concept that America is the hegemon that ensures the stability of the free trade system.

Bretton Woods was more than a currency agreement. That was where we committed to become the hegemon that ensured the stability of the free trade system, in exchange for their tucking in behind our lead in fighting the Cold War. Problem was, nobody figured out what to if we won.

Quote:Just like in the late 1800s we had the Pax Britannica, the world has operated under Pax Americana. Even though the dollar isn't pegged to a gold standard, it is still the default currency used for international transactions. I've complained a lot about U.S. military being in the ME and all over the world. However, it does seem to be the price to pay to ensure American leadership of the free trade world - and the boost it gives to the U.S. Dollar.

The question going forward is what do we do instead of that, because we can't afford to keep doing that. One idea that interests me. After Brexit, UK will be free to form closer relations with commonwealth countries. Some have floated the idea of a consolidating the Commonwealth armed forces. Not sure how India and Pakistan get along, but otherwise it's a pretty strong force. Probably second strongest navy in the world, and not far behind army and air force. Perhaps we could reach some accommodation with them where they take over some of our peacekeeper roles.

(02-17-2018 04:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  We don't import very much oil from the Middle East. Most of what we protect is headed to Europe and Asia.

The US ambassador to Iraq told Saddam we didn't consider Arab-Arab disputes our business and he invades Kuwait and we made it our business, helped by fake propaganda such as the story about stealing incubators and dumping Kuwait babies out to take them.

We go to war and then since Saddam is still in power, Saudi Arabia is worried about future attacks by him and they offer the US places to base troops.

Bin Laden, rich and motivated, is offended that US troops "occupy" the country and are present at Islamic holy sites and declares war in 1996.

The terror campaign reached its peak on 9/11.

The result is now we not only have troops in Saudi Arabia but we've added Iraq and Afghanistan and the UAE and Oman and Turkey and Pakistan some of those not particularly stable and places where there are plenty of disgruntled people who aren't happy we are on the side of the current government.

We need to scale back.

To be fair, one problem is you need bases all over creation if your want an effective blue water navy that can project power anywhere. Thats expensive and gets you into all sorts of predicaments. I believe Washington warned us long ago to be wary of entangling alliances.

That saiid, with respect to the OP---I'd vote for "the mission being too large". Like it or not, we are effectively the worlds policeman and that job has become increasingly expensive with the rise of regional powers like China and Russia---who are building blue water navy's of their own. Our military is tasked with being able to fight two major wars away from our shores at once---thats a lot of capacity. Its much easier and cheaper to play defense and exert influence in regional areas where you really care about and enjoy nearby logistical support. For instance, its much easier and cheaper for China to make trouble in the S China Sea than it is for us to guarantee safe sea lanes in that corner of the world. Likewise, its much cheaper for Russia to threaten the eastern edge of NATO than it is for the US to defend that frontier.

This is one place I think Trump is correct---we cant afford to foot Europe's defense bill anymore.

(02-17-2018 04:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

Not debating your premise, with which I agree, but the map is a bit misleading. It counts as deployed "troops" such things as Marine detachments and defense attaches, people who are there more to fulfill traditional diplomatic niceties than to fight anyone. I mean, seriously, do you really think we have deployed troops in Russia and China?