The U.S. Army Must Remain Prepared for Battle by Gian Gentile, Washington Post
... Virtually no Americans anticipated either the North Korean attack in 1950 or Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait 40 years later. That seems to be the pattern: U.S. presidents send the Army to resolve unexpected crises, ready or not.
The world today presents a wide array of potential threats to U.S. interests, including a failed North Korean state losing control of its weapons of mass destruction, the morass of civil war in Syria, an aggressive and expansionist Russia or China, or still-unforeseen humanitarian crises in Africa and other areas. If called upon, the U.S. Army would deploy and engage in peacekeeping operations or major combat between state and non-state actors. In any event, it needs to be ready.
Some have argued that after the frustrating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is little American appetite to send the Army into foreign lands, whether to fight, build nations or distribute humanitarian supplies. This line of thinking holds that the U.S. Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps can handle most of the security problems the world throws our way…
Comments
<blockquote>But the Army seems to be unable bring to a decisive conclusion the missions they are assigned unless the mission is a massive asymmetrical overmatch against an incompetent foe such as the Gulf War.</blockquote>
From the history of OIF in "On Point" Figure 45, on page 100:
..........................Iraqi forces from Desert Storm to OIF
............Desert Storm..........................................Operation Iraqi Freedom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*950,000 troops in 60 divisions......................*280-350,000 troops in 17 divisions
*Republican Guard estimated 150K.................*Republican Guard of 50-80K troops
*Over 5,000 tanks, 5000 APCs, 3000 artillery..*Over 2,200 tanks, 2,400 APCs, 4000 artillery
Yeah, sounds like an enemy force that a few LAV-25s and SF on horseback could have handled.
Sorry to disagree Curmudgeon but the U. S. Army’s performance measured against the overwhelming resources that has been made available to it since 1945 is a sorry record indeed. But the Army seems to be unable bring to a decisive conclusion the missions they are assigned unless the mission is a massive asymmetrical overmatch against an incompetent foe such as the Gulf War.
JPWREL - We don't need to reinvent the Army. The Army is just fine. The Air Force and the Navy need to get their acts together, as they are spending huge amounts of money on programs they don't need. But, beyond the horrendous acquisition system the military has, the biggest thing DoD needs to do is stop fighting against itself and come up with a realistic system where the services work together. Why do we have an Army and a Marine Corps? How do we delineate the land combat mission? Why does the Navy have planes? Why does the Army have boats? How about coming up with plan that effectively spends our tax dollars and provides a coherent defensive?
The Army does fine for what it is good for, large force on force land battles. It does not do COIN well, largely due to flawed doctrine. That could be fixed, but it will not because no one really wants to fix it. It does not do humanitarian relief well or stability operations. So give those two missions to the Marines or, as others have suggested, create a new force specifically for that mission (https://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace). Let the Army do what it does well, but then size them and equip them for that mission. Don't try to make them do everything.
Did I forget to mention Multi-national Force and Observer peacekeeping in the Sinai since the 80s and the gap in warfare there since 1973 when a previous major war occurred there just 6 years earlier? Just a coincidence: 40+ years of peace vs. 6 years of "peace" between '67 and '73. That Democrat neocon Jimmy Carter arranged that Army mission. What about that other Democrat President Clinton who used the Army in the Balkans to reduce genocide. What a warmonger.
Being the right-wing demagogue that I am, I watched Fareed Zakaria today for his insights. He had an often quoted Harvard professor on his show that compared the U.S. to a number of other countries in a number of different areas. He noted that despite spending the most on medical care in the entire world, the U.S. ranked only <strong>70th</strong> in Health and Wellness vs. other much poorer countries.
I seem to recall that our Army won Korea, could have won Vietnam had it bombed again in '75 (when I was in AIT hearing about it) as it did during the Easter Offensive, kicked booty in Desert Storm and Panama, did it again in early OIF until politicians would not change the borders, could have done it in Afghanistan much quicker if not for adequate Army resources being diverted to an unnecessary Iraq war, and prevented a WWIII for 69 years when only about 20 years separated the two previous World Wars on the same continent.
Yeah, I see your point.
We already spend more money on the military than the next 18 or 19 nations in the world combined and almost all those nations are our allies. The debilities and dysfunctionalities of the U. S. Army over the past 69 years will not be resolved by pouring more money into it without pulling this organization out of the ground by its roots and radically reinventing it. Throwing good money after bad is a suckers game and does the Army and our country no service. Until the Army is completely revamped from top to bottom it’s future will be to lose core missions to the much more relevant USMC and Special Operations community.
Move forward,
A quick response. You are talking about ALL revenue. Social Security is self funding out of payroll taxes. If you only talk about income tax, the breakdown is like this:
27% Military plus 5.1% VA for a total about 32% of income tax revenue.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/11/pf/taxes/how-federal-income-taxes-are-s…
The Affordable Care Act reduces the burden on the taxpayer. We save in the range of $50 Billion over ten years. The congressional budget officer estimates $100 Billion, but actual savings will be less.
"When the Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would reduce deficits by more than $100 billion in the first decade, and by considerably more in the second decade -- by half a percent of economic growth. A half percent of GDP over a decade could mean reducing deficits by more than $1 trillion." http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/28/news/economy/obamacare-deficits/
The only way defense spending changes anything is by going down.
I agree that the Air Force, in particular, is spending money on programs they don't need. That too, will have to change when the sequestration cuts come back into effect on the DoD in two years.
Reality is that we cannot afford to be the world's police. The world is not paying us for that. We cannot afford the hubris of American exceptionalism; our need to relive the glory days of our global military empire. Gentlemen, we have run out of money, now we need to think.
TheCurmudgeon posted this farther below:
<blockquote>What were the tax rates in the Carter and Clinton administrations. The top income tax rate in 1980 was 70%. It is now 39%. About 32% of the income tax collected goes to pay for defense. We have a fairly large national debt. I don't see anyone talking about raising the income tax to pay for defense. So "more" is probably not in the picture.</blockquote>Agree completely that top earners and higher portions of income should be taxed at a higher rate. Your statement about 32% of income taxes going to defense is a distortion of the overall federal revenues that were as follows in FY13:
$3.5 trillion or 21% of GDP with $2.8 trillion in revenues and nearly $700 billion borrowed contributing to the $17 trillion debt.
The breakdown of programs using federal taxes/revenues in FY13 is as follows:
24% Social Security
22% Medicare/Medicaid
<strong>19% Defense (1/5 of 21% is 4.2% of GDP)</strong>
12% Safety net (unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance, etc.)
8% Federal retirees and veterans
6% Interest on debt
3% Transportation (gas taxes that should increase given better fuel efficiency)
2% Science and Medical research
1% Education (primarily paid for by state and property taxes)
1% International aid
3% All other
These figures came from this link:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
So in addition to raising income tax rates on top earners, we also should be raising the maximum income on which Social Security and Medicare taxes are paid. Those whose income is primarily capital gains, such as Mitt Romney and others who elect more stock payments rather than straight salary need to pay a different tax rate on annual gains above say $100,000. That would partially compensate for the lower effective tax rate they pay and the lack of Social Security and Medicare payments. The wealthiest amongst us have seen their incomes rise $275% over the past decade while the typical family's income has remained stagnant or actually declined. Improved tax fairness is appropriate since so few of our wealthiest families have sons/daughters serving our nation.
<blockquote>Add to that the fact that Generals are going to capital hill to argue for reduced Soldier benefits to maintain readiness. That does not sound like we have extra money floating around.</blockquote>The rate of military compensation has accelerated far beyond inflation over the past 13+ years. In addition, Tricare payments must rise since there has not been an increase in years. Our troops deserve to be well compensated but considering that much of their pay is non-taxable they are highly compensated right now surpassing the level of their equivalent qualifications in the civil sector. A lottery-style draft for E-1 through E-3s in all services at reduced pay (enlistees too) would go a long way to reducing military personnel costs.
<blockquote>What you describe may be possible in a situation where resources are unconstrained. That is not the world we live in.</blockquote>
Revenues have been constrained by both political parties. What is it about Rand Paul and his dad (both doctors) who think that isolationism is the answer? Why don't they fix the medical sector first? Obviously looking at the cost of Medicare/Medicaid and the increasing cost of medical insurance thanks to the "Affordable" Care Act, that is a far greater problem than defense spending.
If this administration would allow the Keystone pipeline and other drilling activities on public lands, additional revenues would be forthcoming and energy-related sanctions would be more effective. On the other hands, Nevada cattle ranchers who refuse to pay grazing rights fees for use of public lands are equally at fault and should not be turned into heroes. Both parties are at fault. Priorities for defense spending also have become distorted in favor of the air and sea services.
For instance, I've read that the Navy usually spends about $12 billion per year on ship construction. However when you want to build an $8 billion Ohio-Class replacement and a $14 billion new carrier, plus two Virginia class subs per year, you rapidly deplete that ship-building budget. Then the Navy starts asking to revise the proven even distribution of funds across the services by cutting the active Army to its smallest size since before WWII. $800 million LRS-B and $380 million F-22s (including increment upgrade costs) don't help the overall DoD budget either. Nor does the demand to retain the nuclear triad when a biad would suffice by eliminating nuclear silos/ICBMs and reducing the number of nuclear capable subs and putting more missiles or warheads on each.
<blockquote>This is the standard "we need everything right now because we can't see the future" argument. FUD as policy. No in-depth analysis. No explanation of what combinations of forces are needed – Light versus Heavy; Active versus reserves. Nothing new, and nothing convincing.</blockquote>Let's see your numbers. Tell me how a future active Soldier avoids multiple combat tours every other 9 months with a 420,000 man Army? Are you predicting all future wars will be short? Shall we call you Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld? Did you know that when President Jimmy Carter left office our active Army had over 770,000? He also started the procurement process for the Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and Patriot air defense system. Was President Carter a hawk and big defense spender?
<blockquote>Expansionist China -- that one is the Navy's unless you are planning a land invasion of mainland China. Perhaps, but I will place that possibility as low. But if that is what you are thinking, than we are going to need everything we have, and we can't afford to keep 1.2 million Soldiers on active duty just in case China decides to get froggy.</blockquote>How about a land insurgency on Taiwan? Did you know that Taiwan was the first nation to buy AH-64Es? Is Taiwan in range of the Philippines and Japan for air assaults? Can Apaches and UH-60s transit through carriers and USNS Montford Point/John Glenn and ships like the Ponce without actually being on board permanently? Where do you keep getting this million+ man active Army?????
<blockquote>Expansionist Russia -- Perhaps as far as there are ethnic Russians in the "near abroad", but probably not more expansion than that. Army response: preposition a BCT or two of Armor in Poland, sell Poland all our A-10s for cheap. Not a huge commitment.</blockquote>Alright, we agree on something and it doesn't require an ounce of U.S. blood most likely....although I could be another Secretary Rumsfeld.
<blockquote>Civil war in Syria -- So far, no Army commitment.</blockquote>
So what if Turkey shoots down another Syrian fighter and Assad's boys get pissed and start attacking border targets and refugee camps? What if Hezbollah gets a hold of chemical WMD and attacks Israel with it using rockets...Israel responds and then Iran responds? What if Assad gets bold and decides to seek revenge against Jordan? Must we have ground troops actually in Syria to be a deterrent? Could air assaults into Syria using SOF secure WMD sites with overhead air cover? How many barrel bombs will we let Syria drop on civilians before we start targeting the helicopters and fighter aircraft targeting innocent neighborhoods? What if Assad keeps stalling on giving up his chemical WMD? How am I doing Secretary Rumsfeld?
<blockquote>OK, one at a time. Failed North Korea -- response, well mostly South Korea with our assistance as well as China's. Probably not a huge Army commitment since a failed North Korea is going to be a humanitarian disaster, not a military one. And you are not going to secure NK Nukes with a division or two. The Forces needed will be relatively small and already on the peninsula.</blockquote>Welcome to the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld school of predicting how the chaos of war will evolve. I can envision a scenario where only South Korea's ROK goes north of the DMZ while U.S. forces stay to the south securing infrastructure and South Korea cities from infiltrator and special ops attacks. How many troops would that require with most of the ROK in the north? What if Russia and China want to play and grab a piece of the pie and stability operations? Do you see this conflict being over quickly...like Secretary Rumsfeld? No nukes finding targets or massive artillery bombardment of Seoul?
Move Forward,
Three quick answers.
Using the Guard/Reserves. Yes, the intent would be to replace active with Guard/Reserve where required. If we are not going to use them then shut them down and use the money you save to get more active duty forces - that wont buy you what you can get by having them in the Guard/Reserves. If anything, I would look an adding strength there. Initially I would use 12 month rotations. That is plenty of time to get the Guard/Reserves up and running.
Locations. Although I agree with your general comments, they are not relevant to the exercise. We are trying to determine how large an Army you need. You do that off of policy guidance. Policy dictates what we need to have and what we need to have it for. For all I know the one major war is in Europe and the hold action is in Korea. Remember, we serve civilian masters who set the tune we march to.
Policy. Policy may change, but I doubt it. You are talking about planning in a resource constrained environment. We have to set the rules and then play by them or we will bankrupt ourselves preparing to fight windmills that we see everywhere. It is also about time our allies start stepping in. I am not anti-military, I am anti-lazy analysis.
<blockquote>So, the Active Duty Army needs to be able to fight one major regional war while assisting in deterring or defeating an opportunistic aggressor. The size of a force I have seen several places for fighting one major regional war is five divisions, roughly 90,000 troops. With support, we can bring it to 200,000 for one year or less. Why one year or less? In part, because any war that will last longer than that will certainly require additional reserve units and in part because the language of the “Priorities” indicates that operations for “an extended period” will include mobilized forces from the Guard or Reserves. What do we need for the opportunistic aggressor? Well, we haven’t committed the Marines yet. But let’s give the operation another division with support, say 50,000 Soldiers. Let’s include force generations, training, non-deploying logistics, and other Soldiers numbering, of, let’s say, 80,000. Add a SOF force of, say 60,000, and you get a REQUIRED force of 390,000 Soldiers without ever touching the Guard or Reserve. Our floor should never drop below that."</blockquote>
Admittedly, mine also will be a giant SWAG as I have no idea what the real numbers are...nor do you I suspect.:)
To recap, you foresee 200,000 Soldiers fighting one major regional war for one year or less and you assume 50,000 for deterring or defeating an opportunistic aggressor for a total of 250,000. But why should Soldiers deploy for a full year when the USAF has 10 AEFs that only deploy for 4-6 months at a time less often because they have sufficient force structure to accomplish that? It sounds like you advocate replacing every active Soldier with an activated reserve component trooper after nine months to a year? Why can’t the USAF, Marines, and Navy do that? If not, you still have an active Soldier who is on a “9 months deployed/9 months home” schedule with some of the “9 months home” spent training at distant places like NTC and JRTC.
Few of your 80,000 active troops listed for “force generation, training, non-deploying logistics, and other Soldiers” will be available to replace that newly required 250,000 every 9 months because they are on longer tours in TRADOC or recruiting command, for instance. There probably are another 60,000 that cannot deploy due to medical conditions from prior tours and that are the wrong MOS or job specialty for unique theater requirements. Sounds like you are up to 390,000 and you still expect most troops to endure something close to a “9 months deployed/9 months home” unless advocating reserves filling all slots for the next 18 months after the conflict’s first 9 months.
Now look at actual locations. How many Army forces are still required in Korea, Italy, Germany, and say Poland as we fight elsewhere? Are those the sole locations where an opportunistic aggression could occur? The Army probably still needs at least 50,000 active troops forward deployed and at Fort Bragg that are separate from the 50,000 “hold” force if both the conflict and opportunistic aggressor theaters are neither Korea nor Europe. That sounds like 390,000 plus another 100,000 for hold duties and permanent deterrence and ready brigade functions or 490,000 active Soldiers.
Lastly, the document you cite no doubt was written well prior to its January 2012 publication date. Much has changed since then in terms of Syria and the Ukraine. A new questionable leader took over in North Korea in December 2011 that we initially knew nothing about. What we have learned since then is hardly encouraging. The Senkakus are looking frisky with the possibility of China doing something foolish against our “marching band” Marines and other Japanese forces. That rules out any diversion of your Marines elsewhere. It’s well and good to use generic wars in a document, but existing commitments for deterrence and other Combatant Command operations rapidly throw the theoretical numbers and locations out the window.
Move Forward,
What were the tax rates in the Carter and Clinton administrations. The top income tax rate in 1980 was 70%. It is now 39%. About 32% of the income tax collected goes to pay for defense. We have a fairly large national debt. I don't see anyone talking about raising the income tax to pay for defense. So "more" is probably not in the picture.
Add to that the fact that Generals are going to capital hill to argue for reduced Soldier benefits to maintain readiness. That does not sound like we have extra money floating around.
What you describe may be possible in an situation where resources are unconstrained. That is not the world we live in.
Now look at the missions. The bottom line is that these missions and strategies were created by one President’s administration and do not reflect actual requirements for a non-isolationist defense policy in the 2014-and-beyond operational environment. I already cited both the Democratic Clinton and Carter administrations as being far less isolationist and far more realistic about the need for a large active Army. Nevertheless, let’s still look at their January 2012 document that cites not just one, but many potential Army missions within the ten missions listed:
<strong>Counter Terrorism and Irregular Warfare</strong>
<blockquote>Acting in concert with other means of national power, U.S. military forces must continue to hold al-Qaida and its affiliates and adherents under constant pressure, wherever they may be.</blockquote> This Army SOF mission does not stop just because other deterrence, war-related, or stability operations are ongoing. 60,000 Army SOF (many in reserves?) cannot substitute for required armored, Stryker, or Infantry BCTs either or vice versa.
<strong>Deter and Defeat Aggression</strong>
<blockquote>Our ground forces will be responsive and capitalize on balanced lift, presence, and prepositioning to maintain the agility needed to remain prepared for the several areas in which such conflicts could occur.</blockquote>This requires the prepositioning and actual force presence in places like Korea and Europe. It also feeds directly into the next mission listed:
<strong>Project Power Despite A2/AD Challenges</strong> This is closely related to “Deter and Defeat Aggression.” Heavy armor in the U.S. or strictly in the reserves is not much of a deterrent.
<strong>Counter WMD</strong> 1) Air and missile defense. 2) Army chemical units. 3) SOF raids. 4) GPF ability to operate in a chemical/biological environment in MOPP gear and protected to some degree from nuclear radiation in heavily armored elevated vehicles with additional sandbags.
<strong>Operate Effectively in Cyberspace</strong> Army forces have the ability to fight using mission orders and command in the absence of communications, navigating using maps, and shooting with non-electronic weapons.
<strong>Maintain a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Deterrent</strong> But do we need to spend $8 billion each for 10 subs, $800 million per 100 LRS-B single-purpose aircraft, and who knows what for silos, personnel, and ICBMs? The $355 billion total over a ten year period seems grossly excessive and less of a deterrent than conventional boots, aircraft, and ships that actually can be used conventionally without penetrating the adversary’s homeland and appearing to be a threat to their nuclear weapons and C2.
<strong>Defend the Homeland and Provide Support to Civil Authorities</strong> This becomes a dual mission when forces are placed closer to the Pacific in places like Hawaii and Alaska. The National Guard has a primary mission in this venue which is why transfer of Apaches to active units and replacing them with UH-60s seems to make sense while also saving $12+ billion.
<strong>Provide a Stabilizing Presence</strong> <blockquote> U.S. forces will conduct a sustainable pace of presence operations abroad, including rotational deployments and bilateral and multilateral training exercises.</blockquote>Can Pacific Pathways perform this mission and “Deter and Defeat Aggression” simultaneously? It also is “Projecting Power Despite A2/AD Challenges” because China would need to decide if it made sense to sink a ship with U.S. equipment already en route elsewhere thereby expanding U.S. resolve to intervene vs. only dealing with Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, or Vietnam.
<strong>Conduct Stability and Counterinsurgency Operations</strong><blockquote> However, U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.</blockquote> This famous quote is the Obama administration acting like Secretary Rumsfeld assuming durations of stability operations that are wholly unpredictable and likely to be longer if we go in light initially as happened in Afghanistan and Iraq.
<strong>Conduct Humanitarian, Disaster Relief, and other Operations</strong><blockquote> “DoD will continue to develop joint doctrine and military response options to prevent and, if necessary, respond to mass atrocities.”</blockquote> Yet since this document was written, numerous atrocities have occurred in Syria to the tune of 150,000 lost lives (some to chemical WMD) and millions of refugees.
The bottom line is you can wish away Army missions and continue straining active Soldier lives all you want if your administration’s priorities are flawed and you lack the will or intestinal fortitude to do the right thing for our nation and its allies/friends.
Move Forward, I apologize for using the same basic argument twice, but everytime I start to type something and post it I lose it, so here in my basic thoughts on what we need. It does not necessarily say where we need it:
“Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense” (“Priorities”) lists ten Primary Missions of the U.S. Armed Forces, but “[t]he overall capacity of U.S. forces, however, will be based on requirements that the following subset of missions demand: counter terrorism and irregular warfare; deter and defeat aggression; maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent; and defend the homeland and provide support to civil authorities.” Of those four, the only one that requires a large Army contingent is “deter and defeat aggression”. Under that heading the capabilities are defined loosely as a “win one, hold one” requirement. “As a nation with important interests in multiple regions, our forces must be capable of deterring and defeating aggression by an opportunistic in one region even when our forces are committed to a large-scale operation elsewhere” This does not mean that Soldiers on the ground will be required to deter or defeat the opportunistic aggressor. “Even when the U.S. forces are committed to large scale operations in one region, they will be capable of denying the objectives of – or imposing unacceptable costs on – an opportunistic aggressor in a second region.” Arguably, imposing unacceptable costs could be effected without large scale maneuver elements on the ground.
So, the Active Duty Army needs to be able to fight one major regional war while assisting in deterring or defeating an opportunistic aggressor. The size of a force I have seen several places for fighting one major regional war is five divisions, roughly 90,000 troops. With support, we can bring it to 200,000 for one year or less. Why one year or less? In part, because any war that will last longer than that will certainly require additional reserve units and in part because the language of the “Priorities” indicates that operations for “an extended period” will include mobilized forces from the Guard or Reserves. What do we need for the opportunistic aggressor? Well, we haven’t committed the Marines yet. But let’s give the operation another division with support, say 50,000 Soldiers. Let’s include force generations, training, non-deploying logistics, and other Soldiers numbering, of, let’s say, 80,000. Add a SOF force of, say 60,000, and you get a REQUIRED force of 390,000 Soldiers without ever touching the Guard or Reserve. Our floor should never drop below that."
The real issue with the Army is not how big it is but how fast you can get it to where you need it, and what else can you be doing in that time frame. There is also a question of mix of force type for the mission. We keep arguing that the Infantry can do everything, but that is probably not the case. We might need more MPs, Medics, and Engineers for disaster relief. Stuff we tend to put in the Reserves and National Guard. If we are going to have heavy armor, maybe we need to place it forward along with the logistics needed to run it.
I just get the feeling that the Army is a combination of Congress and Oliver Twist, just "give me more, sir". If I have a 750,000 Soldier Army I don't need to seriously consider what I need to train on, I can have something for everything, and yet nothing for what you need.
<blockquote>Another "We need a 1,000,000 Soldier active duty Army TODAY!" argument with little substantive analysis of threats or response.</blockquote>I agree there is little new here. However, you are asking for math analytics while historians in general tend to not understand numbers and technology's influence in changing warfare. In Gentile's defense, however, I see nothing in this article asking for a million man active Army.
Even Bill Clinton had a 490,000 man Army and used it in the Balkans. The fact that so many active Soldiers deployed so many times (often 5 times for a full year or more) in recent conflicts (to include the Balkans), assisted ably by many reserve component troops, should be intuitive evidence that a large active Army is required. How will we engage future adversaries with 420,000 active Soldiers? Do you want every Soldier to be divorced and/or suicidal? Do you perceive that PTSD and traumatic brain injury is real and that numerous nearly back-to-back tours in a combat environment contribute to it?
I think that the answer to that question (why do we need the Army that we have) previously ran along these lines:
a. To keep what we have gained. And
b. To get more.
Recently, however,with (1) the fallacy of "universal values" revealed and (2) the coming of the financial crisis, now we seek only to have armed forces which can, primarily, "keep what we have gained."
China and Russia, however, perceiving our weakness, have stepped forward to threaten (via "loss of stability") this goal also.
1. Hope for the best. Plan for the worst.
2. In order to deter war, one must plan and prepare for war.
3. To build a "stable international order." What China and Russia seem to be saying is that the price that must be paid -- to achieve such an order -- is human and other resources, territory and, not the expansion of the West (as we, and they, have been witnessing) but, indeed, the withdrawal of the West from their (China and Russia's) historical spheres of influence.
4. The gauntlet has been thrown down. The cost of stability -- which the West desires -- will have to be paid for via the loss of portions of the world that the West has, over time, gained.
5. Thus, not a unipolar world, but one that is drawn up, and divided, between the US, the EU, Russia and China.
6. If we are not prepared to make such concessions, so as to achieve a stable international order, then we must prepare for war.
7. Thus:
a. "Fish" (seek a stable international order) via withdrawal, rather than expansion, in various areas of the world or
b. "Cut bait" (continue to press forward to transform other states and societies more along modern western lines and to, thereby, incorporate these transformed states and societies into the western sphere of influence ). However, if this is our priority, then we must prepare for war -- and on both the great power and lesser state and society fronts.
Bill, I have seen this before. It is an interesting piece on the wars of the recent past and how we stumbled into them. I have said elsewhere that events in the Ukraine are more reminiscent of the start of WWI than the opening events of WWII.
However, what McClellan is advocating is not a stronger American military or America as the World Police. That type of power creates a threat to others who feel they must be able to respond in kind – Germany and Britain; the US and the USSR. What she is advocating is an international coalition to limit the possibility of war:
“It may take a moment of real danger to force the major powers of this new world order to come together in coalitions able and willing to act. Action, if it does come, may be too little and too late, and the price we all pay for that delay may well be high. Instead of muddling along from one crisis to another, now is the time to think again about those dreadful lessons of a century ago in the hope that our leaders, with our encouragement, will think about how they can work together to build a stable international order.”
But I do like it for the limited amount of writing and a lot of color and pictures.
Another "We need a 1,000,000 Soldier active duty Army TODAY!" argument with little substantive analysis of threats or response.
From the article" The world today presents a wide array of potential threats to U.S. interests, including a failed North Korean state losing control of its weapons of mass destruction, the morass of civil war in Syria, an aggressive and expansionist Russia or China, or still-unforeseen humanitarian crises in Africa and other areas. If called upon, the U.S. Army would deploy and engage in peacekeeping operations or major combat between state and non-state actors. In any event, it needs to be ready."
OK, one at a time. Failed North Korea -- response, well mostly South Korea with our assistance as well as China's. Probably not a huge Army commitment since a failed North Korea is going to be a humanitarian disaster, not a military one. And you are not going to secure NK Nukes with a division or two. The Forces needed will be relatively small and already on the peninsula
Civil war in Syria -- So far, no Army commitment.
Expansionist Russia -- Perhaps as far as there are ethnic Russians in the "near abroad", but probably not more expansion than that. Army response: preposition a BCT or two of Armor in Poland, sell Poland all our A-10s for cheap. Not a huge commitment.
Expansionist China -- that one is the Navy's unless you are planning a land invasion of mainland China. Perhaps, but I will place that possibility as low. But if that is what you are thinking, than we are goign to need everything we have, and we can't afford to keep 1.2 million Soldiers on active duty just in case China decides to get froggy.
Africa -- Yes, but not more than an Infantry or Stryker BCT.
So far, taking all of those commitments together, you still don't stretch a 450K Army, or even a 400K one.
This is the standard "we need everything right now because we can't see the future" argument. FUD as policy. No in-depth analysis. No explanation of what combinations of forces are needed – Light versus Heavy; Active versus reserves. Nothing new, and nothing convincing.