How could the US be spread so thin?

As I understand it, the structure of the US armed forces since WWII was to be able to maintain deployment on several fronts. There were US military bases, ammo and supply depots, constant carrier battle groups, large Reserves forces, etc etc. We pour billions into all of these assets to guarantee our security first from Communism and now (apparently) from Terrorism.

We deployed between 11-15,000 troops to Afghanistan, largely special forces, plus a collection of coalition and local units. 15,000 troops is obviously, and has been shown to be, practically worthless for doing anything other than protecting Kabul (by comparison, we are deploying 35,000 troops to Baghdad alone for the elections). Much of these troops have been rotated out or moved to Iraq; a skeleton force remains and the country is a virtual anarchy.

Our initial Iraqi deployment was, what, 120,000 troops? The brilliant plan on attacking Iraq (blitzkreig Baghdad with overwhelming force and everyone will be happy and singing in the streets) proved less brilliant every hour that passed after the initial invasion; early on, the supply lines were being hit constantly, and most of the large cities were outside of US control. Units were rushed from Germany and other locations to stabilize the region. 2 years later, the situation is slightly improved, with local governments in place in most areas, but hte infrastructure remains vulnerable and attacks are carried out on a daily basis, while rebuilding has barely begun.

On top of that, apparently we can no longer draw on our Reservists, our soldiers have had their tours extended indefinitely, we’ve exhausted much of our military resources, and it generally seems like there is no way we could possibly enter another military engagement of any scale elsewhere, should the need arise.

How did this happen? We have less than 200,000 troops deployed (in combat) out of a population of 294,000,000. Additionally, regardless of having among the best trained and equipped and technologically advanced militaries in the world, we are incapable of providing security in even Baghdad and Kabul. Without the British troops supporting us, the tenuous grasp on the south of the country we have would be almost impossible.

I realize that much of our military is still deployed at regional bases, and stockpiles are being reserved in case they are needed elsewhere. Also, much of our military power is naval and air power based, which isn’t applicable in these situations, aside from the occasional strafing of cruise missile at a target. This is all on the Army and Marines.

But how did they get stretched so thin? How could that be allowed to happen? Who is responsible (OK, that last one is rhetorical)?

The Democrats. For not maintaining Cold War levels of troop deployments.

Have you forgotten “The Peace Dividend?”

The U.S. armed forces were downsized by over 300,000 soldiers between 1992 and 2001.

This was not a ‘Democrat’ problem, btw. Both parties managed to convince themselves that they ain’t a gonna study war no more. Francis Fukuyama, a conservative, declared “The end of history”, meaning that all the great battles for how society should be organized had been won. Silly man.

The same has happened every time the U.S. ended a war. Gross over-confidence in the future leading to excess military cuts.

I just dug up this link, which I’m still reading through

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=58&sequence=0

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=58&sequence=3

is interesting.

Rather obviously showing US operations & maint holding at 86 billion in '81, peaking at 107 billion in '89, and down to 92 billion around '96.

So while we were no longer at the levels of the end of the Reagan administration, we were still above or around what we were spending throughout the rest of the Cold War.

A question I have is, how the defense spending is cut. We’ve been and still are spending billions on developing and purchasing new jet fighters and air craft carrier groups and other projection projects, while apparently not maintaining sufficient ground forces. Were we in the Cold War mindset still?

Well, per-troop operation and maintenance costs would certainly be higher today than back in 1980. More stuff to take care of and more training to go through.

Explain? We’re basically spending more per-troop on things like their medical care (which Bush cut or tried to cut or whatever) and training operations?

The Iraq invasion force was supposed to be in and out, in, oh, weeks. Now it’s a war of occupation and attrition, using essentially all the Army’s combat capability. Got something to do with it.

Sam, good to see you’ve learned something in your time here.

And the maintenance of the myriad doo-dads that Joe Grunt now has (several hundred dollars for a geewhiz GPS unit, several thousand dollars for nightvision, IR lasers on rifles, etc.) The stuff is tough, but not soldier proof, and does require maintenance. And we have a lot of it.

But those last two cites you provided do a pretty good job of explaining the increased costs.

Every nation prepares to fight its last war. Between 1991 and 2001, the military based its development plans on Panama and the first Gulf War - quick wars won by overwhelming force. The less pleasant lessons of Yugoslavia and Somalia were unfortunately ignored.

Read a book called “Boyd” (the fighter pilot that won the war). Its a biography… but it pretty much shows how money is spent by the pentagon.

So a lot of money is spent in super high tech gizmos or planes when maybe something 50% cheaper could do 95% of the same things. Pork Barrel politics also account for a part of the military budget…

I’m not sure that the US could really do what they planned during the Cold War… of being able to have a Major conflict and a minor one at the same time. That would have relied very heavily on reserves… even more than Iraq. It was more a “warning” so that no one might get funny ideas if the US were embroiled in a major war.

Also don’t forget inflation… things cost more nowadays and what Brutus said too… more gizmos… more training…

Right, fair enough.

So we have an overall reduction of force coupled with increased maintenance operating on an outdated and shortsighted battleplan inconsistent with deployed conditions.

Does that sum it up?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

(That was the sound of Ultimate Suffering, in case you were wondering.)

Boyd was a damned fine pilot, but is painfully clueless when it comes to so many other aspects of the military. His conclusions about the Bradly IFV and Abrams MBT are amazingly wrong and ill-informed. Even his concept of what the F-16 should have been is pretty off.

I dunno if I would characterize our battleplan as ‘outdated’ or ‘shortsighted’. Iraq is just an ‘unnatural’ stress on the system right now. Sure, we are using a contingency plan to mobilize troops, but thats what those plans are for. And short of increasing the size of the Army by a couple of hundred thousand, the Reserves will continue to be called upon. Don’t forget, we were staffing parts of our operations in Kosovo and Bosnia with reservists starting in the 90’s.

Hey, maybe we can outsource peacekeeping operations to China. They have scads of light infantry, and I bet we can get a good deal…

I would really like to get more info on Boyd… the bad and the good. Could you point me to your sources ? I think the Bradley was pretty much bashed away in that movie too…

I don’t think the US army should be larger… and even if it were large “enough” there would be too much dependence on reservists and the Iraqis would still not be throwing flowers. I don’t think sticking in 50k more soldiers would make Iraq any less volatile.

A bad plan is still a bad plan even if you have lots of disposable chinese…

I don’t have any specific book or anything to point you to. I am just refering to some of the arguments that Boyd has made. It’s just that what he says flys in the face of what I read from pretty much any other of the modern military writers.

For example, he really really really wanted the F-16 to remain in its original configuration. Light and cheap. On the surface, that doesn’t sound too bad, but then you realize that the US doesn’t really need a day-only dogfighter, nor has it for many decades. In fact, the F-16 has devoloped into a all-weather multimission aircraft. Sure, it costs a lot more and weighs a lot more, but it can do far more than the original. The F-16I can do things the F-16A couldn’t dream of.

Then he also goes off on the Bradley and Abrams, probably the most successful IFV/MBT combo outside of Israel. Too heavy. Too complex. Et Cetera. I dunno. I get the idea that if he had his way, we’d be tooling around in T-72s and MiG-21s.

BTW, what movie?

The US did win WWII with those shitty Sherman tanks (well compared to Panzers)… I guess that is what Boyd is talking about in way. Machines without too many perks for half the price. I certainly agree there is a tendency for flashy technology and multiple functions that makes for costly US planes. Naturally the expensive toys work better… but at what cost ?

I don’t remember him attacking the M-1 abrahams in the book though… did he ?

There is a movie with Cary Elwes about how the Bradley was developed and all the crazy things done in the Pentagon. In the movie they take out all the fuel and ammo from the Bradley during firing tests in order to make it seem safer, etc… the movie is called “The Pentagon Wars”

There was this horrible movie with Cary Elwes about corruption in the testing of the Bradley. When I say horrible, I mean HORRIBLE. Sub-TV-movie quality.

I think “Boyd” and “The Pentagon Wars” might ruffle a few feathers… especially since the US military is so overly superior to others (technically at least). Aversion to these might be a defensive reaction to attacks on that most sacred institution of the US military. Still they obviously aren’t doing a great job as regards tax payers money.

Also those generals full of stars have always been aloof from the needs and requirements of the lesser mortals that they send into battle… see Rumsfeld’s comments recently for example.

I’ve also read a British book that clearly supports the kind of bullshit we see in the Boyd book and the movie. The book is called “The Psychology of Military Incompetence.” Its scary how generals and military institutions can be totally out of synch with reality.

Damn. All downhill after The Princess Bride, eh Mr.Elwes?

And I understand Boyds sentiment, but it seems just so damned wrong. If anything, he should be fumingly mad that we inflicted the Sherman on our troops, which lead to a long line of mediocre (at best) tanks, that lasted until the 1990’s.

P.S. I believe it was in a column in some magazine that he attacked the Abrams specifically.