Whatever, dude. Unless you’re suggesting that the military industrial complex postdates Vietnam, I’m not seeing how your argument works. For that matter, the casualties in Iraq are a few thousand casualties we didn’t need to have, all inflicted and sustained because our military was too big, too available, and too feedable. Your argument that a smaller military means bigger casualties is ridiculous.
Yeah, except that you are wrong. Iraq and Afghanistan were not the kinds of conflicts cited under the ‘two-theater war’ doctrine. The U.S. was still capable of maintaining carrier groups in other parts of the world, and of maintaining deployments in other parts of the world.
Iraq could be said to be ONE of those conflicts, at least at the beginning, since it required large-scale diversion of naval assets, and extensive deployment of ground forces and armor. Afghanistan was not anywhere near that scale, until the Iraq war was drawing down. The ‘surge’ under Obama put a total of roughly 90,000 U.S. troops in the country, but that surge had to wait for resources to be pulled from Iraq. Until then, there were between 25,000 and 50,000 military troops in Afghanistan at various times.
In any event, if you want to make the claim that Iraq and Afghanistan are wars that qualify for the ‘two theater’ rule, then how can you claim that the strategy is vindicated while at the same time the left is claiming that Afghanistan languished because there weren’t enough resources to fight both wars? Remember? That was the argument the left was making against the Iraq war for a long time.
In addition, you could also argue that the U.S. never had the capability in the first place, since General McChrystal has said that 500,000 soldiers would be needed for proper counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, and General Shinsecki said the same thing about Iraq, and the U.S. was not capable of doing that.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Whatever, dude. Unless you’re suggesting that the military industrial complex postdates Vietnam, I’m not seeing how your argument works.
[/QUOTE]
Military industrial complex postdates Vietnam? Man, whatever you are smoking, you need to share. I guess we are talking past each other, since you seemingly got nothing out of what I said, and I have no idea what the fuck you are on about.
Good grief. I don’t even know what to say to this…whether to roll my eyes, fall off the chair laughing or cry. We didn’t go into Iraq because our military was big and well equipped, we went in because there was a perfect storm of events that made it possible for our political masters to do what they did. The fact that our military was so well trained and equipped is the only reason why our (and the Iraqi for that matter) causalities were so low. Man, think about how long we were there, the conditions we were there under, and then put it in some fucking perspective to earlier wars we were involved in. We didn’t need to be in Vietnam either, but you know we were there…and both we and the Vietnamese lost a hell of a lot more people.
And if you think that by the US military being less well trained, less well prepared and less well equipped it would somehow magically mean we wouldn’t have similar things happen then you know nothing of US history. The US has periodically gotten entangled in foreign adventures for over a century now, and I don’t see anything to indicate that we won’t in the future. The difference is that historically we got into these things completely unprepared, with a poorly trained military that had shitty equipment, and that we fumbled our way through by having a lot of young men killed and wounded as we figured shit out, trained our military the old fashioned way (by blood) and developed adequate weapons while we fought…then tossed it all away until the next time, when we would rinse and repeat.
We had a massive military when we went into Vietnam. The MI-complex doesn’t postdate Vietnam, but you implied that the MI complex keeps us from having massive casualties.
Try paying attention, that might help.
Yes, and part of that perfect storm was having a massive military that our political masters could use to convince the public that a war would be a cakewalk. If the military had been smaller, they’d have had a much harder time making that case, and we wouldn’t have gone into an unnecessary ground war most likely, and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives would have been saved.
Definitely try paying attention. All that laughter and crying is distracting you from what’s being talked about.
Huh? You think it’s a foregone conclusion that Tawain would lose a (defensive) conventional war with China?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
We had a massive military when we went into Vietnam. The MI-complex doesn’t postdate Vietnam, but you implied that the MI complex keeps us from having massive casualties.
[/QUOTE]
No, I mentioned the MI complex as a joke. That you got out of this that I’m saying that the MI complex keeps us from having massive casualties is laughable.
That’s excellent advice. 
I’m sorry, but that’s horseshit. In just about every military adventure we got involved in during the past 100 years or so we DIDN’T have a massive military (when we started at least). After 9/11 I doubt the president would have had a hard time convincing the US public to engage in some sort of military adventure unless we had NO military. Certainly we would have still invaded Afghanistan. How do you think our military would have fared if it wasn’t as well trained, equipped and prepared as it was there? How do you suppose the Afghan people would have faired with a less sophisticated US military attacking them?
It’s hard to pay attention when what you write is making my eyes water and roll so much…
You don’t? Please elaborate.
I never said the strategy was vindicated, I’m saying your counter-argument for it is discredited. Your claim is that we must have excess war-making capacity so we can be involved in one conflict and still threaten to get involved in another, else those simmering disputes will turn nasty. My point is that we were at capacity and the rest of the world, North Korea, et al., simmered along just fine.
The lack of resources available for Afghanistan doesn’t refute my point, it supports it.
Kind of a hijack, but I don’t think Taiwan would lose a conventional defensive war with China either. I can’t see how China could possibly win, actually. If you want to discuss it you should probably start another thread though…as it is I fear LHoD and I are hijacking this one with the other discussion. 
Thank you! This is one of the most insightful posts in this thread. Setting aside the horses and bayonets sideshow, here’s a cite on the second issue (two-war strategy down to one):
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/politics/pentagon-strategy-shift/index.html says:
I’d call that TRUE for Romney.
As for the 313 ships, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/localelections/la-pn-fact-check-presidential-debate-navy-20121022,0,6416085.story says:
I’d call that a bit inaccurate on Romney’s part, but he’s not entirely without a point here: we do appear to have fewer ships than the Navy would like to have to fulfill all their obligations.
I’ve started a new thread to discuss that “can China conquer Tawain?” thing.
I don’t believe we drew down troops in South Korea to feed into Afghanistan or Iraq. That, more than anything else, is probably what kept North Korea from getting uppity. The reason they simmered along is precisely because our “excess capacity” allowed us to maintain our commitment to South Korea while fighting a war in Iraq and half-assing it in Afghanistan.
In an earlier post, you said “Obama seems to think that having an aircraft carrier means you need fewer ships.” You made, I believe, an unfounded assumption. I replied that a “more likely conclusion from watching this exchange would be that Obama was simply illustrating the foolishness of basing current military strength on a comparison with different levels and types of equipment from 100 years ago.” I’m not sure if you saw that, since I got no reply. Anyway, now you again “guess” at what Obama’s point was, and again ignore the point. He was making no direct correlation between how many submarines we have and the size of the naval force. He was saying that Romney’s comparison to naval strength one hundred years ago was irrelevant.
Oh, one more thing. I truly love how you criticize Obama up for not making a point clearly when you yourself aren’t sure of what he was getting at in the first place!
To be fair, all else being equal, that’s evidence that he wasn’t clear.
It could also be evidence of a willful desire to find *whatever *Obama says stupid and misguided, no matter what it is.
The policy has not been to cover two conflicts, it has been to cover two major wars at the same time. It is an outdated requirement that fails to meet the needs of a modern military that must be mobile and agile.
No, not necessarily. It could be evidence of a failure to comprehend a clear and coherent statement.
Gee, that sounds more like an opinion than ‘facts’. This board gets confused on that all the time.
Could be. Claiming that aircraft carriers and submarines were ‘newfangled’ and also a rationale for needing fewer ships was equally stupid.
Who said it was? For someone going beet-red with rage over nit-picky details in my post, you sure are making some sweeping statements here. Of course the needs of a modern navy are completely different than they were in the past. You don’t have to go to 1916 - you can just point out that the naval doctrine in place in the cold war was completely different than it is today.
If Obama wasn’t an idiot when it comes to matters military, he could have pointed out a much better example: The U.S. now has the ability to launch drone aircraft from the U.S, fly them into a battle zone, and fly home again. Drone capability reduces the need for recon flights from carriers.
On the other hand, the U.S. has a lot of new patrol duties around the world, and counter-insurgency and special forces operations require additional naval support in many cases. A reasonable debate on this issue requires looking at current capabilities, current requirements, and then trying to do a reasonable job of forecasting what the requirements might be in the future, with a forecasting future long enough to account for the time it would take to build new ships if the forecast is wrong. That’s what serious military analysts do.
My guess is that both men only have a superficial understanding of the military. My beef with Obama was that he went for condescending snark instead of a reasoned response, and that his snark just gave away his own ignorance. I wasn’t commenting on whether or not the Navy does in fact need more ships.
You put your stop wherever you want, but it still makes it your own opinion, and not ‘fact’. Romney’s 1916 thing was just a sound bite. I don’t think it was intended to be a serious requirement. Obama, on the other hand, decided to get all up in his face about it, using analogies that were stupid and a snarky tone that was uncalled for. But you know what? That’s just MY opinion. Reasonable people can differ on that.
Yes, I’m aware of that. But in a given war scenario, some of those subs will be kept to protect a surface fleet, while others go on hunter-killer missions. That’s why you need so many of them. But that’s really more true of the cold war against the Russians. Today, subs are doing a whole lot of different tasks.
No, you’re right about that. I was going from memory, and misremembered that he said ‘fewer’ bayonets and horses, and not ‘none’. But that was hardly central to my point. Even having said ‘fewer’, it was a stupid comment to make. I get that he’s basically saying that the needs of the modern military are different than the needs of the military in 1916, but again, do you think there’s anyone in North America who doubts this?
<Silly faux-conversation deleted>
So let’s see what you did here - you took a point I made, turned it into a caricature of itself, then criticized the caricature as being stupid.
Leaving that particular idiocy aside, my point is simple, and relatively non-controversial: NATO allies have been cutting their military budgets dramatically, and the U.S. has been picking up the slack. NATO expenditures in Europe have fallen from an average of 3.1% of GDP in 1990 to 1.7% of GDP today. In the meantime, the U.S.'s military budget has fallen from 6% to 5.4% of GDP. When NATO forces were asked to fight in Afghanistan, it was clear that many of them had let their capabilities atrophy to the point where they had to seriously lean on the U.S. There has been recent talk that the U.K. may no longer have the ability to defend the Falklands, and Argentina has been saber rattling over them again.
All I’m saying is that the President should be leaning on allies to actually meet their NATO responsibilities. The same goes for other allies like South Korea and Japan. The U.S. still maintains a huge military presence in those countries, as it does in Germany, which cut its own military expenditures in half since 1990.
Ditka says:
(first segment deleted)…
As for the 313 ships, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/localelections/la-pn-fact-check-presidential-debate-navy-20121022,0,6416085.story says:
I’d call that a bit inaccurate on Romney’s part, but he’s not entirely without a point here: we do appear to have fewer ships than the Navy would like to have to fulfill all their obligations.
[/QUOTE]
“In April, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said that the Navy could carry out its mission with 300 ships, a reduction in fleet size that he expected to reach by 2019, based on a new defense strategy that focuses more on the Middle East and the Pacific.”
Try as I might, I cannot parse that sentence to mean anything other than “we currently have more than 300 ships, and expect to *reduce *to that size by 2019”