Re: Danger of US military overextension
On 13 Jan 2004, G. D. Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Not sure who or where this guy is, but the Army War College is NOT as Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The Air War College is. Absolutely right. The reporter is from the Sydney Morning Herald, Australia, and he was wrong. The BBC did better. Also, the BBC (or perhaps some other source) said the Jeffrey Record is a visiting professor at the US Army War College, not a permanent member of the faculty. Nonetheless, the story does dramatically raise the question of whether the US military is currently over-extending itself, whether it should have mobilized, whether that would have done any good, or whether some other strategy would have been better, and if so what strategy? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Danger of US military overextension
Some are arguing that currently the US is strategically over-extended. One action being debated is whether the US invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation was a good strategic move for the US or a bad move? My sense is that the Bush administration adopted the world view of US Liberals and Democrats, who said that past US policy has been wrong and has back-fired against the US, and chose strategy accordingly. Was this world view correct? Was the adopted strategy correct? Here is what I wrote nearly a year ago: [2003 Feb 17] ... consider the Bush administration. It entered power with a strong belief in the values of discipline and deterrence. The members of the administration figured that if you discipline wrong-doers by punishing them, for example, by executing them, then others will avoid wrong-doing so as to avoid the punishment. The attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC, on September 11 presented the Bush administration with what Ian Banks, in his novel `Excession', calls an `out of context problem': the Bush administration had to realize that it could not deter future attacks by punishing the wrong-doers; it could not execute them because they were already dead. The Bush administration belief system failed. Hence, the Bush administration had to adopt a new belief system. Of course, the Bush administration [tried to] keep many of its old beliefs by claiming that the hijackers were in a special category: not ordinary wrong-doers, but `evil'. However, the members of the administration still had to explain the cause of evil. From the point of view of a day-to-day oriented administration, it does no good (except in speeches) to say that evil is caused by a `wrathful God'. God is not susceptible to political analysis. Instead, what I think happened is that the senior members of the Bush administration decided that their opponents, US Liberals and Democrats, had been right all along. * The Liberals and Democrats in the US say that the depth of despair and hatred against the US in the Moslem world is high. As a consequence, some people will fight the US and be willing to die in the process. Those willing to fight will be a small portion of the population, but large in absolute numbers. Moreover, Liberals and Democrats they say that to improve matters peacefully will take a generation or more of wise foreign aid, including changes in Moslem school systems, and tolerant statements by Moslem government and religious leaders. * Suppose the Liberals and Democrats are correct? The Bush administration must be concerned both with the distant future and with the immediate future. Since the Liberals and Democrats say that peaceful improvements will take time, the Bush administration will need to figure out alternative actions that are quicker. If it does not, it loses support from frightened donors and voters. Hence, as a beginning, the covert and overt military actions against any in the Moslem world who have or who might attack the US or US interests. Then I went on to say that the Bush Administration decided on a response that fits this Liberal/Democratic/Leftist world view: [2003 Feb 17] 4. Overthrow the government of and establish a major US presence in an Arab country so as to frighten the other Arab dictatorships into greater efforts into policing against enemies of US. I think this is the primary motivation of the US government. As side effects, a successful US invasion of Iraq will also: * Enable the US to find and destroy chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons that might be used to threaten the US or US allies or US interests -- in other words, satisfy argument three. * Reduce the power of Europe and the Russia by establishing a Middle Eastern hegemony. * Maintain oil supplies from Middle East until new central Asian and west African supplies become available. * Extend the economic dominance of the dollar over the euro for a few more years, by ensuring that oil is priced in dollars. I am sure the Bush administration favors all these side effects. [Note that the Bush Administration did not use this argument to persuade the American public to back the US invasion of Iraq, although I thought then and still think this is the primary motivation. Consequently, when arguing whether the Bush Administration was honest, employed good statecraft, or was politically correct in its methods, this must be seen as an argument not made. This is a separate issue from whether this argument provides an accurate description
Re: Danger of US military overextension
At 09:45 AM 1/12/2004 -0800, you wrote: I don't think a draft is a good way of putting more men into uniform to fight wars, at least with the type of war that we're engaged in now. However, I absolutely do agree (and I've been saying tis publically on the list for as long as I've been a member) that Clinton's military cuts went too deep. I am partially reminded of the situation during the Interwar period (1919-1941), where the Army was drawn down to an almost token force, a cadre to manage rapid expansion when war did come. However, if it wasn't for the far-sightedness of people like Roosevelt, the US would have been in serious trouble when war did come, totally lacking in any medium tanks (FREX) and planning a war against an army that was one of the most advanced on the world at that time. I think the situation in Iraq, plus the ongoing War against Terror, combined with the fact that national Guard units are being federalized in order to cover our commitments elsewhere (the 28th Infantry Division of the Pennsylvania National Guard is due to rotate out to the Balkans to serve with SFOR, and other units are going to Europe to man the bases there) I think indicates the overextension of the Army. Finally, if we keep asking our current Active units to stay deployed for extended periods of time, not only will this hurt morale, but the increased operational tempo will break down equipment and hurt training in other military operations, so that as a whole the Army will be less capable of transitioning from one operation to another. Thankfully nothing happened in any other part of the world (like say Korea); with current deployments we would be incapable of meeting that challenge with the forces in theater (2nd ID, plus supporting elements), which is what the Clinton administration intended the smaller army of today to do. Damon, we could use around 3 more divisions. = - At least 3 more. Retirements and discharges are reported to be frozen (not a very good sign), and the scuttlebutt I hear is that re-enlistments will be down. We're stretched mighty thin and Deus Volent, Rumsfeld et al will realize this and reactivate some of those divisions that had been disbanded after the end of the Cold War. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Danger of US military overextension
Not sure who or where this guy is, but the Army War College is NOT as Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The Air War College is. George A - Original Message - From: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:36 AM Subject: Danger of US military overextension According to http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/12/1073877763863.html A scathing report published by the Army War College criticises the US's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an unnecessary war in Iraq and pursuing an unrealistic quest against terrorism that may lead to US wars with nations posing no serious threat. The report, by Professor Jeffrey Record, of the war college at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the US Army is near breaking point. Professor Record's chief criticism is that the Administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likened the US's ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number, he said. The Germans were defeated in two world wars because their strategic ends outran their available means. The essay concluded with several recommendations, including one that the US scale back its ambitions in Iraq and be prepared to settle for a friendly autocracy there rather than a genuine democracy. This is a serious issue. I know both that the US Army does not want the draft reinstalled, because the draft brings in people who are not so good soldiers as they currently get, and that the Army is being stressed by the size of the current deployments. It looks to me that some kind of mobilization is necessary, whether a sharp increase in army pay to attract more people (requiring much more government spending) or a draft, perhaps with the draftees put into a somewhat different catgory (like `peace keeper') so as not to clash with current Army people. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Danger of US military overextension
At 06:30 AM 1/13/2004, you wrote: Not sure who or where this guy is, but the Army War College is NOT as Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The Air War College is. George A I was going to point that out myself, but was distracted by something else. Someone was cutting down the air force saying it should be re absorbed back into the army and navy. I'm about 30 miles from the AWC, a few of our bike rides go around it. Kevin T. - VRWC So many movies to choose from tonight ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Danger of US military overextension
According to http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/12/1073877763863.html A scathing report published by the Army War College criticises the US's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an unnecessary war in Iraq and pursuing an unrealistic quest against terrorism that may lead to US wars with nations posing no serious threat. The report, by Professor Jeffrey Record, of the war college at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the US Army is near breaking point. Professor Record's chief criticism is that the Administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likened the US's ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number, he said. The Germans were defeated in two world wars because their strategic ends outran their available means. The essay concluded with several recommendations, including one that the US scale back its ambitions in Iraq and be prepared to settle for a friendly autocracy there rather than a genuine democracy. This is a serious issue. I know both that the US Army does not want the draft reinstalled, because the draft brings in people who are not so good soldiers as they currently get, and that the Army is being stressed by the size of the current deployments. It looks to me that some kind of mobilization is necessary, whether a sharp increase in army pay to attract more people (requiring much more government spending) or a draft, perhaps with the draftees put into a somewhat different catgory (like `peace keeper') so as not to clash with current Army people. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Danger of US military overextension
I don't think a draft is a good way of putting more men into uniform to fight wars, at least with the type of war that we're engaged in now. However, I absolutely do agree (and I've been saying tis publically on the list for as long as I've been a member) that Clinton's military cuts went too deep. I am partially reminded of the situation during the Interwar period (1919-1941), where the Army was drawn down to an almost token force, a cadre to manage rapid expansion when war did come. However, if it wasn't for the far-sightedness of people like Roosevelt, the US would have been in serious trouble when war did come, totally lacking in any medium tanks (FREX) and planning a war against an army that was one of the most advanced on the world at that time. I think the situation in Iraq, plus the ongoing War against Terror, combined with the fact that national Guard units are being federalized in order to cover our commitments elsewhere (the 28th Infantry Division of the Pennsylvania National Guard is due to rotate out to the Balkans to serve with SFOR, and other units are going to Europe to man the bases there) I think indicates the overextension of the Army. Finally, if we keep asking our current Active units to stay deployed for extended periods of time, not only will this hurt morale, but the increased operational tempo will break down equipment and hurt training in other military operations, so that as a whole the Army will be less capable of transitioning from one operation to another. Thankfully nothing happened in any other part of the world (like say Korea); with current deployments we would be incapable of meeting that challenge with the forces in theater (2nd ID, plus supporting elements), which is what the Clinton administration intended the smaller army of today to do. Damon, we could use around 3 more divisions. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
