Via our buddy Phil - the NYT is playing ... well ... the contrary logic that can be the NYT when it comes to Strategic thinking.
Once the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, the administration must look at trimming troop strength, beginning with the Navy and the Air Force.OK, let's look closer at that idea.
If you are the NYT - then you want to get American ground forces home once we are through with the two present wars (me too). I would go a step further and take all but perhaps the 173rd out of Europe and about half the USMC in Japan and 2/3 of the forced in South Korea ... but I won't hijack my own post, today. As a (r) republican, the only thing I can't stand more than Titles and Hereditary Monarchy is Empire ... but back to the point.
If you wish to maintain the ability to project power globally with minimal risk of entanglement and loss of American lives - the best way to do that is via air and sea forces.
If you are a maritime nation surrounded by friendly land borders (relatively) and large oceans, if you have a land-centric force without the ability to have air and maritime supremacy - then you cannot move them anywhere without unacceptable risk.
There is a lot more here to argue than the simple fact that it takes less time to grow a new Army or USMC Division than in does a Carrier Strike Group of Fighter WIng, no - there is something much for basic going on.
If you have a small land-centric force and a small air and sea component - then you are no longer a global power. You are a regional power - like Brazil.
You no longer have an ability to be a global force for anything. Others will step in, and with them will come their cultural norms for the conduct of international business and relations.
Ah, ha; you say. See that?
I've been reading The Nation since high school. Starving the beast is not a new concept.
Yep, let's continue to be a global superpower while strangling a good portion of the strategic mobility/power projection forces:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.federalnewsradio.com/?sid=2026737&nid=15
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_15706981
No wonder Mr. Gates is throwing in the towel, among other reasons.
This is all part of the plan make us more like European nations, in that we can only be a regional power, if that. Nothing outside our borders is important, besides travel to exotic locales! Oh, and investments in offshore banks.
ReplyDeleteI am also all for withdrawing from Europe. In fact, I would refuse to support ANY further UN missions. I can see keeping Lansthul open, and the 173rd in Eyrope. They're cross-deployed/based between Germany and Italy. I can also support keeping Rota open. The only way I would support keeping more US forces in Europe is if the EU bore the costs.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, I haven't much to add. Until we address the political issues at home, we won't be able to adequately address the issues of of military. We need politicians that have an understanding of not only the military's role in supporting and defendingour national interests, but who have an understanding in our national place in the great sceme of things.
At present, we have beither, and it is to our shame that we are in this situation. We can begin to rectify this in November, but it will take a lot longer than that to find and elect those who will place country before self.
That's all I have to offer.
To be fair, the C-17 issue is a bed of the AF's own making...Congress has forced them down our throat (rightly so), in effect doing the right thing (more mobility forces) for the wrong reasons (Congressional district patronage). If the AF knew what was good for it we'd be happy to get these C-17s.
ReplyDeleteWell, Europe withdrawal is part OK, part dangerous with me. No military threats exist to Germany or Italy, but I feel sometimes just a bit insecure about the Kaliningrad enclave hanging some 200 klicks away from Warsaw. Still with a bit of our own dedicated defence we can deter the Bear not less than in 1920-1939.
ReplyDeleteA very radical re-design should be worked on the land forces. Have only enough that can be sent overseas and supported there by existing tranport. Maybe instead of reducing AF and Navy replace the army with enlarged USMC?
A REGIONAL FORCE FOR GOOD!
ReplyDeleteMade me laugh out loud.
ReplyDeleteSir, that's an Infanta Maria Theresa class armoured cruiser burning, right Sir?
ReplyDeleteThe Almirante Oquendo at Santiago....
ReplyDeleteInteresting side story here.
one thing that came to me, only nations in a center of a landmass (Germany in Europe, Russia in Eurasia) could focus on landpower, and even then that eventually limited their ability to power project globally...
ReplyDeleteGreat little side story there. I thought it might be a WW1 British monitor, how did you guys know what she was?
ReplyDeleteWe are geeks in the extreme.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5foWKctuI&p=CAC1A42A850E03E
ReplyDeletewhat I've found searching for battleship footage...
what happens when declining empire with inept political leadership collides with young ambitious seapower on the rise...
history geeks with weapons training are called "renaissance men" :)
ReplyDeleteAnd mute testimony to what happens when a once great World Power atrophies....
ReplyDelete