Britain has warned the United States that the military will not be able to fight another war like Afghanistan.
Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, told his counterparts in the US that the Armed Forces would only be able to provide the manpower for medium-scale conflicts or for support in large conflicts where others took a greater part.
Dr Fox told said that the military could only deploy 6,000 troops to any one war zone, The Times reported. Around 10,000 are currently committed to Afghanistan. He reassured them that Britain's nuclear deterrent would remain.There you go. When even the British can supply only a token force - it is America Alone
.Alone, indeed. Especially with the inescapable short and medium term decline in USA real and relative military power as we try to recover some sense of fiscal sanity - unless they an figure a way to tell everyone in the USA to tighten their belt BUT the military - smart people need to get to work fast to begin to decouple our nation from its many imperial obligations so we do not find our nation at Strategic Risk because our mouth was speaking more than the rest could back up. We don't have a choice as our defense budget will have to decrease.
Here - I'll help (again). All maneuver forces home from Europe, Korea, and Japan. Keep only Combined-Joint logistics and training bases. Re-baseline manpower accounts with a focus on lean manning all non-deployable forces beginning with Staffs and GOFO billets. Eliminate 80% of SES positions and 90% of associated support staff positions. Downgrade 75% of remaining Field Grade and Flag/General Officer positions one paygrade (i.e. CAPT to CDR; VADM to RADM; RDML to CAPT, etc). Scrub all personnel deployment histories and retire or deploy within 24 months all who have not deployed or served overseas in the last eight years. Eliminate 50% of GS-12+ positions and convert to Shore Duty billets (we'll need them after elimination of Staff bloat and busy-work billets ashore). There's a rough-hewn start to discuss and refine.
Brave new world Shipmate. How did we in the West get here? Simple - the USA allowed the rest of the West to get used to spending almost nothing on defense. They built unsustainable welfare states for feel-good professional politicians to buy votes with.
Brave new world Shipmate. How did we in the West get here? Simple - the USA allowed the rest of the West to get used to spending almost nothing on defense. They built unsustainable welfare states for feel-good professional politicians to buy votes with.
As they try to avoid the inevitable - they squeeze the last bit of blood out of the military budget turnip long enough so that someone better will have to deal with the consequences. In the end, they have a military good enough for border defense, parades, airshows, and to fill up Staff billets at NATO busy-work commands.
Some in the USA thought that model was so sexy - they decided to join the party just as the original folks were starting to vomit and get a hang-over.
Thing is - who will be the sober nation to supply the USA a defense umbrella while we start our economic policy bender? Right - no one.
Sober up soon USA - or someone stronger and more confident will do it for you in a way you won't like. History provides legion of examples. Ask the Imperial Russian Navy a century ago.
Some in the USA thought that model was so sexy - they decided to join the party just as the original folks were starting to vomit and get a hang-over.
Thing is - who will be the sober nation to supply the USA a defense umbrella while we start our economic policy bender? Right - no one.
Sober up soon USA - or someone stronger and more confident will do it for you in a way you won't like. History provides legion of examples. Ask the Imperial Russian Navy a century ago.
49 comments:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/2010/09/27/Walkers-World-The-broken-contract/UPI-97111285583040/
a helpful analysis...
similar problems do brew up in the miltary
top tech costs more, and requires professional soldiers
professional soldiers cost more,
and need to get their social side covered
and the top tech gets costlier with the final 10% capability each year
we end up with multimillion $ tanks, half billion $ bombers and patrol craft (LCS, thank you!) etc.
and all those assests are hunting people with dozen bucks a piece AKs or RPG-7s
Kipling's elite education and jezzails redux?
UK Strategic defense review due out within the week -- hearing it calls for 20% cuts over the course of 5 years to bring defense spending down to less than 2% of GDP. Forget the salami slicing - they're going to be dumping out the contents of the meat drawer altogether.
w/r, SJS
I find myself more and more worried every day. We are living in a very unstable world, with a far greater potential for widespread violence on national scales than any time since the end of WWII. We have Venezuala puffing up and strutting like it wants to assist FARC in taking over Columbia, Iran and Hamas want to start the second Holocaust, just as soon as they think that no one who cares is watching, and it appears that, with the new anti Semitism of Europe, soon no one but the US will care, but with the anti Semetic Administration now in power, I doubt that we will do much either.
As Sal has mentioned above, we now have the same type of politicians that Europe is cursed with, buying votes with the public purse through handouts. I can only hope that November 2 starts a turn back in the other direction. However, I find myself being forced to agree with Mark Levin, who last Friday mentioned that it was 80 years of Progressive policies that got us to where we are now, and it will probably take 80 years to get us out of the hole they have dug for us.
The USN once had over 150 carriers ; 126 CVEs, 17 ESSEX, 9 INDEPENDENCE, 1 YORKTOWN, and 2 MIDWAYs at the end of WWII. Now, in an era of greater danger, as I mentioned above, we are going to cut the count to 8. We have gone from literaly hundreds of amphibious warfare ships to less than 3 dozen. Our destroyer fleet is smaller than individual classes.
A Corps is made up traditonally of 3 divisions, and an Army, of 3 Corps. In WWII, we fielded Army Corps, today, the US Army is just that 9 divisions, Thank God for the Guard. In the air, if the Progressives have thier way, we will barely have a full wing of F-22s, and the F-15s and F-16s are getting old.
It is easy to say, 'then let us build a new fleet, train a proper army, and buy us some more F-22s' Alas, we cannot. Even if the manufacturing base still existed, 30 years of schools encouraging self esteem, and not teaching what the students need to know has left them incapable of building ships and planes. Excessive taxes placed upon companies, to punish them for being successful leave us without anyone to build them, even if we had the workers.
The fall out of the sixties radical fools attaining power has left us in a very precarious position, where we are rapidly approaching midnight, the hour when, as Arthur Conan Doyle said, in the Hound of the Baskervilles, "evil is exultant". The US has gone through some hellish times before, the Civil War, the Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War, and survived, but this is the first time that a major political party, once it established itself in power, has set out to destroy her from within.
I'm a 12+ (retired Navy), and I vote "hell yes"! I'd happily go find new work if I was certain the Navy would not just "hire behind me".
It looks like soon the RN will be the 2 QUEEN ELIZABETHs, ( if both get built), and 2 DESRONs. Sorry Sal, it looks like we will have to tough this out alone.
It is not as dire as you make it out. Even at current force levels the US outspends just about everyone else and has a larger force level than most. It would seem to me that the better lesson is : 1) Don't fight wars that don't support your long term national interest (IRAQ) and 2) if you do fight wars like Afghanistan-declare war, mobilize all the reserves and kill a lot more Afghans up front obliterating their nation and society. It is this COIN nonsense that is killing us via the death of a thousand cuts-since at its heart the Afghans can't or won't improve themselves.
If we left Afghanistan tomorrow, what damage would there be to the U.S? None. Al Quaeda might come back? They don't need Afghanistan anymore they have about half of Africa, Pakistan and Yemen.
Simple truth is that the money is there to re-capitalize our forces, if we are willing to get it. Your reforms are needed, but they are a separate issue, and we certainly don't need to abandon real nations that work in favor of not real nations that don't.
Most of NATO is already below 2%. That is part of the problem.
Phibian speaks the truth on this, with wisdom and foresight.
Ignore hiim at our peril.
Perhaps we will soon be fortunate to have even the ten rupee jezail to defend our nation.
Our domestic enemies are winning, and I fear our foreign enemies may not be far behind.
"declare war"?
Our politicians do not have the balls. It would mean they would have to make a decision and be held accountable. None of our politicians are willing to do that. NONE. Political suicide.
Oh, and we don't do total war any more.
The "Like" button doesn't seem to be working, but dagnabbit you hit the nail on the head
Speaking of "how far we've come", I'm just trying to picture signing the Japanese surrender on the deck of an LCS....
SCOTTtheBadger:
You nailed it, you nailed it, you nailed it. I've tried to say for YEARS to anyone who would listen is that the RADICAL Left is trying to create 'life without consequence'. From Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs to even the 1973 Abortion ruling, what the Left has succeeded at doing is create a 'social safety net' that in effect is dependency on government. If you oppose helping 'the children', then you are heartless. I include the 1973 Abortion ruling because it was another thing (sex) you could now do w/out consequence. No accountability, no responsibility - just do it. What has it led to? In fact - I believe there has been as many live births as a result of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling as abortions. Follow me - the ruling ment sex w/out consequence, but didn't necessarily mean those that got pregnant would terminate the preganacy. So then we have massive increases of STD's, massive increases since the 70's of children w/out two parents, massive losses of earnings potential because new parents didn't get to go to college, which led to massive increase in social services spending. You even have massive increases in the divorce rate - which contributed to the massive increases in social services spending.
Again, follow me - once you had sex w/out consequence, it doesn't stop there. You can't have one area in your life w/out consequence, without in affecting others. Once your character is hooked on the idea you don't have to take responsibility for your actions, it will affect your entire being.
Bringing this back to military spending - I'm beyond offended that we are soooo hooked on social spending that we have to go after the constitutionally required spending on the military, versus what is very likely unconstitutional spending on people who will not take care of themselves.
There's so much more - and I have to go to work, but Scott, you have my respect for your post. Phib - outstanding.
laugh out loud - love your reply 8-)
Maybe there will be a time US will drop to that level too, and sooner than expected... but even with 2% well invested it would be a formidable force. Instead everyone is going for the Tiffanys forces. How many A-10s does F-22 buy? How many AT-4s does buy Javelin? How many decent frigates (not the LCS, please!) does CVN and her airwing buy?
It is a pit the defence industry and military leaders have dug themselves into, to the tune of "We are the champions".
Lose 60 ships in 600 ship navy, its barely a scratch.
lose 60 ships in 300 ship navy, youre battered but fighting.
Lose 60 ships in 180 ships navy, and youre baaadly mauled.
With such trends PLAN will be needing ever less and less "asssassins maces".
Maybe its a time to radically rethink the entire force structure?
good points. Concur with Scott.
Very dangerous when a once mighty empire and Naval Power, states that they will no longer be able to fight a war greater than a medium conflict or support, but will still maintain a Nuclear Capability. This means quite simply, that they will be forced to use Nuke's if attacked, or simply allow the enemy to do as they will.
Kind of like giving away all your bows and Arrows, and then when the Huns show up to rape your women and kill your children and livestock, you do nothing, because obviously we CANT use a Nuclear Weapon! That would make us as barbaric!
Argentina is watching...
Phib,
good call, but me thinks you are preaching to the porch!
Even a modest review of recorded history will show that every time a people decide to beat their swords into plowshares, they end up plowing the fields of those who didn't.
Elections have consequences.
I expect its more for those lurkers inside the five sided wind tunnel on the Potomac, and the Nations Sewe...Congress.
"<span>smart people need to get to work fast to begin to decouple our nation from its many imperial obligations so we do not find our nation at Strategic Risk because our mouth was speaking more than the rest could back up"</span>
<span></span>
<span>Hear, hear...personally, I would re-think the geographic combatant commander model. If you put a military staff somewhere and tell them they are responsible for a chunk of the planet, they're going to find stuff to do there. We need a military focus on the Middle East and East Asia, but beyond that I can think of other federal agencies that should be taking the lead in places like Europe, Africa, and South America.</span>
Good point, Mr. T.
I concur with your concurrence, and also confer a concurrence on Wharf Rat.
But isn't this the Catch-22? When we decouple from our "obligations" we will have simply cried Uncle and then the games begin.
e have plenty of money and equipment to do what is required of us.
We do not have discipline to quit spending money on new and useless crap and reallocate scarce resources to maintenance and training.
We also do not have the strategic thinkers who are able to determine what we need to do vice what we feel might be good to do at any given time.
Find and kill Saddam Hussein - sure. Take over Iraq for years? Why? Find and kill terrorists all over the world - must do. Take over Afghanistan by overthrowing a corrupt Taliban and handing the country to a new group of corrupt criminals? Why? We fail to get to the heart of what must be done. It costs a lot to do what doesn't need to be done and hope that in the course of doing it, the things that really need doing get done as a result.
Our problem is that we completely squander our blood and treasure in ridiculous attempts to do things that don't need doing while often not accomplishing things that do need doing.
We would have far fewer resource constraints if we had clear thinking strategic leaders who refused to undertake multiple consecutive Operation Tilt at Windmills and focused on achieving strategic goals efficiently. Oh, and it would help if we could achieve those goals without making more enemies in the process.
There are no human problems that humans cannot solve; just don't expect idiots solve them.
MTH
We have arrived at the point that we are so civilized that we allow ourswelves to be treated in an uncivilized manner. Those in charge are indeed educated beyond their intelligence. They are usurpers of the Constitution and the oath they took to support and defend it. I did not see or hear anything about hope and change in the oath I took and I didn't hear it in theirs either.
<span> With respect to: "How did we in the West get here? Simple - the USA allowed the rest of the West to get used to spending almost nothing on defense. They built unsustainable welfare states for feel-good professional politicians to buy votes with."</span>
Well that is undeniably true, however UK citizens vote for governments that put welfare before warfare, so I guess we're all collectively a bunch of lefties (time to trot out the "pinko commie subversives" line ?).
However, the previous US Govt. has to take a little of the responsbility - it let (Wall St) greed get the better of its economic and fiscal policy and dragged the US and much of the rest of the world into a recession - perhaps if the UK Govt had not had to bail out equally greedy banks it might have more money for defence. There of course there are the really strange UK government decisions - like ring fencing the international aid / development money - and giving hundreds of thousands from that budget to India, a nuclear power with bigger armed forces than the UK - go figure......
If it feels good, do it.
If it doesn't feel good, you don't have to do it.
Problem, of course, is that to be a responsible adult and particularly a service member, much of what we do is because we have an OBLIGATION to do it, whether it feels good or not.
The counterculture crowd has never forgiven us.
The governments didn't HAVE to bail out anybody - in fact the bailouts will cause more harm in the longrun than they did help in the short.
The banks bet on high-risk, high-reward strategies. In order for that model to work, when that risk does not pan out the bank (or individual) has to suffer a loss. Some will even go totally belly-up. That is the risk. When government totally negates that risk they put a finger on the scale, and fundamentally skew the market. The banks (and individuals) should not have been bailed out - they should have gone bankrupt and provided case studies in business schools for the next generation of banker/investor.
Damn, I want the like button to work...nice post Tim
well, the problem is you can elect another government, but you cant elect another society :P
<span> Quote:</span>
<span> In the end, they have a military good enough for border defense, parades, airshows, and to fill up Staff billets at NATO busy-work commands.</span>
Well, with Soviet Empire gone they dont need more than that, they dont feel like Chinese are going walk around half the world to conquer them, with all the little obstacles like Russia, India, Himalyas and deserts in the way, and the border control is actually a real problem in the southern EU states since half of the Africa seems to be trying to get there. I am actually happy that Germans have quit their early XX century habit of trying to conquer world. What Salamander has suggested regarding US withdrawal from Europe, could be achieved by the mid-90s when it was well sure that Soviet Empire is the past. I dont think that would help with Putin's paranoia, but it wouldn't made it worse.
Both Stalin and Hitler would disagree with that. Their very basic premise was that a strong, coercive government can indeed shape society to the point where character and values are changed forever, bringing about the effect of essentially "electing" another society.
do you really want to step in their shoes? :P
meanwhile, back in DC:
Senators Look to Place Stipulations on JFCOM Closure
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4789469&c=AME&s=TOP
So how is that new Maritime Strategy working with all those partnerships?
Preach it Brother Scott!
Amen, Brother Tim!
You are also conveniently forgetting to mention the market skewing effects of GSEs like Fannie and Freddie, and the fact that the government not only encouraged risky lending, they mandated it in many cases.
Virtually every example anyone can cite of foolish or risky behavior can be accounted for because of regulation or legislation into the marketplace.
Very true. Goldwater-Nichols has Got To Go.
Particularly since it's the biggest obstacle to rebalancing our military forces to deal with a world that doesn't have a single easily identified, largely landlocked opponent...with a U.S. ally convenietly close by.
Thank you Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
And concur with your concurance
E40K,
First off it hasn't only been the German's who wanted to own the world. In the 19th century it was a running battle tween the British and French over who was supposed to control the world, before that it was the Dutch, French, British. Then before that it was the Brits, French, Dutch, and Spaniards. There was some book from a naval officer and professor at the Naval War College that talked about portions of that history, I just wish I could remember the title of it. That being said, from what I have seen visiting Europe and talking to friends there, the multiculturalism there is imploding. The modern country of Belgium is imploding between the Flemish and non-Flemish that whole country would split along ethnic lines and Belgium as we know might disappear. The question then might be what if fighting breaks out, which side would the EU and NATO go for? Portions of Southern Europe is seeing imploding from immigration and assimilation issues. So the questions should be that since Europe doesn't need to defend itself from external threats, what about its own internal threats? For some people they are seeing the rise of extremism again from both sides of the political aisle. If that is true then will INTERPOL, some of the various Federal Police forces capable of maintaining calm? What about when a European country sees the rise of a Napoleon or Hitler in it political system will Europe stand to the side?
What happens when Argetina comes calling? I'm guessing it's only a matter of time, certainly before the two CV's are built, as they have more abilities than current harrier carriers.
Internal threats, are, as you mentioned, a work for the police, not the military... and I doubt any would-be conquerors are in the making, Hitler managed to get to power in much worse conditions, and with much more warlike society. And if Belgium dissolves, it can be like the velvet divorce of Czechoslovakia, not like explosion of Yugoslavia. Question of political culture, I guess. Immigration in the south is more concerning to me, as it brings with it much of the Islamic fundamentalism.At least Mediterranean is harder to cross than Rio Grande...
I'm a 12+ too and I agree...I'd take a cut or retire if it would help
Agree with the analysis, but US sober up? Not likely with elected critters in charge, but we're clearly in a budgetary death spiral.
veteran Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker:
"We all know what to do but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it."
"<span>Internal threats, are, as you mentioned, a work for the police, not the military..."</span>
That would seem to depend on which side of the border one is on.
As for would-be conquerors, there didn't seem to be any on the horizon in, say, 1930. And if one was identified, his name likely would have been Pilsudski.
Shame no one answered his call to pacify Germany as soon as it rejected the Versailles treaty in 1933... and the leaders that followed after his death were not prepared to support Czechoslovakia in 1938. With Poland and Czechoslovakia standing together, French would be forced to act too, and in 1938 Germany was much weaker than year later. Heck, they equipped 2 entire panzer divisions with Czech tanks! Oh, and Stalin would be out of the picture due to the peak of the purges.
And anyone who had slightest idea of what is going on in Soviet Union circa 1930 would know there is trouble brewing. Japan was already on its way to war with China. Germany and Italy were latecomers to the party, really - Germany because of the Versailles, Italy due to economic weakness.
"<span>Shame no one answered his call to pacify Germany as soon as it rejected the Versailles treaty in 1933"</span>
Amen. Pilsudski knew the measure of his German foe. Far more than did the timid Daladier or Sarraut. And certainly more than did Ramsey MacDonald or Neville Chamberlain. It took the Essex back bencher to right the ship.
Post a Comment