Even the Chairman Goes Salamander on Overseas Forces

As regulars here know, from the start of the blog - and a decade earlier IRL - one of my core stands is that we are long past the need for having large formation of maneuver forces based overseas in now rich and ready allies.

Besides unit rotations, occasional exercises to practice surge, and combined training and logistics facilities, everyone needs to come home.

As a maritime and aerospace power, we need to be home based, but postured for forward deployment of land forces to support allies and interests.

We are a mercantile republic, not an empire.

It has been a lonely vigil, and I know many of the respected and wise members of the Front Porch disagree with me, but that's OK.

That being said, the Chairman is not all the way Salamander, but I'll take 80%;

In remarks on the future of warfare, Army Gen. Mark Milley said he believes the military should be more selective in its peacetime presence abroad. He said he strongly favors an overseas U.S. presence but prefers that it be rotational or “episodic” rather than permanent. He was not referring to counties like Afghanistan and Iraq, where U.S. forces have been involved in wars for nearly two decades.

“Large permanent U.S. bases overseas might be necessary for rotational forces to go into and out of, but permanently positioning U.S. forces I think needs a significant relook for the future,” not just because of the cost but also because it can leave military families vulnerable in high-risk areas, he said.

In the same article, I found these remarks interesting from a navalist point of view;

Competing effectively and peacefully with China requires a vastly larger U.S. Navy, he said, including a much larger investment in robotic surface and underwater vessels.

That was right after a discussion about flat to slightly smaller budgets. So, an Army 4-star can see the argument for Navy getting a larger slice of the pie?

Interesting. 

---

UPDATE: I'm sorry, but I refuse to not LOL.

Even NAVSEA is going Salamander. No one of the Front Porch should ever have to buy a beer again. Also, we need to make clear that I am not VADM Galinis IRL. 

The Navy’s experience with fielding new warships in the last two decades has shown that an evolutionary approach to ship design is more likely to succeed than a revolutionary approach, the commander of Naval Sea Systems Command design said.   

“As we go forward and look at future platforms, [consider an] evolutionary approach versus a revolutionary approach,” said Vice Adm. William Galinis, speaking Dec. 3 in a Defense Forum 2020 webinar sponsored by the U.S. Naval Institute. “Where we have done that [evolutionary approach], frankly we’ve been pretty successful.” 

I would laugh harder is it weren't for the untold hundreds of billions of dollars, and untold destroyed careers that resulted from the Age of Transformationalism.

Just read all the above and join me in saying, "NOT ONE DAMN LINK OR CREDIT TO CDRSALAMANDER? That is just rude."