"Leaner" US military

[Solus]

Well, I'm thinking that in any conflict the troops will benefit from good air support.

And if the other side doesn't happen to have an air force, all the better...no wasted time neutralizing it.   

I do assume that if we had an Air Force and they didn't, we would use it and not feel bad that it gave us an unfair advantage.

[Ulmus]

I was reading a past issue of American Rifleman about the 1911 and in the article it was mentioned how the military was downsized after WW-I.

Same game plan different era.

[tombogan03884]

FQ is just a dumbass.
There, I've said it !
I've been proving it right along.
Everyone knows it.
But now when he tries to justify the same stupid crap done by every other em administration I just can't resist.
His stupidly justifies the same actions that got us into the WWI, WWII, Korean war, and these last 2 that he condemns with such liberal wrath.
Hey Stupid, if Clinton had the balls to actually use what he had left of the military the people who want to cut your unused head off would not have had the balls to act.
With teachers as misinformed and ignorant as you in colleges it's no wonder the countries all f*cked up.
If engineering Profs were like you we wouldn't have standing bridge in the country.
A regular Pottifer Gubbins.

[fightingquaker13]

Ok, take a midol, and try reading the post. The ideas were two fold.
A) Don't base current configurations on missions like Iraq and Afghanistan that we don't and shouldn't plan repeating.
B) Base them, whether over or under current allotments, on the threats we will likely face in the future. Maybe we save, maybe we spend more. I have no opinion on that.
What I do believe is that we shouldn't base staffing and procurrement on repeating a mistake. We should be looking at better ways to deal with it if a strike comes from say, Somalia, than invading the country and trying to democratize it. That is all. Further, China, Iran and NK are threats that we can't deal with with a counter-insurgency based force structure. Its not that hard a concept Tom.
FQ13 who isn't endorsing a plan I haven't seen. I'm just saying that planning to fight the next Iraq or Afghanistan makes little sense, as there shouldn't be another Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Tyler Durden]

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

Look at the pretty money shrubs.

[Tyler Durden]

sitting on vast amounts of underground lithium deposits, which I heard the rights were sold to China.

[fightingquaker13]

Thank God we occupied them for 10 years and supported their government. Otherwise they might not like us and ally themselves with our enemies.
FQ13

[Pathfinder]

With teachers as misinformed and ignorant as you in colleges it's no wonder the countries all f*cked up.

All part of the plan.

But now when he tries to justify the same stupid crap done by every other em administration I just can't resist.
His stupidly justifies the same actions that got us into the WWI, WWII, Korean war, and these last 2 that he condemns with such liberal wrath.

Hard to argue, and every time we downsize inappropriately, we set ourselves up for others to bring out the knives and come at us, our allies or our interests worldwide.

I used the word "inappropriately" because is there anyone here who thinks that bho will downsize properly to actually build, ya know, a leaner and meaner military?

No one has pointed out that in downsizing and cutting forces, bho is dumping tens of thousands of people on an already weak and shaky job market. Think that's an accident?

Ok, take a midol, and try reading the post. The ideas were two fold.

That insult is getting old, and is part of your seriously misogynistic perspective that has been on display here all too often.

A) Don't base current configurations on missions like Iraq and Afghanistan that we don't and shouldn't plan repeating.
B) Base them, whether over or under current allotments, on the threats we will likely face in the future. Maybe we save, maybe we spend more. I have no opinion on that.
What I do believe is that we shouldn't base staffing and procurrement on repeating a mistake. We should be looking at better ways to deal with it if a strike comes from say, Somalia, than invading the country and trying to democratize it. That is all. Further, China, Iran and NK are threats that we can't deal with with a counter-insurgency based force structure. Its not that hard a concept Tom.
FQ13 who isn't endorsing a plan I haven't seen. I'm just saying that planning to fight the next Iraq or Afghanistan makes little sense, as there shouldn't be another Iraq or Afghanistan.

Just as you fight a war with what you have, you also fight the war you have, not the one you want to have.

Not to get all Zen on you, but there is a saying - train for nothing so you are prepared for anything. In other words, do not train for a specific mission, but train to fight anywhere at any time. We see this is SD when we are not taught to double tap and stop - you shoot to stop the attack.

Our military has been a very successful model, and has displayed an amazing talent to adapt. Yes, we make mistakes, and the top brass tend to think in terms of what they experienced, not the problems they faced at the moment. But hell, I had a college professor - my adviser no less - in Anthropology who did exactly the same thing. Most of the Dept. did in fact.

But the military is trained to adapt, as opposed to the Russian model in which you do not move unless some guy 27 levels above you says to do so. So if we have a scenario in which our current experiences do not apply, I believe the US military will adapt to the situation - assuming bho does not gut that ability to adapt by cancelling contracts with vendor for supplies and R&D, eliminating the wrong military units in planning and risk assessment, etc.

No Dem President has ever downsized the .mil effectively. FDR saw war with Germany as inevitable, but he missed or downplayed Japan and did not (was not able to?) build effectively until Pearl. But Wilson, LBJ, Carter and now bho have blown it.

FQ, that's your Q (get it?  ) to tell us all how the (R)'s have messed things up worse than the Dems. Only it's not so - I know of nothing that any (R) President did that damaged the .mil as much as the (D)'s have routinely done.

[Rastus]

I think the first wave of boots in a future conflict should be liberals of all ages.  Especially politician's families.  

We can ship them over on the Love Boat and let them put flowers in the end of their worn out M4's.  

If the boat can even make it out of one of our harbors, doing it this way the enemy has to use some of their stockpile and we don't have to deal with the self-important and ignorant dupes.  With liberals gone it will allow us to concentrate on how to save ourselves from a bad situation.  We may even decide on sealing our borders in a conflict.