"Leaner" US military

[tombogan03884]

Pathfinders very good post missed one classic example.
Truman cut the US military beyond the bone between '45 and '51.
The reason MacArthur landed at Inchon when he did was because the Marines, who had ended WWII with a combat strength of 6 reinforced Divisions plus Air Wings, had been cut in size and funding to the point it took them that long to assemble 1 deployable division.
And they only managed that by stripping the other 2 TOE divisions and recalling large numbers of Reservists to fill out units which were at 2/3rds strength.
Had the US maintained a credible force size and structure even with the reluctant approval of Stalin and Mao, the North would not have invaded.

If Clinton had showed more courage in his responses to terrorist outrages and the battle of Mogadishu then 9-11-01 would have been just another day.

As for the "tactical/ professional" comments FQ made
(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.

I have to ask, "Just what the heck kind of wars do you expect in the future ?"
The days of WWII are gone, future wars will either be 1 hour nuke swaps, or they will be insurgencies.
Our tech advantage means that other than Russia or China, (purely because of numbers ) no armored force on the planet can stand against US armor, If we put 1 carrier off a nations coast in most of the world we automatically have the largest air force in the region, so with the same exceptions no one can beat us in the air.
That means that the only effective method of fighting the US is through the use of insurgents as so well demonstrated by the American Indians, the Filipinos, the Vietnamese, and now AQ in Iraq,(where in 6 months or less there will be full scale, 3 way civil war ) and by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
FQ fails to heed the lessons of Washington's campaign during the Revolution.
The "Established power loses by not winning, but the insurgent wins by not losing.
Until Yorktown Washington never had a prayer at "winning" the war.
His greatest victory was in preventing the destruction of his Army which would have lost the war.

[jnevis]

IMHO our next missions will be a hybrid of conventional and counter-insurgency warfare in the Far East, and we'll loose.  The other future war will also be fought in/from space and the internet.

Up until about a decade ago China had no significant amphibious capability and no integrated command control.  Their Navy and Air Force didn't work together much although they're both officially part of the Army.  They have never lost sight of Taiwan as a "lost colony."

Now the Navy is nearly as capable as ours, at least what we'd get to the area in a reasonable time, including a large amphibious force able to land large numbers of troops anywhere in the world.  The carrier isn't ready for "prime time" yet but give them a few years and they'll be an operationsl air wing with more CVs in production.  They also have really been improving the logistical footprint  to maintain deployments further and longer than ever  before.  The AF and Navy are showing signs of more integrated, coordinated, independant operations, not scripted scenarios controlled by higher command.

If and when they decide to invade Taiwan we'll end up in a conventional fight that will end up house to house counter-insurgency on the island.  IF we continue to operate after the first three weeks, between "carrier killer ICBMs" and shear numbers, you'll see significant increases in anti-satellite warfare and cyber attacks to shut down infrastucture and our ability to control our own forces effectively.  We have collectively begun relying so heavily on technology that if the computer goes down (EMP burst anyone?) we're blind and deaf.  That's if they don't add their own data to misdirect us.

[tombogan03884]

This discussion probably would be more appropriate in "Proceedings", but I'm going to disagree with J because I enjoy this debate.

In my opinion, "conventional warfare is dead. The days of our army starts here their army starts there one big fight or campaign and the winner takes all has gone the way of the Dodo bird .
War between major countries will be either economic, Nuclear, I'll grant J the Cyber/Space war as part of what I had in mind when I mentioned a "Nuke swap". Those types of fighting will take place over an incredibly short time, and considering the dependance we place on computer control systems the winner could be slapped back to the 1800's while the losers entire social structure would simply cease to exist.
That would be war with a top tier society like Russia, China, India, Japan, S Korea.
Against any one at a lower level of development Iraq serves as a crystal ball.
Lets look at what actually happened there.
We launched a conventional invasion aimed at destroying the Iraqi military forces and ending the war.
Our 3 divisions and air power dominated the nation, blowing through Iraqi defenses like sh!t through a chicken.
Meanwhile anti western jihadis of every variety flocked to Iraq to repel the evil crusader invaders.
Did they flock to Saddam's forces where they would have access to artillery and all kinds of neat toys the Russians were shipping in ?
They did not, they did the same thing the dedicated Saddam supporters did. They blended in with the population and adopted classic guerrilla tactics, snipers, ambushes, bombings.
They avoided our strength in conventional combat power.
Instead they attacked the weakness of American public opinion. A constant trickle of casualties and a massive propaganda effort launched at the American media, while undermining our attempts at nation building by playing on local and regional fears, and animosities we barely understood using assassinations and terror.
The Jihadi's learned the lesson of Vietnam, if you can avoid destruction long enough the Americans will get fed up and leave.
That is the face of Future war.
No matter what we may plan, our foes will disappear into the woodwork and apply the tactics that work.
America is no longer the "Greatest Generation", they are now a bunch of pussies who will not accept the casualties required to actually win.
If you think I'm wrong I challenge you to consider the 1st Gulf War's, "Highway of death" and the fact that air attacks were discontinued due to a fear that such massive casualties even by the enemy would end support for the war.
That is the face of "Future war".
Regardless of our best laid plans, our foes will put up token resistance then fade into the woodwork to apply the tactics that have been proven to work.

As for China, they are no military threat to us unless we pay off our debt to them.
Thir own economy is to dependent on us for them to risk their own recession regardless of their capabilities.

[jnevis]

True large scale conventional warfare is not going to happen as you mention but you can't get win anything without boots on the ground eventually.  Cyber/space attacks will only get you so far.  Economic warfare is already happening and only goes so far before somebody's weak enough to give the other side visions of taking over completely leading to an military attack of some sort.

Replace China with NK;
They don't have the military power to go toe-to-toe with us but just as they did in the 50s, they can walk through SK before anybody can do anything about it.  We'd never get the UN support to do push them back and we'd never get enough power into the area fast enough to do any good.  Their economy is already shot and Lil' Kim is only barely in power and needs to prove he's in charge.  They made not have the power of China but they do have some of it, and they'd hurt us with enough shock to give us pause.

[tombogan03884]

I would be more worried about NK in the sphere of cyber war. there have already been incidents in the last few years involving "denial of service attacks" and hacking against the US, Japan and SK.
I am nowhere near as concerned with their conventional forces since they can not even move their tanks with out oil donated by the South, and THOSE little buggers are no one to mess with lightly.
The Russians are another one to watch on the cyber war front.
They have already launched crippling attacks against Estonia and Georgia.
The top of the line though may very well be Israel, the last time they launched a major attack against Syria, knocking out the Syrian nuke program they not only had attack planes but landed troops to collect prisoners and other intel material.
TONS of it.
But the Syrian air defenses knew nothing till they read it in the paper.

[Sponsor]

[santahog]

I was goung to suggest that the "leaner" might be talking about horse shoes.. This picture drives it home for me.. I started raving about the "War on Drugs" when Reagan picked up the mantra. I thought it was stupid to spray pot fields with semi-poison rather than just killing the plants.. I screamed about heroin and the kind of stuff that really messed people up.. I was always told "What do you want us to do, invade Afganistan?". I told them that without doing exactly that, that any "War on Drugs" was just a game. WHY ARE THE POPPY FIELDS STILL GROWING???
I med a CID guy a year ago last month who spent alot of time in Afganistan. I asked him what kind of stuff he dealt with there and he told me drug interdiction. I was surprised. I asked him how soldiers had access to drugs over there. He looked at me and said "THEY'RE IN AFGANISTAN"..
What, exactly, have we accomplished in Afganistan, beyond testing the upper limit of how much money we can spend per BG killed? Can anybody help me out with that, please?
My rant... No offence to the guys doing the heavy lifting over there. I just don't see leaving poppys in the ground over there as doing US any good for US..

[santahog]

All part of the plan.

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?

Remember when the "Clinton Crime Bill" was proposed to hire 100,000 downsized police from Hong Kong?
I think bho will find a place in his organization for young men with the proper attitude..
Just my baseless imagination musing upon the impossibilities.. 

[tombogan03884]

The war on drugs is a useless BS money pit scam that does nothing but make criminals rich and give the govt cover for abridging our rights.

[Tyler Durden]

the current issue of Men's Journal (has Daniel Craig, the latest actor to play James Bond, on the cover) has an article about some super secret squirrel X-SEAL military contractor guy.  there is a picture of him, also, standing in the middle of a poppy field. 

what does he say about the drug war?

LEGALIZE ALL OF IT, NOW!

http://www.mensjournal.com/

[Rastus]

I resisted the urge to join into Tom & J's comments about the modern battlefield.  Those were great comments and relevant for today and now.  However, after pondering a bit I think the modern battlefield concepts are presupposed on "conventional" concepts of defining success for an attacker or defender.  Should we postulate on another concept of success?  I think so and it may change our concept of defense strategy.

My assumption is that human population continues to expand.  Resources for a "nation" or a "population" dwindle for whatever reason.  At some point, and we see it in smaller, poorer nations either with or without manmade and natural disasters, a nation, tribe, population or whatever will perceive, rightfully or wrongfully, that some portion of their population will be severely and negatively affected by a lack of resources.  The negative effects may be starvation, disease, overcrowding, whatever....death or a living death is the perceived future.

What is a population to do?  Bad word coming up...just taking resources may not be sufficient....without doubt someone will opt to impose genocide on their neighbor.  It is not like it has not happened in the past in ancient or modern times. There are examples here in North America and every populated continent.  It is also a fact that humanity's ability to be cruel and ruthless has not changed.
 
So what now?  I would suppose there are historical examples of the strategic steps defenders and agressors took when faced with such a fate that could be applied to modern times.