U.S. Military Can't Even Fight One War Today

What is sadder is the fact that this is a needless war started by traitor Bush. American soldiers belong at home with their families, just like our Founding Fathers demanded. Every real patriot will readily agree.

 

No strategy to fight ISIS? I guess that bombing and getting arabs to fight their own fight is not a strategy for American war mongers. I am sure there are many who think that invading Iraq for a THIRD time is the charm.\

Purging the military? Right, so a guy that puts in his thirty years with distinction doesn't retire, he gets "purged".

At least you are consistent.

 

Honestly, Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis (USA-Ret.) is an idiot.

There are several factors involved in the ability to wage war and one factor is the size of the active and reserve military forces of the nation.

The United States ranks second in the world with active military forces with 1,400,000 personnel on active duty. The only nation with a larger standing military is China, that we're not going to war against, and it has 2,335,000 members of it's active military.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp

The United States ranks 11th when it comes to reserve military forces with 1,100,000 more military personnel that can be called up whenever need dictates. Of those nations that have a larger active reserve military only N Korea and Iran are note worthy and they rank 5th and 8th respectively when it comes to active military personnel. We can also note that neither N Korea or Iran has any plans to attack the United States and don't represent a threat to the United States.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-reserve-military-manpower.asp

Yes, the vast majority of the military personnel are dedicated to logistical support and because the US wages wars in foreign countries, as opposed to on US soil, we have a greater need for logistical support than a nation waging war on it's own soil. We've got that covered and can provide the logistical support our combat troops need anywhere in the world.

Of course the "technological capability" of the military dramatically reduced the requirement for "manpower" and the US has the most technologically advanced military in the world. For example the M1-A1 Abrams tank is the most advance tank in the world providing the US Army with ground superiority in any conflict. We also have the most advanced stealth aircraft in the world providing a huge advantage in air superiority over any nation. One F-22, for example, is superior to more than a squadron of fighter aircraft from any other nation and the fact that one fighter is equal to or superior to a squadron of opposing enemy aircraft reduces not just the number of fighter aircraft we require but also the massive logistical support and personnel required for an entire squadron of aircraft.

Finally is the training of our military personnel which is as good as or better than virtually any other nation.

Based upon manpower, technology, and training the US military has a long history of defeating numerically superior forces in conventional warfare and we could easily wage a war on one front and almost always be able to wage a war on miltiple fronts even today.

Where we can't win, and have never really been able to win, is fighting an insurgency war in a foreign country because US manpower, technology, and training cannot overcome the inherent advantage of an insurgent force that has the support of the people in their native country. No nation is really capable of defeating a determined insurgency force that is willing to fight forever to expell an foreign army of occupation. The French and later the US couldn't do it in Vietman and the USSR was incapable of doing it in Afghanistan (a lesson we're also learning in Afghanistan today). The US was even incapable of defeating al Sadr's Shi'ite militia in Iraq and the Sunni militias in Iraq (and it's the former Sunni militias that are a core element of ISIS today). We managed to get out of Iraq but we never defeated the militias that opposed us.

 

He's "patriotically" hanging out with commies in Havana today.

 

Should we use Marine Gen. Mattis or how about Army Lt. Gen Flynn ?

Sounds like Lt. Gen Flynn was purged from the Officers Corps.

Gen. Mattis was purged from the Marine Corps because Valerie Jarrett ordered Obama to fire him. Basically officers aren't enlisted man, they are commissioned officers. And when you're an officer and don't have a billet to fill (Navy/Marine Corps) or a slot to fill (Army/Air Force) you kinda resign your commission and retire. Actually you were forced to retire, you were purged from the officers corps.

 

this is what happens after republicans start two needless 10+ year wars, it makes us weaker....

 

I seem to remember that it was Al Qaeda who declared war on America back in 1996.

Who was President back in 1996 ?

I also seem to also remember that back in 1998 Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act and President Clinton signed it into law.Back in 1998, liberals were calling for regime change in Iraq.


Bin Laden's decleration of war on America and why he decided to attack America on it's own soil on 9-11-01.

excerpt:

 

and Bush should of just had a quick Arial response for Afghanistan and never went to war with Iraq

 

G.W. Bush surrounded himself with liberals aka neoconservatives.

Afghanistan should have been a punitive war, "crush and bolt."

Iraq should have been a just a regime change and then bolt.

One of the best political debates in America's history was the VP candidates between Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman.
A Debate Good Enough to Make You Want to Vote -> http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,56836,00.html

Many forget that during the first Gulf war, Iraq never surrendered, only a cease fire agreement was signed. So technically the United States and the UK were still at war. And how many times did Iraq violate that cease fire agreement ?

In the Cheney/Lieberam debate Cheney brought up that the Clinton administration had eight years to deal with Saddam and Iraq and failed.
Anyone who didn't know that the G.W. Bush administration wasn't going to remove Saddam from power were just totally uniformed and shouldn't even be participating in our elections.

But Bush surrounded himself with neocons and neocons are liberals who have an agenda of nation building. It was planned that there would be a nation building program comparable to the Marshal Plan that was used in post WW ll Germany. The neocons were planning on pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq.

But Bush started off on the wrong foot. First he didn't follow the Weinberger and Powell doctrines.

It was impossible to adhere to the Weinberger and Powell doctrines because unlike Bush's father G.H. Bush who went to was with Reagan's military during Desert Storm, little Bush only had Clinton's military to go to war with. The Powell doctrine required that the U.S. military be able to put a minimum of 400,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Clinton's military that G.H. Bush inherited was only able to put 200,000 troops on the ground. Enough troops to accomplish the mission of regime change but not enough troops to occupy Iraq or enough troops for nation building.

And it's my opinion just like the military should never be used for social engineering, the military should never be used for nation building.

The only wars I approve of are punitive and self defense. And punitive wars should be fought as "crush and bolt." Go in kick ass and then bolt, get out of Dodge leaving the message, (*)(*)(*)(*) with American citizens or America again we'll be back to kick your butts again.

 

Why are blaming military cuts by the Republican sequester on Obamaaaaama


Though I'm not sure why you think we have to spend even more money to defend ourselves when we spend 3-4x more than the next country (China)
7-10x more than Russia, and more than top 7 military spenders combined (excluding us).

If we cannot defend ourselves and accomplish our objectives with that level of disproportionate spending there is something seriously wrong with the military command.

 

well at least we agree on that, you just refuse to credit republicans for it......

 

Because it's Obama's sequestration. It was an idea that came out of the Obama White House.

Obama lies to America that it was the Republican in Congress but Obama got caught again in another lie. And it was the darling on the left who exposed Obama being a liar.

Bob Woodward: The president is not telling the truth on the sequester -> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...ng-the-truth-on-the-sequester/article/2522416

Obama has lost all credibility on sequestration -> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...-credibility-on-sequestration/article/2522822

Obama wasn't a happy camper with Bob Woodward.

 

RINO's RINO's.

With all of the fighting taking place with in the RNC over Trump, watchout, all of those neoconservatives (GOP establishment) might flee from the GOP and go back to the Democrat party.


You know that liberal/progressive who has cankles and always wears pant suits ? Yeah, Hillary, she's a warmonger and if she had a penis she would have a hardon when it comes to nation building. Now Hillary believes that the American military should be deployed to third world countries digging irrigation ditches and building roads and schools.

 

Getting back on topic....the USN. sent a USN. Carrier Strike Group in between China and Taiwan to demonstrate that this is INTERNATIONAL WATERS....and the U.S. Military KNOWS that China is NOT going to do anything about it whether they have built fortified reclaimed from the sea bottom islands or not.

This is basically sending a message to China which is saying....You claim this area of the sea as China's? No..no it's not!

And what is China going to do?

Launch missiles at a U.S. Carrier Group?

I think not.

THAT...is the point of sending a Carrier Strike Group between China and Taiwan as we are saying...."Go ahead...do something....yeah...we didn't think so!"

AA

 

If you are referring back during the Clinton administration, it was a Carrier Battle Group not a Carrier Strike Group.

CBG -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group#/media/File:Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg

CSG -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carri...le:George_Washington_Carrier_Strike_Group.jpg

 

No...we just did this last week.

AA

 

Funny, but I seem to remember that the majority of Democratic Senators voted for the resolution. Including such individuals as Senators Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Harry Reid. And it was authored by none other then Tom Daschle.

Why is it that Democrats all to often pretend that they were never involved in something they do not like? You can go on and on about "Republicans", meanwhile comepletely ignoring the large number of Democrats who supported it.

And also ignoring the simple fact that the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time! If the Democrats really wanted to stop the war, they could have. Somehow your simplistic comments completely ignore this.

Which the House passed 368-38. And the Senate passed unanimously. And President Clinton signed as soon as it arrived on his desk.

Once again, ignoring anything pointing at anything he refuses to see.

 

Source ?

Back when the Navy had a CBG sail through the Taiwan Strait during the 1990's it was a stupid move. You don't want a carrier in such a small confined area that there wouldn't be enough room to maneuver and conduct combat flight operations. That's why CBG / CSG remain out of the Taiwan Strait.

 

LINK....http://atimes.com/2016/03/beijing-targets-us-pacific-commander-as-carrier-sails-south-china-sea/

LINK...http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/03/04/453738/US-carrier-South-China-Sea

AA

- - - Updated - - -

Your getting sucked in.

I got sucked in too.

AA

 

Oh, we still regularly do that. It is to enforce our "Right of Transit", like what we did with Libya in the 1980's in the Gulf of Sidra.

However, we do not plan on actually operating there in the event of conflict. The last time I read any kind of strategic plans for conflicts of Taiwan, most of our fleet would have been positioned to the East of Taiwan. That way they can use the islands for protection, and use their force projection to strike at any attack to Taiwan itself.

 

East and North of Taiwan.

China is well aware that it could not complete a successful invasion of Taiwan.

It's PLN Troop Carriers would NEVER make it to the shores of Taiwan.

And without being able to get troops on Taiwanese soil....China has no capability.

AA

 

Doing a little research, the only CSG in the 7th Fleet AOR is the Stennis CSG. A couple weeks ago the Stennis was in the P.I. following orders to celebrate Black History month. When it departed the P.I.'s on March 8th it went north not south and arrived at Busan, Republic of Korea on March 13th and departed ROK on the 16th. Have no idea where the Stennis CSG is today.

But if I really wanted to know, all I would have to do is send an e-mail to someone who's on the USS Stennis.

But there's always the source that the chi-coms use when they are wondering where is the USS Stennis CSG. -> https://www.facebook.com/stennis74

Remember when our ships locations use to be secret ?

 

It sailed right through the China/Taiwan strait last week.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

It's pretty tough to keep the location of a Carrier secret unless it's during time of war with the Internet and I-Phones.

AA

 

I have a cabin in the mountains and for internet service I have to use Hughes Net. It sucks big time. It uses the same satellite that Navy ships use for internet service for the crew members sending e-mails to family members.

I find this site more up to date than Global Security website. Usually it's updated daily but I notice no updates for the past couple of days. -> http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

 

I checked it out and it does not detail the the Carrier going into the Strait but they did.

Actually I think another member actually asked me perhaps earlier on this topic about what China would do when the Carrier entered the strait and I told them....Nothing...which is what China did....nothing.

After all....what would China do?

Nothing.

They would be cutting their own throats to do anything.

AA