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

Boehner isn't a conservative and neither is Cantor. Neither is John McCain.

Not saying there aren't some conservatives who realized that government spending was so out of control that to bring it under control, America's national security might have to be put at risk. An almost $1 trillion dollar stimulus wasn't enough for Obama and a trillion dollar deficit spending every year by Obama wasn't enough for Obama's social engineering agenda of America. Obama wanted more money.

Obama failed to notice that in 1998 the conservative base of the GOP lost control and the neoconservatives had gained control of the GOP for the first time since they fled the Democrat party during the 1970's and came under the GOP tent.

Back when the conservatives controlled the GOP, defense spending, national security cuts were off limits, not to be touched. It's been like that going back to the 1950's. This is when Obama thought he was a poker player and came up with the sequestration and that 50% of the cuts would be national security thinking that no way would the GOP would sign off on his sequestration. Obama was bluffing and the neoconservatives called on Obama's bluff. Obama didn't realize that the conservatives were no longer in charge in the GOP.

It's just not the lack of funding of our military, even if there was no sequestration the U.S. military still couldn't fight one major war and win. Under Obama the U.S. military would still be in trouble with low morale among the troops, the purging of the officers corps, unit cohesion being threaten by social engineering. The troops aren't happy campers with Obama as their CnC. Obama doesn't have any respect for those who serve under his command so Obama has lost respect of those who serve standing post and protecting America.

You have a large number of company grade and field grade officers who were planning on putting in 30 years and now say are going to leave when they hit that magic number of 20 years in service. Why ? The U.S. military isn't the same military that it was back before 2009.

You have NCO's and SNCO's who are leaving the service who are just two, three or four years away from 20 years in the service and are waking up one morning saying this isn't the same military I remember before Obama became CnC. And they are leaving and are so close to 20 years to get those bennies.

You can send a military to war with the best weapons and equipment and training and if morale is low, there isn't unit cohesion they are going to be defeated on the battlefield. The number one complaint of those serving in the military under Obama has been the PC social engineering that has been forced upon the military.

 

I disagree, "Peace Through Strength." " Si vis pacem, para bellum" = "If you wish for peace, prepare for war"

 

Prepare for wars you can actually fight and win. The US cannot win foreign wars under current leadership and rules.

 

I concur.

I feel sorry for who ever will be the next CnC, they will be inheriting Obama's PC military.

 

The problem is that most of the time, wars break out from the opponant, not ourselves. That kind of logic is a clear path to disaster.

Just think of some of the many wars we have found ourselves involved in. Korea and Kuwait are perfect examples. Where a key ally was attacked, with the US becoming involved because of alliances. Or Afghanistan, where the US was attacked then went into a conflict to prevent such an attack from happening again.

Planning your defense only on the basis that you will not attack anybody is a complete and utter failure. Because it is forgetting that all to often, the other side is the one that takes the initiative, not yourself. And remember, we have at least one other nation on the planet that has declared that it is at war with us, and has been threatening us with attack for years.

And remember, "Continental Defense" is not just military. The military is also our largest body of "first responders" for natural disaster as well, from hurricanes and floods to earthquakes and fires. While normally the part of the National Guard, Reserves and even Active Duty also often fill in for major disasters.

As for rejecting "nuclear retaliation", I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about there.

 

A realistic assessment of our military capabilities, especially as they are effected by diminished political support for war should be step one.

If we ever have to fight another war, heaven help the leaders who cannot win it fast, and gain some unambiguous advantage for the US.

 

Don't know about the other services but I think with the Army officers are out at 28 years, unless they have a skill set where there is a shortage. My brother barely managed to get his bird just a year and a half before he was 'retired' a couple years ago.

 

We need to reassess our ME alliances. The 2 Iraq wars look like clear error to me now. Seemed to make sense at the time.

IMO, there will be broad bipartisan political opposition to another foreign war under current leadership and rules. When there is political support for a return to a rational laws of war, rules of engagement and doctrine war may be an option again.

I am not at all convinced that the current US leadership class.would retaliate after a nuclear strike.

 

That's what many in the military leadership were saying back during the Carter administration (77-80)

The fear being if the Soviets were to move on Western Europe the Soviets would threatened using technical nukes that Carter would surrender Europe to the Soviets.

While the Soviets were going on a full military build up during the 1970's the New Left who had just gained control of the Democrat party were downsizing the U.S. military and by 1979 we had a hollow military force.

We have already seen Obama and his red line in the sand and the Obama-Putin staredown over Syria and Obama blinked.

 

Nuclear retaliation would kill the innocents - get it? I think that is how most DP and RP leaders think now.

 

You have tactical nukes and strategic nukes.

Now I only received one freaking day of training for fighting on a nuclear battlefield. Most of my training was for fighting in Southeast Asia not in Europe during the 60's.

But tactical nukes could quickly escalate to a nuclear exchange of strategic ICBM's. It wouldn't be a good day if that were have happened.

What's been the purpose of Poland for hundreds of years ? It's where Germany and Russia are suppose to fight each other.

Nobody wants to fight a war on their own soil. So you fight your wars on other peoples soil or oceans.

 

Nope, mandatory retirement is still 60 years of age.

"Up and Out" is really only an issue from O-1 through O-5. Once they reach O-6 (Colonel-Captain), they are pretty much assured to be able to stay in as long as they want. Each branch has their own version of "RCP", or the rank they must be by a certain number of years in service. But once they make O-6, this is then waived because promotions beyond this point are very few and far between.

While I am leaving out the last war, the first one unquestionably was not a mistake.

I, for one, do not look favorably upon any nation that tries to bite off a chunk of it to expand it's borders, or tries to take over the entire nation. Be it South Korea or South Vietnam, or Tibet, Ukraine, or any other country.

Now to cut off any responses, this does not include the punitive removal of parts of a country due to their own agressive nations own actions. What happened after WWI or WWII, or other wars is not the same thing. Those are actions intended to act as a deterent, not the actual goal of the war itself.

There is no doubt that Kuwait was an independent nation. And there is no doubt that Iraq attacked it and tried to annex it purely for their own personal gain (and to eliminate the large debt it owed it). And it is also a fact that Kuwait had been an ally for years prior to that invasion. So to me if anybody can say it is a "clear error" shows that they simply do not give a damn about national soverenty and rights other then what they are willing to give.

Even if Kuwait was not a US Ally, I would have encouraged the US getting involved in restoring the country to it's own people. Only a puppet or somebody with no moreal character in my mind (other then a devout Iraqi supporter) could find otherwise as far as I am concerned.

Oh trust me, if anybody was to launch a nuke outside of a response to another WMD attack, the entire world would turn them aside and do all they could for their destruction. And I have no doubt that if any nation was to launch a WMD attack against the United States itself, the response would be a nuke.

As well as quite possible nukes from other nations, even possibly those antagonistic towards the nation attacked.

Now this has to be entirely hypothetical, but now we are entering the realm of geopolitics. But if a nation orders a nuke attack against one nation, what is there to say that they would not order another attack upon another nation? Say if the nation of Myopia ordered a nuke launched at the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, what is to say that their next target will not be the US? Or England? Or Russia? Or China? Or India? Such a nation would immediately be looked at as an "unpredictable loose cannon", and more then likely they would have multiple nukes sent back in response, from other nations.

Either from those who support the nation attacked, or those who want to distance themselves from the attack and to show solidarity with the nation so attacked. If in a hypothetical world China was nuked by Russia, it would not surprise me if the US launched a few nukes at Russia itself. Or against China if the situation was reversed. Or against Pakistan if it nuked India, or against India if it nuked Pakistan.

When you are talking about nukes, in many ways the responses are beyond even the beliefs of the President. Either they have to respond according to National Policy, or they are going to be President when the United SStates finds itself with no alliance at all.

The US is among many things, the Nuclear Nation pledged to use those nukes both to support NATO, and Japan. If say North Korea nuked Tokyo and the US did not respond, expect to find the US a pariah nation, and all alliances then cancelled. Along with that, expect almost all trade agreements cancelled as well. NATO, NAFTRA, MFN, all of them, gone. The US would instantly be reduced mostly to that of any other "Third World Nation".

Yea, and? I absolutely fail to see your point here.

Invasion of a nation costs innocent civilian lives. So should the response of an invasion be, nothing? On fear of costing even more lives?

Say you are the victim of a home invasion robbery. Do you want law enforcement to do absolutely nothing, for fear that you and your family might get hurt? Going back to hypothetical, if the Dutchy of Grand Fenwick was to invade Myopia, do you just let them get away with it, for fear that more might be killed in the liberation of Myopia?

Sorry, but in my personal opinion, that is little more then complete and utter cowardace and capitulation because of fear.

This is not an attack, simply my own opinion. I myself am a pacifist, and can respect many pacifistic beliefs. But I am however not a "radical pacifist", and only find violence a tool of last resort. However, I do not find violence a "tool of no resort", and believe that if required violence indeed is not only warranted but justified. And the application of such force should be as fast and violent as needed, as a lesson to others to not do such actions.

But if you are afraid that retaliation might cause harm to others, then I guess maybe I should stake out your house for a home invasion robbery. Since you of course should absolutely refuse to use any force against me, and I can simply walk out with any of your possesions that I wish to leave with. After all, if you fight me, innocents might be hurt.

Right?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, mandatory retirement is still 60 years of age.

"Up and Out" is really only an issue from O-1 through O-5. Once they reach O-6 (Colonel-Captain), they are pretty much assured to be able to stay in as long as they want. Each branch has their own version of "RCP", or the rank they must be by a certain number of years in service. But once they make O-6, this is then waived because promotions beyond this point are very few and far between.

While I am leaving out the last war, the first one unquestionably was not a mistake.

I, for one, do not look favorably upon any nation that tries to bite off a chunk of it to expand it's borders, or tries to take over the entire nation. Be it South Korea or South Vietnam, or Tibet, Ukraine, or any other country.

Now to cut off any responses, this does not include the punitive removal of parts of a country due to their own agressive nations own actions. What happened after WWI or WWII, or other wars is not the same thing. Those are actions intended to act as a deterent, not the actual goal of the war itself.

There is no doubt that Kuwait was an independent nation. And there is no doubt that Iraq attacked it and tried to annex it purely for their own personal gain (and to eliminate the large debt it owed it). And it is also a fact that Kuwait had been an ally for years prior to that invasion. So to me if anybody can say it is a "clear error" shows that they simply do not give a damn about national soverenty and rights other then what they are willing to give.

Even if Kuwait was not a US Ally, I would have encouraged the US getting involved in restoring the country to it's own people. Only a puppet or somebody with no moreal character in my mind (other then a devout Iraqi supporter) could find otherwise as far as I am concerned.

Oh trust me, if anybody was to launch a nuke outside of a response to another WMD attack, the entire world would turn them aside and do all they could for their destruction. And I have no doubt that if any nation was to launch a WMD attack against the United States itself, the response would be a nuke.

As well as quite possible nukes from other nations, even possibly those antagonistic towards the nation attacked.

Now this has to be entirely hypothetical, but now we are entering the realm of geopolitics. But if a nation orders a nuke attack against one nation, what is there to say that they would not order another attack upon another nation? Say if the nation of Myopia ordered a nuke launched at the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, what is to say that their next target will not be the US? Or England? Or Russia? Or China? Or India? Such a nation would immediately be looked at as an "unpredictable loose cannon", and more then likely they would have multiple nukes sent back in response, from other nations.

Either from those who support the nation attacked, or those who want to distance themselves from the attack and to show solidarity with the nation so attacked. If in a hypothetical world China was nuked by Russia, it would not surprise me if the US launched a few nukes at Russia itself. Or against China if the situation was reversed. Or against Pakistan if it nuked India, or against India if it nuked Pakistan.

When you are talking about nukes, in many ways the responses are beyond even the beliefs of the President. Either they have to respond according to National Policy, or they are going to be President when the United SStates finds itself with no alliance at all.

The US is among many things, the Nuclear Nation pledged to use those nukes both to support NATO, and Japan. If say North Korea nuked Tokyo and the US did not respond, expect to find the US a pariah nation, and all alliances then cancelled. Along with that, expect almost all trade agreements cancelled as well. NATO, NAFTRA, MFN, all of them, gone. The US would instantly be reduced mostly to that of any other "Third World Nation".

Yea, and? I absolutely fail to see your point here.

Invasion of a nation costs innocent civilian lives. So should the response of an invasion be, nothing? On fear of costing even more lives?

Say you are the victim of a home invasion robbery. Do you want law enforcement to do absolutely nothing, for fear that you and your family might get hurt? Going back to hypothetical, if the Dutchy of Grand Fenwick was to invade Myopia, do you just let them get away with it, for fear that more might be killed in the liberation of Myopia?

Sorry, but in my personal opinion, that is little more then complete and utter cowardace and capitulation because of fear.

This is not an attack, simply my own opinion. I myself am a pacifist, and can respect many pacifistic beliefs. But I am however not a "radical pacifist", and only find violence a tool of last resort. However, I do not find violence a "tool of no resort", and believe that if required violence indeed is not only warranted but justified. And the application of such force should be as fast and violent as needed, as a lesson to others to not do such actions.

But if you are afraid that retaliation might cause harm to others, then I guess maybe I should stake out your house for a home invasion robbery. Since you of course should absolutely refuse to use any force against me, and I can simply walk out with any of your possesions that I wish to leave with. After all, if you fight me, innocents might be hurt.

Right?

 

Well, let me give you my own experience from a number of years later.

I was trained in the 1980's, when the idea of what a "WWIII" was much different.

Much of the latter Cold War scenarios were very different. First a conventional war, then a limited nuclear exchange, then maybe outright nuclear war.

In 1983, I was given quite a bit of training in how to operate in a "nuclear battlefield". At that time, it was hoped that nukes could be kept out of a conflict, or at best kept to a theatre-tactical level. In other words, the Warsaw Pact might invade through the Fulda Gap, but if repulsed send a battlefield nuke against it themselves, to dey it's use as an invasion route by NATO back into Warsaw Pact territory.

And for those that do not get a bit of what I am saying, I suggest you research the following terms:

Fulda Gap
Pershing II - SS-20

To the military strategists of that era, it was believed that nuclear exchanges could be avoided, or possibly limited. Think Sir Thomas Hackett in his "Thired World War" novel, or John Clancy in his novel "Red Storm Rising". Both written during some of the years of highest tension during the Cold War. And remember, there is a real seriousl reason why President Reagan fuought so hard to get the INF treaty signed off.

I was trained and retrained over the years to operate in a "nuclear battlefield". Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was assumed that without warning any battlefield could become "nuclear". So we were trained in a version of "duck and cover" (something I had learned in grade school), as well as the use of protective equipment and how to operate in battlefield conditions contaminated by nuclear fallout.

Several years ago, I had somebody deride me as not having been "real Infantry" because I served in the "Cold War", saying that I was not "real infantry". Thankfully, another senior ranking NCO overheard that and quickly pulled up that individual short, telling him that he did not know what he was talking about. Yes, he served when the Iraq War was new, and all who joined knew they were facing possible combat. But everybody who joined when we did believed that WWIII was possible at almost any time, and we were facing fighting as global armageddon was going on around us.

Just because nothing much happened when we first joined, did not reduce the fact that it might have happened.

 

Blessed are the Peace makers for they shall be called the Children of God.

Conservatives claim to be moral Christians so let's see them obey their own Bible.

 

Hey Mushroom, don't know if you saw this but we have talked about this more than a few times over the past couple of years.

Excerpt:

Maps & Jammers: Army Intensifies Training Vs. Russian-Style Jamming

 

Let me throw out another one.

He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword.

Just consider me to be the one that wields the sword of justice.

To bad you forgot some oether quotes from the Bible?

Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.

'Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.' And all the people shall say, 'Amen.'

He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the lovingkindness of the LORD.

 

Traitor Bush's two needless wars created a great many widows.

 

Tactical nukes are another issue. I doubt that the US political class would retaliate after a massive first strike nuclear attack on the US.

As to foreign wars. They are pointless unless a decisive unambiguous final victory over an enemy that for the long term benefit of the US. That is not even a possibility under current leadership and rules of war. So, another foreign war should not be an option to even consider.

 

Both Iraq wars were clear error. An Iraq takeover of Kuwait and the KSA et al would not have compromised the interests of the US.

Again, I doubt that the political class in the US would retaliate after a massive first strike on US cities and military bases. IMO, they will surrender - quickly.

 

LOL! Now, go hug your Bible child.

 

You are aware, are you not, that Kuwait had for years been a key ally in the region, right? And that we had been key allies of each other (as well as Kuwait and the UK) since 1987?

Undoubtedly, our firmest ally in the world is the UK, and in Western Europe one of the largest gas companies goes by the name of "Q8". Get it?

There is a big reason why the US, UK, and NATO joined in the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. Most of Europe already had sanctions in place against Iraq, and by taking over Kuwait they also cut off a major source of their oil.

Funny how over and over and over, some people only see oil as what matters. Talk about wars and all they see is money and resources. But even more important to me were the more then 4 million Kuwaiti citizens who were terrorized and forced at the point of a gun to become "Iraqi".

I guess some people simply have more empathy for others. I care about people everywhere, not just those living in the US.

 

The Weinberger and Powell Doctrines Defined

Two very short excerpts:

 

How were they a "key ally"? What did they do for us?

Then the UK should have gone to war to save QB gas. Empathy is not enough to justify a foreign war. War should always serve the best interests of the people of the US.

The Iraq wars damaged the interests of the US.

 

Good doctrine. Clearly ignored by every president since Reagan.

 

G.H. Bush followed the doctrines, but he inherited Reagan's military so he was able to put 500,000 boots on the ground.

That's why I wasn't 100% onboard with G.W. Bush going into Iraq in 2003 because Bush inherited Clinton's military and was unable to put 500,000 boots on the ground even when Bush's generals pointed out the Weinberger and Powell doctrines that at a minimum required 400,000 troops on the ground to occupy Iraq after the mission of regime change was accomplished.

Also there was no exit strategy because there was not plan of exiting Iraq because the neoconservatives along with liberals in Congress (Hillary Clinton being one of them) were planning on nation building after the mission of regime change was accomplished. In 2003 I didn't know that, and since the Vietnam War I have always had an opinion that the U.S. military shouldn't be used for nation building ( along with social engineering of the military ) , that's the business of the State Department and organizations like the Peace Corps. It wouldn't be until some years later that I discovered how large of a scale this nation building was planned to be, a scale of the Marshal plan that we saw in post WW ll Germany.

But as soon as our troops crossed the line and entered Iraq I had to come onboard and support the troops because I personally know what it's like when a war becomes politicized and your peers back home back stab you in the back while you're on the battlefield.

As history has proven, any time a war becomes politicized at home, you will never achieve the victory that you intended.

Which brings us back to Afghanistan. By 2002 Al Qaeda had fled Afghanistan and relocated mostly in Yemen and the Horn of Africa and hid in northern Pakistan. That's where they were checked and were confined until the Arab Spring.

The Taliban got their butts kicked a bloody red and fled to Pakistan licking their wounds while they watched what was happening in Iraq.
As soon as the Taliban saw that the war in Iraq had become politicized in America the Taliban said those stupid Americans, they made the same mistake that they did in Vietnam and they started returning to Afghanistan.

But the objective in Afghanistan was to deny Al Qaeda using Afghanistan as a base of operations and training. From 2002 to 2015 there was no Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Guess what ? Al Qaeda is back in Afghanistan today.