What is the appropriate mission & size of the U.S. Military?

So what happens when the Chinese decide to project power globally and we have no way to stop them from doing so and our economy gets (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up?

You don't understand that our attachment to the globalized economy makes us vulnerable on a global scale, not regional.

Oh wait, Goldwater probably means libertarian isolationist and protectionist doesn't it?

 

When did I say they were building a supercarrier? All I said was they would have enough naval power to contol their ocean.

 

There is a difference between isolationism and interventionalism and I am a non interventionalist.

Besides regional problem areas like Tibet....China has never projected it's power globally. There was that whole Gingis Khan thing, but that was Mongolia, and a long time ago. China doesn't need to project military power, they're projecting financial power, and we'll never be able to solve that militarilly

 

That is where I am thinking we should be going.

I think the United States needs to be able to project force- but the previous mission of being able to commit to two full scale conflicts in two different portions of the world at the same time is unnecessary in the current world.- and I don't think we can actually support that right now anyway.

 

How can they control their ocean with the U.S. Central Command/5th Fleet in the same neighborhood?

 

"Right next to", are you serious? Do you even know what you are talking about?

They are almost 3,000KM apart, and there are these big countries called "Afghanistan" and "Pakistan" that sit between them. How is Iran a threat to India? Are they going to send their army across, through 2 nations to get there?

Pack 100 Soldiers on each of their 125 patrol boats and stage an Amphibious Assault?

I have told you before, and will do so again. Your research is seriously lacking. And every time you bring things up like this, I will contine to do research and shoot them down.

And in case you did not know, the US is in the Persian Gulf supporting key allies. And in case you forgot, the 1990 Gulf War was protecting a key ally of the UK. Or did you not know how much of the UK oil supply comes from Kuwait?

The US is a critical ally of many Persian Gulf nations, including Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. I even have Jordanian Army Sergeants in my NCO School class at this time. And we try and support our allies, big and small.

 

Even if the Indian Navy gets all of their current proposed and current carriers operational, they still would not even be a match for a single US Carrier Group.

One of the main reasons I started to participate here was because a friend told me about it, and how horribly lacking many of the people are in any kind of understanding in military matters.

And over the years I have seen she was right. I have met many who are real experts, and others who think they are Armchair Patton's, but who are more accurately described as Armchair Custer's.

And I will continue to say the same mantra over and over again. Research, research, research. Trust me everybody, I do not have all of these facts sitting at the top of my head. But I have a good basic idea of the capabilities of most major nations in the world (and some real details on others). And I take that information, and combine it with 10 minutes or so of research and come up with amazing facts.

None of these are just pulled out of my arse with nothing but my say-so. I can provide references when challenged, but most do not even bother anymore because I do not make up things, but can verify most of what I say from legitimate sources.

 

Excellent point. Isolationism is a mistake, as the world learned in 1939, though it did take the US another two years and a surprise attack to put it all together. One could also argue the US got into the habit of intervention while combating the Soviet threat during the Cold War; I personally feel it's high time to let that habit go.

Which brings up the question: what interests do we protect? I've seen it mentioned here to withdraw from the Indian Ocean and to leave the high seas up to the regional powers to maintain. Should the US permit that to happen? SLOCs are not going to go away, though we are not as reliant as we once were on them. How do we manage to maintain freedom of the seas when we are not able to do so ourselves? Should we give up our naval dominance? What vulnerabilities does this open us up to?

China has not been able to project power globally--but that doesn’t mean they will forever remain unable or unwilling to do so. They are in the process of generating a true 'blue water' navy. They should--the need one, both to defend their own SLOCs and against the major seaborne powers. Simply because they are unable to do so now does not mean this circumstance will not change.

And why would China not need to project power? They are all over Africa and South America. They have an enormous amount of trade with the United States. Those are major arteries of commerce, and, if we abandon them, who is there to protect them? Then there are the main regional interests of China, number one of which is Taiwan. Reducing Taiwan may come in the form of a rain of missiles, but no matter how they pull that off, finally finishing the Chinese Civil War will come from a major amphibious assault, something they can't successfully pull off right now. Then there are the other issues out there--the Spratleys, border disputes with Vietnam, India and Russia, and the perceived threat from a re-armed Japan.

The Chinese have plenty of reasons to project power, only a very few of them actually tied to what the US is doing.

So how do we deal with it? Ignoring it is out, as Hitler and Tojo taught us. The way I see it, we can currently hold all our enemies at arm's length, for now. Russia's nuclear stockpile aside, there is no single nation or coalition of nations currently in existence than can really threaten us with a decisive military attack. China represents a potential strong regional threat, but not an imminent one. The Middle East now represents more of an embarrassment for the US than anything else; the oil there goes mostly to Europe or China, and there is little else there of interest for us. Support for our enemies aside, Pakistan is a bad joke, Iran even less. We have successfully defeated every significant threat out there.

Certainly, we have our vulnerabilities, our greatest being our economy. So we have to make significant cuts. How do we do so without significantly impacting the status quo with regards to our current security situation?

 

To defend our nation's borders. Period.

Much smaller than it is now. We don't need soldiers all over the world in hundreds of overseas bases. Close most of them, bring our military home, and station some along our southern border. Think of the money we will save and all the hatred we won't engender (except in Mexico, and who cares about that?).

 

Very good points, all of them.

Personally, I have always believed that it would be well done by following examples that have been forgotten.

At one time, it was almost unheard of for the military to permanently close a base. They were simply "mothballed", but retained in the event they were ever needed again. Fort Rucker is a good example of this. Opened for WWII, it was closed when the war was over. Then opened again for the Korean War. Closed again afterwards, then reopened and kept since it is the home of Army Aviation.

Over the past 20 years, I have seen a disturbingly large number of bases closed, and if there is ever a "WWIII", there will be no way possible to recreate those bases. Most people do not realize that all the bases in the San Francisco Bay area are gone. And one of the few bases to actually make a profit, Terminal Island, has been closed for almost 15 years now. Now it is a giant parking lot for cars arriving from Asia.

So instead of closing the bases and turning them over to civilian interests, we need to simply mothball them, keeping them for future contingencies. And while most do not know it, these bases serve many purposes. Most civilians have absolutely no idea that every base is also a wildlife refuge.

If I had a say in the matter, I would work on cutting back on the actual active duty segment, and keep an enlarged, highly trained reserve force. And do a "semi-mothball" of some of the ships in the Navy. Have crews rotate between ships of their class, each time taking a different one on the 6-9 month cruises. That way they are kept in workable condition, without the worry that always comes with long-term storage.

 

A lot of the "hundreds of bases" the media constantly touts are per the request of host nations and take the form of training contingents. Most of the rest are strategically important. It's much cheaper and effective to establish a logistic base than have to suddenly ship it all over in a time of crisis. Eliminating U.S. power projection would seriously decrease the overall edge the U.S. possess in military matters.

It may be hard to see, but there are countless "hot zones" that are quelled just by the sight of a U.S Carrier/Amphib group off-shore. Then when you factor in disaster response these bases and this power projection are very useful. Look up Marine Corps MEUs and see just how many times a year they deploy off-ship in various different countries. In the last decade alone they've been to dozens of different countries to do all variety of things. If the U.S. curbed it's power projection the world's ability to intervene in genocides and humanitarian crisis would DRAMATICALLY decrease. Europe/Japan/China etc. have a VERY limited capabilty when it comes to these types of situations.

 

Are they paying us to do this, or is the American taxpayer funding this? There is no benefit to us, and with our poor economy, it is irresponsible to continue to operate all of these bases.

That is true, but how does that benefit the taxpayers who are funding all of this?

Again, how does our intervention overseas benefit the American taxpayer?

So what? The military is supposed to defend our country, not police the world and be used by other countries who haven't developed their own. Many of these alliances are one-sided with the US doing most of the giving and other countries taking. This is economically unsustainable and we can no longer afford it.

 

Yea, like in WWII? Isolationism is a disaster waiting to happen.

What hatred? Let me ask you, how many deployments have you been on? How many foreign countries have you been to?

I am taking a moment, and come up with 13 countries myself. And I have never encountered "hatred", other then I was in the Socialist Republic of California. Almost universally I have been treated very kindly, by people who appreciate what I am doing to help protect them from enemies, both internal and external.

And how much money would we save? You are aware, are you not, that almost every country we have a base in actually pays us for that, are you not? Most nations do not want us to leave, because we are both a great amount of protection, as well as an incredible source of income.

If you do not believe that, look at the economy of the Philippines since we pulled out in the early 1990's. Or the areas around the former bases in Panama.

 

I've always wondered about the idea of forming inactive reserve guys into local units and having them train for a week per year. I'm too busy with school to join the reserves, and frankly don't feel like dealing with all the BS reservists have to go through. However, if I was compensated well enough and given leave (government insured) I wouldn't mind going for a week a year to brush up on some skills. It seems like this would be a very cost effective way to keep a few hundred thousand extra guys in the loop.

I think if the military was intelligent about it they could form almost British regimental style units. They could try and get rid of all the extraneous BS and just focus on basic infantry skills. It could also be a great central location for the VA and veteran outreach. I'm sure the media would scream bloody murder, but it would make sense. You'd have your active duty guys as the cream of the crop, the active duty reservists to fill in all the specialized roles, and then the inactive guys to fill in the ranks of Infantry and maybe a few other more general roles. I know that at least in my city we could form at least a BN or two of experienced infantrymen. If these guys trained together once a year and drank together everyweekend they'd become pretty friendly. Give them 6 months to train up and I bet you could probably put them up against most active duty units.

 

There's a significant benefit to us. First, it allows us to dictate a lot of world policy. This may seem "evil" but would you rather have someone else do it? Secondly, it allows us to help a lot of people out. Europeans brag about their per capita donations to the tsunami relief efforts....but completely ignore the Billion dollar aircraft carriers and amphibs that formed the backbone of much of the relief effort in the early days. These assets do A LOT of good.

Secondly, countries like Iran/North Korea/Syria etc. know that we have the ability to intervene anywhere at almost anytime. This does a lot to keep them quiet and prevent conflict. What would have happened if someone had intervened when Hitler began annexing his neighbors? Sitting back allowing your enemies to do as they please when they're weak can come back to bite you. Why do you think the world has been relatively peaceful in the last 20 years? When was the last major conflict? U.S. military capabilties have played a large role in that.

The military is suppossed to defend our interests. We live in globalized world today. You may be able to live within the borders of the U.S. and pay no heed to the world, but I assure you that ALOT of U.S. prosperity lies at the mercy of international affairs.

I agree we should trim the military modestly, but military spending isn't damaging the economy. There are much bigger issues at play, and a lot of government spending that needs to be cut.

 

Here, let me tell you the story of one base. And it is one that not many know about.

This is often called the "Field of Dreams" base, because of how it was created. Go back to 1990, and there was this little tiff between nations in the Persian Gulf region.

One nation took over another one, and some people took objection to this. You also had a lot of countries in the region start to get very-very nervous. One of them was very small (the nation is smaller then the Los Angeles Metro area), and thought that a great protector would be the US.

So they took a huge area of land in the middle of the desert and built this giant air base. Now you have to understand, the entire air force of this nation is less then 200 aircraft. But they built one of the largest airbases in the world, simply with the intention of getting the US to move in and conduct operations from it.

Hopefully you get the reference now. Field of Dreams, with the famous like, "If you build it, they will come".

And yes, the US does not pay rent. The host country covers all fuel, water, and utility costs. They also construct any buildings needed on this base at their own expense (they own the base, we just stay there).

Cost to the US military? Mostly payroll for the people that work there. But they would be on the payroll anyways, since 90% of them are military in the first place.

I am sure that a few of the people on this forum have been to that base., and would recognize it from what I have already said about it. And in addition to the air base, the nation also gets a smaller army base that the US occupies, as well as several batteries of PATRIOT air defense missiles, several of which are dedicated to protecting their capitol city.

All in all, a great benefit to both nations.

 

Heck, look at the tsunami this year.

Who was the first nation to respond with "boots ont he ground"? Why, the US with her navy.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4pv08NIkUI"]U.S. Barge Cools Nuclear Plant in Japan - YouTube[/ame]

The US gave a lot of support here, especially the Navy. Something that people always seem to forget.

 

It's pretty easy to argue having overseas bases aids in defense of the borders . . . but we'll say, for the sake of discussion, we intend to only defend our borders and our borders alone.

Can you put numbers to 'much smaller?' How do you see the Navy being used? The Air Force? Marines? Coast Guard? What about our sea lanes of commerce (the 'SLOCs' I brought up before; apologies for forgetting to define that)? Given that we do not need the Middle East's oil anymore, what lanes do we protect? Any of them? What of nations that intend us harm no matter what our diplomatic actions? What of our allies whom we signed mutual defense treaties with? Do we honor those commitments? Or back out on them, to save the money and manpower? What of nations that depend on us for defense (this is directed more specifically at Japan, though many nations are under our security umbrella)? What of former combatabt nations that use us to hold them seperated? Why does the hatred of nations that do not border us matter and hatred from nations that do border us not matter?

I want to understand your answer a little better. It is a common point of view, but not one often fleshed out.

 

It depends. Are we doing all the giving in these alliances so that other countries don't have to develop their own militaries because they can use ours? Or is it a balanced alliance, where both sides are giving equally? If the answer to the first one is yes, then we should withdraw. If the answer to the second is yes, then the alliance can stand.

Alliances are made under certain circumstances which can change through the years. We should review all of our treaties and see which still benefit us and which no longer do.

Let them develop their own military. We cannot afford to defend and police the world. That never should have been our responsibility. That provides zero benefit to the taxpayers funding it.

You still haven't answered my question about how any of this benefits the American taxpayer. It's time for other countries to solve their own problems.

People in the Middle East hate us because of our intervention in their affairs. If we stopped killing them they wouldn't hate us so much. Each invasion creates more enemies. 9/11 didn't occur because they hate our freedom as so many kept falsely proclaiming; it happened because we keep meddling in their affairs.

The President of Mexico, on the other hand, encourages his people to come to the US since their country is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up. They get mad when we try and enforce immigration laws to prevent this invasion, but so what?

Do you see the difference now?

 

How are you measuring the ‘balance?’ Sheer numbers of personnel? Or percentage of GDP expended? Does quality of material count? Training? Should we count basing options? Logistical support? Operational?

I can agree with that. It is definitely time to review what agreement we have made and see which still continue to benefit us.

There was a reason I specifically mentioned Japan. As I am certain everyone here is aware, the Imperial Japanese Empire stepped on more than a few toes a little more than seventy years ago. Their crushing defeat at our hands came at no small price to many nations ringing the Pacific Rim, notably China. Many nations there greatly fear a re-armed and resurgent Japan. Rightly or wrongly, our unilateral withdrawal from our defense treaties with Japan will force the Japanese into building a much stronger military. Between North Korea and China, the Japanese have more than enough threat to justify a significant military buildup to replace the defenses lost were we to depart.

How does this affect your ideas with regard to national needs for a security structure? The loss of commerce from North Korea would go totally unnoticed—but you can’t say the same with regards to China or Japan. Is this a loss we should simply take as we retreat within our new defensive perimeter? China is also working aggressively on a blue water naval capability—carriers, carrier air wings, carrier escorts, better subs, better anti-ship warfare and has long had the Long March ICBMs. Do you see China as a potential adversary or simply as just another regional power to be dealt with as necessary? (Frankly, North Korea has the potential to kill millions of Koreans and Japanese, but not much else, so we can ignore them . . . unless they go biological . .. .)

I feel the US military has prevented far more conflicts than it has ever participated in.

A military force is not cheap, that is very true. Doubly so when you consider the capabilities presented by the United States military. No nation on Earth is willing to challenge us, and none could successfully do so without catastrophic losses of their own; if they were very lucky, perhaps a Pyrrhic victory for them. Now, with that being said, how many multi-national major wars between major powers are in progress in the world right now? None. Why? Because we all know it’s not worth it. They might ‘win’ but their victory would be of little value as the spoils of such a conflict would never offset the expenditures required to achieve victory.

Long story made short, the world is a safer place because there is one major power. Without that major, overwhelming power, all the other nations out there who depended on us to keep the peace will now be forced to arm up. Instead of seven or eight major actors on the stage, now you have dozens, all with competing ideals.

How much safer would America be with dozens of conflicts going on all over the world?

Very true. But don’t leave out the context of the Cold War here—much of what was done after the Second World War was done with an eye toward containing or combating the Soviet Union. To leave that out obscures the reasons for our staunch support of Israel or the Shah of Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The invasion part I agree with; but hatreds last long after the offense occurs. We have enemies there who will not simply go back to their mud huts when we leave. That damage is already done.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 were the act of one terrorist group. UBL had us in his sights since Saudi Arabia chose us to defend the Kingdom over him when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Our ‘crimes’ after than centered more around the ‘continued presence of the infidels’ Saudi after UBL ordered us out on his authority. UBL had other reasons—the only one of which I can see reason with was abandoning Afghanistan in 1989 after the Soviets left. He began his campaign against us with, ominously enough, the first attack against the World Trade Towers in February 1993.

I understand your frustrations, and I agree, we need to seal that border tight, though I imagine for different reasons. My concern is much more security minded. Read up on the Beslan Massacre. Nasty business there, and all too easy to do here. That being said, a lack of congeniality is hardly a cause for a border war. The ‘invasion’ is made up of mostly economic refuges, not fiery-eye terrorist bent of killing infidels. Annoying enough, true, but not quite the dramatically bad situation you presented.