Video: Hagel announces plan to shrink army to pre-World War II levels

posted at 5:51 pm on February 24, 2014 by Allahpundit

This is the whole reason he was brought on as SecDef in the first place, Legal Insurrection reminds us. Obama knew that he’d take heat from Republicans for downsizing the military, but maybe not quite as much heat if he had a nominal Republican in charge of the process.

For the United States, the age of occupation is over. Whether that means an age of occupation is beginning for someone else, stay tuned.

Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.

“You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,” a senior Pentagon official said…

The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.

That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary’s aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there.

Among the specifics: The army will swap its Black Hawks for the National Guard’s Apaches, which have more firepower; funding for cyberwarfare and Special Ops, two of Obama’s priorities, will continue at current levels; and the A-10 Warthog, which was designed to target Russian tanks in case they invaded Europe, will be retired. (Anyone in Kiev want to buy a jet?) I’m not qualified to say which cuts are smart and feasible and which are dangerously short-sighted but I know we have plenty of readers who are, so here’s your thread to sound off. I am qualified to say that a few years ago this type of move from a liberal president who’s already seen as provocatively weak would have raised holy hell on the right. Today, after a few more years of war-weariness, urgency among tea partiers for meaningful spending cuts, and the mainstreaming of “non-interventionism” by Rand Paul and other libertarians, it’s a closer call. Try gaming out the responses onstage at the first GOP 2016 debate when this subject is raised and you’ll find it’s not so easy. Some of it is — Rubio, a hawk in the McCain mold, will rip Obama for retreating — but candidates like Walker and Christie will try to walk a line between hawks and doves. So will Paul, actually: His big liability potentially is being seen as Ron Jr. on foreign policy so he may feel obliged to balance his praise for the “smaller, leaner military” approach with criticism of Obama for not beefing up certain areas. And what about Cruz? In a sense he has the opposite problem of Paul, wanting to attack Obama for weakening America but needing to find some merit in cuts to the budget.

Needless to say, this is the tip of the iceberg in decades to come as entitlements cannibalize more of America’s discretionary spending.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Well, we knew it was coming…sorry, world, but you’re on your own now. We’ll bleed for this some day in the not too distant future, but that was baked into the cake when Obama won in 2008. The 21st century is going to be rough ride (again, not the way I thought it would be)…I wonder who replaces us and how bad they will be?

P.S. Don’t even think for a second that this will stop…we are going to simply evaporate as a world power, the way Britain did.

AUINSC on February 24, 2014 at 7:25 PM

THIS

Cleombrotus on February 24, 2014 at 9:05 PM

count to 10 on February 24, 2014 at 8:56 PM

You said upthread it sucked at CAS.

Not really. Basically, it was never able to do CAS as it was designed to, even twenty years ago. There were plans to turn them into drones

You ever have an “all purpose” tool? Does a lot of things 1/2 assed. That’s the F-35 money dump.

The A-10 has one purpose, the one you suggest it sucks at. CAS.

wolly4321 on February 24, 2014 at 9:07 PM

recognize the empire is broke.
liberalrules on February 24, 2014 at 7:15 PM

You’ve said that twice. Epiphany?

Bmore on February 24, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Respond to this.

Bmore on February 24, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Bmore on February 24, 2014 at 9:11 PM

Like all libruls, yyou make statements out of thin air not founded in face. But once you stat them you establish a tautology to prove them.

1) The Iraq war did not cost the United states 6 trillion dollars. The national ldbt did not increase that much during the entire tenure of the war, and we started that era in debt not even approaching that much.

2) Unlike Libya, the Iraq war war authorized by an act of congress.

3) After the Iraq war, on the obama watch only, the deficit of The United States has doubled that of all previous administrations put together. As near as anyone can tell, most of the proceeds of the debt increase went to dhimocraptic and obama cronies and unions. There were few “shovel ready” jobs. Most or all of the obama contracts have been issued without competitive bidding, but A-O trolls on HA seem to falsely accuse the republicans and military of this.

OK, now you “Liberalrules” troll: Have you ever taken the Oath to the Constitution? When I was growing up, every school kid could recite the American’s Creed. Can you recite it. OR, ARE YOU JUST ONE OF THE TAKERS!

Old Country Boy on February 24, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Thank you for your sanity.

rlwo2008 on February 24, 2014 at 9:11 PM

Somebody has to be the Hegemon in a world of nation states.

It’s either us or it’s war between China, Russia, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc for regional and global influence. And that struggle will end up drawing us in.

You pay up front with dollars and small actions for a large military with a global footprint or you pay later with both dollars and lives for a huge war that you might lose.

Or you elect Obama and get the worst of both strategies, but that’s another discussion.

kcewa on February 24, 2014 at 9:17 PM

I’ve seen this movie before…

… It does not end well for us.

Seven Percent Solution on February 24, 2014 at 9:28 PM

Obama surely is making sure he destroys every part of the United State’s greatness.

The Notorious G.O.P on February 24, 2014 at 9:31 PM

I’m sure there are ways to make SS and Medicare solvent for years to come.
 
liberalrules on February 24, 2014 at 7:24 PM

 
Invisible-bearded-man-in-the-sky faith.
 
Nothing more.

rogerb on February 24, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Okay, but only if the same number are culled from food stamps, welfare, section-8, unemployment, WIC, “disability” and medicaid (each)

SouthernGent on February 24, 2014 at 9:47 PM

President Cruz could cull 18,000 from the EPA by EO on day one.

And other alphabets.

And the A-10?

You can blow it in 1/2 with a SAM, and the 1/2 with the pilot will land back home.

wolly4321 on February 24, 2014 at 9:58 PM

Doesn’t it give you a warm fuzzy feeling having the mental midget Hagel at the helm..?

d1carter on February 24, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Lindsey Graham is throwing a hissy fit, but look who voted to invoke cloture on Hagel’s nomination

Graham (R-SC), Yea

SouthernGent on February 24, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Chinese troops to seize Zhongye Island back from the Philippines in 2014 http://wp.me/p2fmUD-8YB

canopfor on February 24, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Things seem to be spiraling out of control everywhere. Its only going to take a spark.

sharrukin on February 24, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Seems like a perfectly rational time to ratchet down our military strength. /

Midas on February 24, 2014 at 10:19 PM

lindsey Graham is throwing a hissy fit, but look who voted to invoke cloture on Hagel’s nomination… Graham (R-SC), Yea SouthernGent on February 24, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Conventional wisdom says you shouldn’t criticize him. What if the rumours are true?

wolly4321 on February 24, 2014 at 10:26 PM

On one hand, I don’t think we need the tens of thousands of troops still stationed in Europe, Japan, Korea, etc. The military is pretty good at expensive boondoggles just like the Civilian agencies too.

However, saying we’re going to cut to “pre-WWII levels” is a tad frightening. We were kind of unprepared rubes when Pearl Harbor happened. But of course, we’re talking about a “smaller army”, not necessarily a smaller navy, smaller airforce, etc. Less sodiers (which is kind of what my point above with so many troops still stationed overseas).

The big thing though is any cuts to the military should not have that money then funneled to entitlement spending. It should just be a reduction of spending PERIOD, not an opportunity to spend the money on something else.

Starnick on February 24, 2014 at 10:42 PM

A-10′s are a stupid thing to cut.
But then again this proven platform doesn’t line pockets like the F-35.

wolly4321 on February 24, 2014 at 6:06 PM

The Air Force has been trying to kill the A-10 since before the first Gulf War. Not new and shiny enough. Never mind that it’s pretty much the most effective plane ever designed for the ground support role but the DoD just has to have it’s new toy, no matter how unproven and expensive.

Yakko77 on February 24, 2014 at 10:50 PM

For the United States, the age of occupation is over.

Is it? Or is it about to shift direction? Will we become the occupied?

Not in this country. Not for a while, of course. But we have a few territories overseas that are vulnerable.

I don’t object to cutting Defense. I object to only cutting Defense. Liberal sacred cows need to be cut as well. Let’s have some shared sacrifice.

SAZMD on February 24, 2014 at 6:26 PM

I do. There’s exactly one way to have “Peace in our Time.”

And that is, to be too strong for anyone to want to fight us.

I’d like the next generation to grow up in a world where they don’t have to be worried about getting sucked into an existential war, like World War 2, because we were too weak to prevent it.

And I’d like the generation after that to not have to worry about enemies invading our land.

This is exactly why I have always drawn the line at Ron Paul and his ilk. And if Rand Paul adopts the same idiotic notion of assuming it’s safe to just disarm, then he’s no better than Ron Paul.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 24, 2014 at 11:15 PM

Somebody has to be the Hegemon in a world of nation states.

It’s either us or it’s war between China, Russia, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc for regional and global influence. And that struggle will end up drawing us in.

You pay up front with dollars and small actions for a large military with a global footprint or you pay later with both dollars and lives for a huge war that you might lose.

Or you elect Obama and get the worst of both strategies, but that’s another discussion.

kcewa on February 24, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Well put. Pixie dust and warm wishes will not change the fact that the world is a dangerous place, and there are a lot of greedy nations that would love to carve off bits and pieces of what we have. That starts by asserting their power in their own region against their neighbors, and if we’re not able to counteract it, the world becomes a more dangerous place each time.

Lots of people don’t like our huge military, and I can understand that. But we have it to prevent getting caught flat-footed like we were in WW2. I guarantee any enemies trying to take advantage of our weakness will not dawdle while we’re trying to play catch-up.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 24, 2014 at 11:31 PM

This is no surprise at all..just classic liberal thinking..defense cuts, tax increase and domestic spending increases..They hate the military..they HATE IT..well they are messing with thousands of troops lives with their families..its sickening and infuriates me

sadsushi on February 25, 2014 at 12:12 AM

recognize the empire is broke.
liberalrules on February 24, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Indeed, you looters and moochers robbed it blind. May you all go to Hades, into the 9th layer.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 12:18 AM

Doesn’t it give you a warm fuzzy feeling having the mental midget Hagel at the helm..?
d1carter on February 24, 2014 at 9:59 PM

So much so that I would switch the H to B and call him Bagel.

And he would not mind since he does not have one to.

Good ole Bagel.

Sherman1864 on February 25, 2014 at 1:12 AM

Late to the thread – apologies if I repeat someone else’s comments.

Obama & his ilk have a very popular bumper sticker seen around Portland:

“It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Military has to hold a bake sale to buy a weapons”

portlandon on February 24, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Cute, but school funding is the business of the States, and military defense is the business of the Federal Government.
Your school funding won’t be much use if the nation is defunct.

AesopFan on February 25, 2014 at 1:37 AM

The military wastes a tremendous amount of money. That’s why countries like Russian and China can spend a lot less and still pose a major threat. Having said that, it is dangerous to make comparisons with force structures of the past. Sure, our weapons are more lethal and effective than in the past, but so are those used by everyone else.

The comparison Hagel is trying to make is that we had a small force between the world wars because we had no major adversaries and if one pops up we can just spend some money and rearm. Unfortunately, it takes a long time to introduce new weapons systems. It’s not like WWII, where the Pentagon puts out a request for a new fighter and 18 months later, P-51s are rolling off the assembly line at the rate of dozens per day. Complicated weapons take much longer do design, test, and build. Soldiers take much longer to become proficient. Our adversaries know this and you can sure as hell bet that they’ll attempt to get their way before the U.S. can mobilize and become a threat.

ReaganWasRight on February 24, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Bears repeating.

AesopFan on February 25, 2014 at 1:40 AM

It makes sense if their intention is to largely remove the National Guards combat role and replace it with civil affairs and disaster relief.

sharrukin on February 24, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Which the Left might see as a plus, if they (conspiracy theory warning!!) anticipate the NG siding with citizens in opposition to a socialist putsch.
(Can you putsch your own government?? You all know what I mean, I trust.)

AesopFan on February 25, 2014 at 1:44 AM

Needless to say, this is the tip of the iceberg in decades to come as entitlements cannibalize more of America’s discretionary spending.

This is it right here. We are going broke paying illegal aliens to come here. We are paying able-bodied people not to work. The Democrats will continue to insist that we do this even unto the destruction of the country.

Theophile on February 25, 2014 at 1:49 AM

With current technology and instant world-wide communications there is not likely to be as much time to draft, train, and mobilize sufficient forces for a second front as there was for past wars.

By the time the military could draft and train sufficient troops from the current generation of potential recruits who in general don’t have the same level of life skills that a 12 year old Boy Scout would have had in previous generations, the first and second conflicts will be long over.

wren on February 24, 2014 at 7:01 PM

I have a copy of the Junior ROTC manual for high school students of the 1950s.
The training standards appear to surpass those of today’s bootcamps.

AesopFan on February 25, 2014 at 1:58 AM

As long as Americans are benefiting I’m OK with it.

An Iraqi illegal alien enjoying free healthcare with my tax dollars is what I have issues with.

liberalrules on February 24, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Just curious – do you have issues with this formulation as well?

AesopFan on February 25, 2014 at 2:04 AM

Does that apply to illegal aliens crosiing the border as well?

sharrukin on February 24, 2014 at 7:30 PM

…and what do you think we are doing for all the illegal aliens in this country?

KOOLAID2 on February 24, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Great minds etc etc etc

AesopFan on February 25, 2014 at 2:15 AM

I keep wondering, of all the competent, intelligent, capable young African Americans in this country, why did they go and pick this one to become president? The man is insane!

scalleywag on February 24, 2014 at 7:40 PM

Not to start another hare down the trail (What difference, at this point, does it make?), but I believe that it was not a case of “picking” a black politician who could be expected to win the election over a Republican.

IIRC, no one, including Obama, actually expected him to become the nominee instead of Hillary; when he did, the Dem machine was caught by surprise and had no experienced operatives prepared to take over the administration — which is now being run by socialist ideologues, political amateurs, and (dare I say it?) outright traitors.

AesopFan on February 25, 2014 at 2:22 AM

Makes perfect sense. I’m sure this country today would have no problem mobilizing for war in the same manner as we did in the 40s.

I’m sure that the millions of pajama boys would put down their cocoa, throw on their dress jammie pants and flip-flops, rally to enlist and would prove to be fine soldiers.

reaganaut on February 25, 2014 at 2:24 AM

There are three things we need.

1. A credible deterrent. Our nuclear submarines probably suffice there. No one wants to go to full war with the US where the US’s actual survival is in question because we will use those subs and they can annihilate ANY country on earth. Its a last straw move because it will trigger a similar response. But its there.

2. We need to maintain the industry, technical expertise, and scientific edge to maintain and rapidly expand if needed our military hardware. If we go to war… large or small we need factories that can turn out what we need to fight those wars. If we scale down our defense spending too much this capability might be lost. Therefore, we should make efforts to itemize what factories are needed. Then we either give them consistent work OR we give them dual use work. Factories that turned out tanks in WW2 built cars prior to WW2. So we could arrange things with industry so that factories can be produce either defense or private domestic goods… and in the event of war… we go into war production meaning that those factories shift to war supplies.

The technical expertise and scientific edge are likewise difficult. I think we could maintain both rather cheaply if we maintained some small defense factories that were operating in peace time. These factories would have the goal of distributing their knowledge and training to wider industry in the event of greater need. So those factories could serve as seeds for cultivating a larger industry if required.

3. We must have enough of a military force with enough flexibility that the threat of US reprisals remains credible. If we cut our military too much then our diplomatic relevance will suffer.

Karmashock on February 25, 2014 at 3:22 AM

Because it worked out so well the last time the military was this small…

trigon on February 25, 2014 at 3:50 AM

Before we start cutting back on troops, let’s cut DHS by 50%, shut down the EPA and reduce the size of every other department by half and see how much money we save.

Wendya on February 25, 2014 at 3:59 AM

This incompetent is doing exactly what his Marxist boss wants him to do. The simple fact that we have a man of such low intellectual quality as secretary of defense says values about this poor sick Republic.

rplat on February 25, 2014 at 4:03 AM

This incompetent is doing exactly what his Marxist boss wants him to do. The simple fact that we have a man of such low intellectual quality as secretary of defense says values about this poor sick Republic.

“volumes” vice “values”. sorry for the error.

rplat on February 25, 2014 at 4:05 AM

Who needs people when we have Skynet? ;)

kregg on February 25, 2014 at 5:26 AM

So who is going to fight in all those wars Warlord Jugears wants us to engage in?

Brock Robamney on February 25, 2014 at 5:56 AM

The A-10 won’t be going away, just transferred to your local law-enforcement agencies to use when we get a little too out of line.

moo on February 25, 2014 at 6:51 AM

“[B]e prepared to decisively win one conflict…”. As far as I can tell, our ROE since Vietnam has been to studiously avoid decisively winning anything serious. No blame on the DOD, this is a political stupidity.

Surellin on February 25, 2014 at 7:28 AM

Not having read all the previous posts I still will add this,
when in a firefight the sweetest sound a grunt will hear is the whump whump of an Apache or the roar of a 30mm gatling.

Sergeant Major on February 25, 2014 at 7:42 AM

I’m sure there are ways to make SS and Medicare solvent for years to come.

liberalrules on February 24, 2014 at 7:24 PM

The impending bankruptcy of both systems had been known as a fact for over 30 years.

That is nearly a generation of the best and brightest across the entire political and economic spectrum having time to answer this, and with many organizations funding ways to make these systems work.

So no pie in the sky: if you have a demonstrated way for these to be made solvent FOREVER, then please step forward.

Faith based economics does not work.

These systems have extreme structural problems that were pointed out when they were passed and those structural problems cannot be addressed as they are at the heart of the programs. So if you got some magical way to fund these things, please step forward. Not put up some faith in others, it is time to DIY and give us the solution NOW as it was needed 30 years ago. Tomorrow doesn’t cut it any longer for tomorrow is already here, and those expressing faith in the economics have fallen flat on their faces and saddled the Nation with a debt that cannot be paid and money that will be worthless when paid out. If you like that end then be honest and SAY SO and stop the charade. If you don’t and YOU can’t figure out how to fix the system and no one has come up with a way to do so for decades and, in the case of SSA, since the program was created, then will you at least admit that there is something horrifically wrong with the way the programs were created, funded and changed that have not addressed their structural problems? Their problems isn’t in what is provided, but in how they are provided: and if the latter destroys the former, then why back such programs.

ajacksonian on February 25, 2014 at 7:55 AM

This is sickening! They are destroying our nation.

Every major opponent is building their military and arming up while we are disarming and stripping down. This is insane! And where are the Republicans? Where? I am so sick of the GOP establishment who do nothing and say nothing! They are just spectators!

Hey.. but don’t think they are sparing any money militarizing our nation’s police forces!

Yeah.. the one place Obama wants to create a standing army where there never was one is on American soil to target Americans! But don’t say that or the GOP leaders will call you an extremist!

JellyToast on February 25, 2014 at 8:17 AM

I guess it never occurred to Hagel that we were woefully unprepared for WWII in 1940. The only things that saved us from invasion were: 1) the still relatively large distances of two oceans protecting us 2) our manufacturing capacity which allowed us to produce armaments at a dizzying pace by converting automobile factories, etc.

Today neither of those conditions still exists…

Pest on February 25, 2014 at 8:26 AM

Bold Predictions:

A-10 Cuts WONT stick, as has been pointed out they have tried it again and again and they can never get it to go and I don’t think this time will be any Different. Plus I have seen those birds do WORK overseas and anyone who says an F-35 can do its job is an abject moron.

The base closures will be DOA, and I don’t think all of the U-2 cuts will happen although they may end up greatly reduced.

What will go through are the personnel cuts and the personnel pay reductions. For some reason this is what he and Obama wants more than anything else. Why this is I honestly do not have any idea. They Army were going to take this in the teeth that have been coming for months. Unfortunately for the Army we are going to play terrorist Whack a Mole for the next 40 years and a large land army is not needed for that. Small expeditionary units like the Marine Corps MEU and SF teams has will be to go to problem solvers. The army is going to have to define itself for the 21st Century in the next 5-10 years and it will be painful.
The points about entitlements consuming our budget are pretty much spot on we cannot fund the things that the constitution says are required if we do not get a hold of the entitlement state (to include obama care). We need a serious discussion about what Americas role in the world will be for the next 50 years however I don’t see that coming from either side right now.
The left hates the military and just wants to mothball all of it and pretend the barbarians are NOT at the gate. The right is so all consumed with reducing “spending” it can’t tell the difference between what is necessary and what is frivolous.

falcaner on February 25, 2014 at 8:50 AM

ajacksonian on February 25, 2014 at 7:55 AM

So we should cut back on SS and Medicare to fight more wars?

It that what you are getting at?

These programs benefits Americans. Iraq war was a total waste of money under false information.

We should have never been there. If anything we need to scale back big time. This will prevent us from getting involved in unnecessary wars.

liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 9:00 AM

*Is that what you are getting at?

correction

liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 9:01 AM

These programs benefits Americans. Iraq war was a total waste of money under false information.
 
We should have never been there. If anything we need to scale back big time. This will prevent us from getting involved in unnecessary wars.
 
liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 9:00 AM

 
It won’t prevent us from getting involved in unnecessary wars like Libya, but it will make it much, much more expensive overall* because they’ll still have to have military money to replace what has been reallocated to the social programs you support.
 
Because I’m certain you won’t support reallocating it away from The Working Poor once the military needs their money again, right?
 
* Math for non-science majors strikes again.

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM

I know two very senior Marine Generals who would like to get their hands on the A-10, key west be damned. But its not going to happen. Hagels proposal was DOA the moment he announce it. Every single staffer(of both parties) I talked to over the past couple of weeks, called it a non serious proposal by a none serious man. Obamacare has sucked all support for any programs Obama might want to pass. Besides, the current S of D is seen as an idiot by the vast majority Congress.(Both Parties.) Will some work get done, NO. Just another stop gap bill, to after the 2014 elections. What a way to run a country.

flackcatcher on February 25, 2014 at 9:20 AM

It won’t prevent us from getting involved in unnecessary wars like Libya, but it will make it much, much more expensive overall* because they’ll still have to have military money to replace what has been reallocated to the social programs you support.

Because I’m certain you won’t support reallocating it away from The Working Poor once the military needs their money again, right?

* Math for non-science majors strikes again.

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Speaking of math, do you want to compare the Iraq war cost to Libya?

How many troops do we have in Libya?
Majority of the cost if you read the report comes from bases all around the world we have to support and maintain.

It’s unsustainable.

It’s impossible to fund all these bases in perpetuity.

And I’m a Network engineer by profession, so no I’m not afraid of math and science.

liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 9:23 AM

recognize the empire is broke.

liberalrules on February 24, 2014 at 7:15 PM

You’ve said that twice. Epiphany?

Bmore on February 24, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Respond to this.

Bmore on February 24, 2014 at 7:35 PM

No? Are you a thumb sucker?

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 9:24 AM

If this has been said before in these comments, it needs to be repeated over and over — now we know why those high level military officers were forced to resign for suspicious reasons. One military analyst said at the time that there was no one left at the Pentagon who was willing to fight. Those officers were the tip of the iceberg and I hope they speak out.

polarglen on February 25, 2014 at 9:27 AM

It is time to face basic facts. The army must be downsized. Here is why…

(1) Our government is drowning debt. A large ground army is a huge money eating machine. You have to pay them salaries, pensions, healthcare, etc. You also have to equip them, house them, cloth them, prepare them for deployment, etc. All this takes money away from new advanced weapon systems and eats into other military service’s budgets that might be of more use in the coming conflicts this country will face.

(2) Over the last decade we fought a series of ground wars in the Islamic world with the hope of establishing democracies and nation building them into civilized nations. Those missions failed, period. Iraq is now doing an arms deal with Iran, and Afghanistan is still a hole in the ground. That is not victory. Those wars cost a lot of money and lives. It is going to continue to cost us lots of money because we have a lots injured and disabled vets to care for. We also have worn out equipment to replace and a worn out public who is tired of fighting ground wars (key word ground) in the Islamic world. It is time for those hawks who obsesses on the Islamic world, and middle east in general, to face the truth that Americans don’t care about the place, don’t care about the people there, and if we do have to fight there want to just bomb the place into rubble. They don’t want to nation build, and they don’t want to waste anymore time trying to civilize them.

(3) There is little chance of a major ground war taking place in Europe in the next 25 years.

(4) The coming conflict that this country will face in the 21st century is going to come in Asia due to a growing and more aggressive China. That conflict, or cold war, will be mostly over who controls the Western Pacific and the Indian Oceans. It will be a conflict based on air and sea power. A large army will be more of an impediment economically to the air force and navy in that conflict than a benefit militarily. Most of our potential Asian allies, like South Korea, in that conflict already have large armies so they will only need help qualitatively, not quantitatively. Those that don’t, like Japan, are building their army up now. So if a ground war does take place in Asia, like on the Korean peninsula, the South Koreans have the men and equipment to do the job with some American assistance on the quality department. More important, that quality should mostly be in the form of the U.S. Marines, Navy and Air Force.

I am a hawk, but I am a hawk that likes to think ahead, identify our biggest threats, and prepare just in case things get ugly. We have to realize that Jihadist will always cause problems, but they are not a threat to seriously defeat this country and limit our power. 9-11 was bad, awful, but it happened because we let the lunatics into this country in the first place due to an inept INS, and arrogant FBI / CIA who refused to share info with each other. China on the other hand is building a military with goals:

(A) To eject U.S. power out of the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean.

(B) To seize control of the sea lanes there and change the meaning of international waters

(C) To reduce the democracies in Asia like S. Korea, the Philippines, Japan, etc. into servile states bringing tribute to China like in the days of old.

(D) To overthrow the international order, and replace it with a Chinese centric one.

Conclusion:

This is more important to America’s national security than what some Jihadist in a cave is dreaming up in his 7th century mind. In order to keep the Navy and Air Force funded and the best in the world the Army must be reduced. Obviously I want to cut government social services and entitlements as well, by a lot, but conservatives cannot make that argument if we constantly refuse to cut the military and refuse to accept that nation building Islamic countries is a waste of money. You can’t argue we should not spend money building stupid stuff in America if we are building stupid stuff in places like Afghanistan.

One final point: a large army tempts certain politicians (example: John McCain) to get involved in pointless nation building adventurism around the world. A smaller standing army, backed up by reservists, etc. is a useful barrier to getting involved in places America has no business getting involved in on the ground.

William Eaton on February 25, 2014 at 9:27 AM

William Eaton on February 25, 2014 at 9:27 AM

And, which of El Supremo’s organizations do you work for, Mr. Eaton?

polarglen on February 25, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Needless to say, this is the tip of the iceberg in decades to come as entitlements cannibalize more of America’s discretionary spending.

This is apparently lost on RINOs like MCain and Graham. If they don’t fight against wasteful spending and dependency then our military capability will look like France in 20 years. Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is what they really want so maybe they are smarter than what I give them credit for.

Wigglesworth on February 25, 2014 at 9:38 AM

So we should cut back on SS and Medicare to fight more wars?

It that what you are getting at?

These programs benefits Americans.
liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 9:00 AM

We pay for SS and Medicare out of our paychecks, stupid. It’s called payroll taxes and the government spends the money they don’t need to meet current obligations on things like — oh, let’s see, golf outings to nowhere.

polarglen on February 25, 2014 at 9:43 AM

And, which of El Supremo’s organizations do you work for, Mr. Eaton?

polarglen on February 25, 2014 at 9:31 AM

None…just a loyal American who has a enough of a grasp of history and our current situation to see that you can’t have everything you want in life. You have to pick the most important.

I want the most powerful Navy and Air Force in the world…the Army does need to be massive. We are not going to be fighting huge Soviet tank formations on flat ground in Europe in my life time.

William Eaton on February 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Correct above…

I want the most powerful Navy and Air Force in the world…the Army does NOT need to be massive. We are not going to be fighting huge Soviet tank formations on flat ground in Europe in my life time.

William Eaton on February 25, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Chinese troops to seize Zhongye Island back from the Philippines in 2014 http://wp.me/p2fmUD-8YB canopfor on February 24, 2014 at 6:18 PM

I think that since they announced it it’s guaranteed not to happen.

Akzed on February 25, 2014 at 9:48 AM

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM
Social Security and Medicare are going to collapse, Obamacare has seen to that. No matter how much you shift from DOD and other government programs, all the Democrats have done is step up the date of death. What is going on in congress right now, is how to handle that,while preserving defense. The Democrats know that their day of judgment by the American people is coming,and they are scared, as they should be. We even don’t know the amount of damage done to DOD over this. But based on past events,the cost will be immense, the damage severe. All we can do, is ride this out, and hope to pick up afterwords.

flackcatcher on February 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM

No? Are you a thumb sucker?

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 9:24 AM

…can I substitute the word ‘thumb’?

KOOLAID2 on February 25, 2014 at 9:52 AM

6 trillion of waste and you are still here defending it.
Time to scale back and recognize the empire is broke.

liberalrules on February 24, 2014 at 7:15 PM

And did you act on your beliefs? Or are you still supporting the Democrats that urged intervention in Iraq?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

I bet you still support them, and even vote for them. Hypocrite.

(It must really sting when even Snopes confirms that Democrats urged intervention in Iraq.)

dominigan on February 25, 2014 at 9:52 AM

but you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,” a senior Pentagon official said…

Says almost nobody…

Whoever provided this quote is most likely a civilian, a political acolyte or someone who has never studied war (or perhaps actually learned the lessons).

By the way. Amongst many other things, it’s also interesting how Mr. Obama stated his goal was to modernize the force and then he promptly cut $8.8 billion from R&D.

But there are no social programs we can cut- right? What was it- about $200 billion in waste and fraud in programs such as Food Stamps the GAO identified?

But we’ll cut military pensions? How about pensions for government workers…crickets. Yeah- no room to cut there, right?

Here we have the one clearly legitimate Constitutional function of our government and liberal Democrats want to cut it.

You don’t get the government you deserve. You get the government you elect.

Congratulations Obama voters.

Marcus Traianus on February 25, 2014 at 9:52 AM

So we should cut back on SS and Medicare to fight more wars?

It that what you are getting at?

These programs benefits Americans.
liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 9:00 AM

No, we should cut back on SS and Medicare so that those programs will continue to exist and help Americans. They are on their way toward bankruptcy. Period.

When SS was first conceived, 17 taxpayers supported each beneficiary. Now, that ratio is closer to 2 taxpayers supporting each one. That can’t continue, and the intellectually honest people understand that.

Unless you prefer SS/Medicare bankruptcy, elderly left helpless and open revolt of the younger generations…

dominigan on February 25, 2014 at 9:55 AM

I want the most powerful Navy and Air Force in the world…the Army does need to be massive. We are not going to be fighting huge Soviet tank formations on flat ground in Europe in my life time.

William Eaton on February 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM

This isn’t about you.

Buttercup on February 25, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Social security and Medicare are for tax payers…I have no issue with those.

liberalrules on February 24, 2014 at 7:15 PM

I do. It’s un-Constitutional, it’s going bankrupt, it’s taking my money that I will never benefit from. It will bankrupt the US.

dominigan on February 25, 2014 at 10:03 AM

you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,”

What he really means is ‘you can’t buy votes with welfare checks when you’re spending the money on the military’.

clearbluesky on February 25, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Shrink the military to December 6, 1941 levels and you get December 7, 1941 results.

troyriser_gopftw on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

You all voted for this, by voting in incumbants year after year, by voting against Romney. Good job go along to get along Republican senior citizens. Fear of Ted Cruz is the realization that limp wrested RHINOs are finally being replaced.

Let it all burn.

Neo on February 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Take theirs not mine is the ruling philosophy — it ruled in 95 for the “Peace Dividend” and it rules again with this decision.

Bradky on February 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Social security and Medicare are for tax payers anyone who wants free shit and votes democrat…I have no issue with those.
Most Some people who us social security and medicare have already paid into it.
My money should not be used to fund free healthcare for an Iraqi illegal alien while the Average American is struggling.
6 trillion of waste fraud & abuse and you I’m still here defending it.

Time to scale back entitlements and recognize the empire welfare system is broke.

liberalrules on February 24, 2014 at 7:15 PM

FIFY

Buttercup on February 25, 2014 at 11:33 AM

So we should cut back on SS and Medicare to fight more wars?
It that what you are getting at?

liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Yes exactly, now you’re getting it. They can start by cutting back on fraud and abuse in both systems which cost tax payers billions a year.

Buttercup on February 25, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Not to worry folks.

Barry has a pen, a phone and a drone.

That’s all we need to keep the world safe.

LegendHasIt on February 25, 2014 at 11:36 AM

This will prevent us from getting involved in unnecessary wars.
 
liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 9:00 AM

 
Because I’m certain you won’t support reallocating it away from The Working Poor once the military needs their money again, right?
 
* Math for non-science majors strikes again.
 
rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM

 
Speaking of math, do you want to compare the Iraq war cost to Libya?

 
Already finished with your ‘unnecessary” bit, liberalrules?
 
Let us know when you get those goalposts where you want them.
 

And I’m a Network engineer by profession, so no I’m not afraid of math and science.
 
liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 9:23 AM

 
Yikes. Seems like your understanding of math should be better. HBCU?
 
Watch.
 
$5 trillion for social programs
+ $5 trillion for social programs that was previously used for war
= $10 trillion for social programs
 
Now, what does a $5 trillion war still cost?

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 12:09 PM

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 12:09 PM

rogerb, bad news my friend. That one is gone.

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 12:22 PM

William Eaton: There is little chance of a major ground war taking place in Europe in the next 25 years.

Yep – I don’t see any issues at all with the Ukraine. Just a right peaceful place these days.

worldtvlr on February 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 12:09 PM

 
rogerb, bad news my friend. That one is gone.
 
Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 12:22 PM

 
Wow. His network engineering skills are somehow even worse than his math.
 
So how is libfreeordie still here?

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 12:28 PM

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Excellent question. One I have often wondered as well. Favoritism?

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 12:40 PM

So how is libfreeordie still here?

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 12:28 PM
Excellent question. One I have often wondered as well. Favoritism?

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 12:40 PM

That’s sure what my wife thinks – since she wasn’t able to register and HA wouldn’t respond to our inquiries, and yet the libtards were able to get multiple sock puppets.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 12:59 PM

I would like to address some points that were made previously.

William Eaton on February 25, 2014 at 9:27 AM
Our government is drowning debt

Yes very true we are but how fault is this I could have a VERY long conversation about the adverse effects of the Affordable Care act (Obama care) and how it has depressed the overall economy but I won’t belabored that point here.

All this takes money away from new advanced weapon systems and eats into other military service’s budgets that might be of more use in the coming conflicts this country will face

Unfortunately I would argue that our currently military values hardware over software (people) far far too much. It is not going to be drones or some new wiz bang device that will be decisive in the next conflict; it is the fact that we have the most highly TRAINED fighting force ever to trod across the face of the planet and I am not exaggerating. The men in women in the military will mean the difference between victory and defeat in the next conflict.

Those missions failed, period. Iraq is now doing an arms deal with Iran, and Afghanistan is still a hole in the ground. That is not victory. Those wars cost a lot of money and lives. It is going to continue to cost us lots of money because we have a lots injured and disabled vets to care for. We also have worn out equipment to replace and a worn out public who is tired of fighting ground wars (key word ground) in the Islamic world. It is time for those hawks who obsesses on the Islamic world, and middle east in general, to face the truth that Americans don’t care about the place, don’t care about the people there, and if we do have to fight there want to just bomb the place into rubble.

This portion is 100% incorrect in its assertion that #1 the Islamic world doesn’t matter as much as some people think, #2 and it is wrong that the nation is war weary. First the fact of the matter is that the nation is war ignorant not war weary. How many articles about the war in Afghanistan have you seen in the national media lately? The answer is not a lot. For over a decade (since we went into Iraq) the media has been telling the American people that our fight is bad and we don’t need to be there. That combined with the fact that the current administration hasn’t bothered to explain why we are over there right now has lead to the american people conculding that what we are doing (though they dont understand it) simply isnt worth the effort. Also if you think that the Islamic world is NOT going to be the focus of our forgien policy over the next 50 years, or that simply bombing them into the stone age will solve any of our problem you completely misunderstand the region.
There is little chance of a major ground war taking place in Europe in the next 25 years.

Take a look at Russia and tell me you are 100% sure about that again??

The coming conflict that this country will face in the 21st century is going to come in Asia due to a growing and more aggressive China.

I am not going to break this down point by point but I am of the option that the likelihood of this happening is VASTLY overstated by many who think this could happen. I think some analysts like this because it fits into their perceived notions of conflict much better. Its nation state vs nation state and some people can rationalize this much more rather than war against some nebouls terrorist organization. The simple fact is that 21st century war is changeing and wars aginst nation states will be far fewer. Also the Chinese military is not nearly as developed as some people make it out to be,they are not even as well developed as the Russians are at this point. They are adept at stealing stuff that is about it, they do not have the foundations of develop their own weapon systems which is a large disadvantage. Also just because you have a system does not mean you understand it well enough to properly use it in your own forces. Look how the development of drones in our forces has developed over the years. Lastly if we did fight China we would win and it wouldn’t be as close as some people think.

We have to realize that Jihadist will always cause problems, but they are not a threat to seriously defeat this country and limit our power. 9-11 was bad, awful, but it happened because we let the lunatics into this country in the first place due to an inept INS, and arrogant FBI / CIA who refused to share info with each other.

WOW this is such a misunderstanding of the current state of the world and how 9-11 happened I almost don’t even know where to begin. You need to go back and read the 9-11 commission report again, the event happened because we didn’t recognized the clear and imminent threat that Al Qaeda Philosophy poses to our way of life. We allowed the threat to grow and fester and not deal with it when it was still small and overseas, then it finally came to our shores. China is not who we will be fighting for the next 50 years, Islamic Terrorism is, we are in a Long war and you are not dealing with that reality. This is an unfortunate fact that many decision makes seem to think this way. Some people seem to think now that we are drawing down the war terrorism will no longer be a problem. This is patently false and is a dangerous way to see the world. We are engaged in a war with an idea, a way of thinking and no ending of a war or the killing of one person is going to change that fact. We need to look and how we fight. We need to fully engaged around the world so that those people do not have the breathing room to pull together plans like 9-11 and if you think they are not still capable of pulling something like that off you are wrong. They haven’t because we have been breathing down their necks. If we change that pyridine then we will lose ground and put our country at risk. We need to keep up the fight not get out of it because if we do it will show up at our door step again.

falcaner on February 25, 2014 at 1:04 PM

So how is libfreeordie still here?
 
rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 12:28 PM

 
Excellent question. One I have often wondered as well. Favoritism?
 
Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 12:40 PM

 
That’s sure what my wife thinks – since she wasn’t able to register and HA wouldn’t respond to our inquiries, and yet the libtards were able to get multiple sock puppets.
 
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 12:59 PM

 
He outright admitted to being the banned deathtomediahacks here
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/03/the-state-of-the-senate-race/comment-page-2/#comment-6458707
 
Not to mention
 

You actually get an enormous satisfaction from the idea that you have bested someone with a phd in U.S. history…
 
libfreeordie on February 5, 2013 at 9:21 AM

 

As someone on the verge of a PhD in history…
 
DeathToMediaHacks on January 9, 2009 at 1:28 PM

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Y’all remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

One step closer.
Since overall spending isn’t getting cut, just the military, now 0bama can fund his Sturmabteilung.

LegendHasIt on February 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Yes, I saw your comment to him about the better half. I just don’t get it. It wouldn’t seem to be that hard for him to make happen. He did respond to one of my queries.

Ed’s a good guy.

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM

I know, I’ve got nothing rogerb. Maybe its more complicated than we commenters understand or see.

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM

We are all as broke as France now. And from now on, we will be as feared as much as France is on the world stage. If that doesn’t make you panic, I don’t know what will.

Libertyship46 on February 25, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Maybe we can count on our European cousins and Israel to help defend us…

OmahaConservative on February 24, 2014 at 5:59 PM

LOL

And our friends in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan..

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 25, 2014 at 4:17 PM

falcaner on February 25, 2014 at 1:04 PM

This portion is 100% incorrect in its assertion that #1 the Islamic world doesn’t matter as much as some people think, #2 and it is wrong that the nation is war weary. First the fact of the matter is that the nation is war ignorant not war weary. How many articles about the war in Afghanistan have you seen in the national media lately? The answer is not a lot. For over a decade (since we went into Iraq) the media has been telling the American people that our fight is bad and we don’t need to be there. That combined with the fact that the current administration hasn’t bothered to explain why we are over there right now has lead to the american people conculding that what we are doing (though they dont understand it) simply isnt worth the effort. Also if you think that the Islamic world is NOT going to be the focus of our forgien policy over the next 50 years, or that simply bombing them into the stone age will solve any of our problem you completely misunderstand the region.

What do we get from the Middle East? Any products? Resources? Any allies? The answer is not much sense the advent of fracking. We have no Muslim allies and never will. 9-11 was caused by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They were and still do fund Sunni Jihadist groups the world over. Are we going invade them, or at least bomb them? Are we going to take away Pakistan’s nukes? Bush was running around telling everyone what wonderful allies they both were and Obama is too disconnected from reality to bomb them. If I was president after 9-11, Pakistan’s military would not exist today and India would have annexed the useful parts, but that is just me.

As for Iraq, anyone who knows jack about the Islamic religion could have told you what would happen. The country is majority Shia and now they are siding with Iran who is also Shia. Wow! Who could have thought! So we gave a democratic constitution based on the Islamic religion to Iraq and now they are doing arms deals with Iran. Smooth move. Was that worth it, America?

We should deal with the Islamic world by bombing them, and repeating if necessary when they annoy us. You don’t send a massive army over there and spend billions upon billions of dollars chasing around stone age rejects. You don’t then use that army to play nanny to try to civilize people who don’t have clue one how to be civilized. But best yet, we don’t give those soldiers the ability to civilize them because if we did it would mean committing 25% to 50% of the population of those countries to the sword. Do you, or does the country, have the stomach for that? Are willing to stop trying to win hearts and minds and actually try to win the objective? I don’t think you do, and I know this country does not.

No one wants to spend the next 50 years fighting a crusade to save the Islamic world from itself. If they do another 9-11 we should waste Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran by air and call it a day. It saves money and lives, not to mention it is actually politically doable with a clear objective…retribution, not try to get the Islamic world to love us, but fear us. You appear to want to go on another find the friendly “moderate” Muslim hunt…sorry I am done with them and their culture.

“I am not going to break this down point by point but I am of the option that the likelihood of this happening is VASTLY overstated by many who think this could happen. I think some analysts like this because it fits into their perceived notions of conflict much better. Its nation state vs nation state and some people can rationalize this much more rather than war against some nebouls terrorist organization. The simple fact is that 21st century war is changeing and wars aginst nation states will be far fewer. Also the Chinese military is not nearly as developed as some people make it out to be,they are not even as well developed as the Russians are at this point. They are adept at stealing stuff that is about it, they do not have the foundations of develop their own weapon systems which is a large disadvantage. Also just because you have a system does not mean you understand it well enough to properly use it in your own forces. Look how the development of drones in our forces has developed over the years. Lastly if we did fight China we would win and it wouldn’t be as close as some people think.”

It is not terrorist, it is Jihadist. I am sick of the word Terrorist. Terror is a tactic. We did not wage WWII against Blitzkrieg. There are Jihadist groups all over the world, with all sorts of idiotic names. Some are Sunni and some are Shia. They are supported by various Islamic majority countries, like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Libya, come to think of it most Islamic countries support violent Jihadism in some form or another because that is a fundamental part of the Islamic religion. So the fact that you use the word “Terrorist” means you have not even come to grips what this is all about, so therefore you have no clue how to stop it or even fight against it.

The Chinese are growing leaps and bounds, they have a horde of missiles pointed at all our allies and our military bases. They are building a navy and an air force, they are also building asymmetrical warfare capabilities and developing interesting plans to gain their objectives. Unlike the uncivilized savages in the Islamic world, they are not inept, but they do have delusional visions of grandeur which makes them extremely dangerous. Also we have to plan for a Chinese military not just of today, but 25 years from now. Right now we would win, but at what cost. Saying we would win easily against a massive military power that is growing leaps and bounds with lots nuclear weapons in their own backyard is courting disaster.

Russia is already freaking out about them, and for good reason. All their natural resource rich areas are in the east, where the Chinese population across the border in Russia is going to overwhelm the native Russians. Sounds like a good old fashioned demographic conquest scenario if I have ever heard one. Russia has no time for Europe and are rebalancing their forces toward Asia as well. If America is not there, Russia will fill the void as the counter to Chinese aggression.

We have a choice, either we defend what matters in this world, where real American interests are at stake, or we can continue to play around in 3rd world Islamic dumps for the next fifty years. I choose to advance American civilization in places that are civilized enough to understand it and make use of it, and at the same time protect America from a real potential foe that can do real irreparable harm to American power in this world.

William Eaton on February 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Do we really need to spend 40% of the worlds’ budget on the military? We don’t really need heavy armaments in a war against Al Queda.

Faramir on February 25, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Great posts William Eaton. I recall that Thomas Jefferson went to Northern Africa and put the Moslems pirates in their place with a handful of marines, and left.

Faramir on February 25, 2014 at 5:48 PM

One question. If Dear Leader wishes to engage in another war, say in the Ukraine, and he is cutting troops, will the Libs be upset if the draft is reinstated?

Brock Robamney on February 25, 2014 at 6:45 PM

We don’t really need heavy armaments in a war against Al Queda.
Faramir on February 25, 2014 at 5:40 PM

A: If you think Al Qaeda is the only military threat we face in this world, you are incredibly naive.

B: Even if Al Qaeda was the only threat we face, do you really think that all they will ever be able to field against us are small arms and improvised explosives.

Especially with all the advanced armaments that 0bama and McCain are giving them.

No wonder Denethor preferred Boromir.

LegendHasIt on February 25, 2014 at 9:47 PM

Shrink the military to December 6, 1941 levels and you get December 7, 1941 results.

troyriser_gopftw on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

When that happens a draft is put back into place. Now that they want women in combat, they to will be drafted. All Americans need to realize that we have a large voluntary military so when conflicts arise, there is no draft needed. Even with 2 fronts, we still did not need a draft.

Liberals know this. They want this future. When Dec 7th 1941 happens again, the draft is slapped together and this time America probably will riot. Large scale riots means more central government power instituted. A Marxist wet dream to fire upon their own citizens.

Barack Obama & his surreal administration scares the crap out of me.

Conservative4Ever on February 26, 2014 at 3:16 AM

What kind of donkassery is this? Abdicating supremacy? Jeebuz

jake49 on February 26, 2014 at 12:01 PM

William Eaton on February 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM
What do we get from the Middle East? Any products? Resources? Any allies?

To answer your question we really don’t get much out of the Middle East. We do get some oil, however we could probably get rid of even that if we really put our minds into getting all of the oil we can out of our country. However the premise of your question is irrelevant, it is not what our country wants to do it what we are going to HAVE to do. I agree that we should try and limit the amount of blood and treasure that we spend in that part of the world since all of them hate our guts. I agree that the Islamic world is a backward place and that we are not going to convince the majority of them that a 3rd century way of thinking does not have a place in our 21st century world. You are correct that Iraq has proven that we cannot produce Jeffersonian Democracies in that region of the world.
However what we would like to do is moot because they are going to continue to bring the fight to our doorstep. How do I know this, they told us that is what they are going to do that is why; and in fact they keep telling us that is what they are going to do because they want to spread their black flags across the world. Also if you think the way they fight is backward (thou their society may be) you are sorely mistaken, they are talented they are devious and the internet has given then a completely limitless talent pool. We are going to more and more Boston Boston bombing type of events, they are simply too many of them to stop all of them and keep in mind and two guys brought a whole city to its knees.

No one wants to spend the next 50 years fighting a crusade to save the Islamic world from itself. If they do another 9-11 we should waste Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran by air and call it a day.

No we do not WANT to have to fight there for the next 50 years, however they started the fight and we are going to eventually have to finish it. I for one do not want to see another 3,000 of my countrymen killed because our country didn’t do enough when it could of. Also let me be clear about what I am advocating. I DO NOT think that we should have sustained ground wars in that region, Bob Gates said that any SECDEF that advocated that should be fired and he is right. What we should plan on doing is having small Group and teams that go into trouble spots and eliminate or reduce threats in that area. We also need to have a VAST and very well-funded intelligence network in that area of the world. If a Jihadist goes the head we should be able to know how long. Then we go in light with infantry and Special Forces guys on actionable intelligence and remove that person or send them to GITMO. Bound into the place and then leave. We will have to have some larger operations similar to what the French (yes I know it’s the French) did in Mali. They got in, partnered with local forces and then kicked out the terrorists. Then we leave and if we have to we come back and do it again.

It is not terrorist, it is Jihadist

Actually it’s a bit of a chicken and egg thing, every Jihadist is a terrorist but not every terrorist is a Jihadist (thou those are getting hard to find)

The Chinese are growing leaps and bounds, they have a horde of missiles pointed at all our allies and our military bases. They are building a navy and an air force, they are also building asymmetrical warfare capabilities and developing interesting plans to gain their objectives. Unlike the uncivilized savages in the Islamic world, they are not inept, but they do have delusional visions of grandeur which makes them extremely dangerous.

I think we are going to have to simply agree to disagree on this point. I do not think they are as dangerous as you make them out to be. They are bounded by economic realities that they need many western countries to continue the economic growth and keep the middle class happy so they can stay in power. A war doesn’t do that in fact it does just the opposite, China is a oligarchy on top of a capitalistic system. Eventually that system is going to break it always does, but I don’t think they are going to war with Taiwan or Japan before that happens. There are some in the country that want war for nationalistic reasons but I think they are going to be kept at bay (baring some unusual circumstances). Also we are vastly superior to their fighting forces and I simply not impressed. They just got their first amphibious ship last year are still trying to figure out how to use the thing. We have been doing amphibious warfare since we landed Marines at Tripoli so I think we got that covered. Also they couldn’t figure out how to build an aircraft carrier so they bought the old broken down one from Russia that never worked right. The US developed the first supper carriers we are the only one to still have them and have been kicking counties backsides with them since 1942. Once again it is not only have the capabilities to conduct a mission it is having the institutional knowledge necessary to perform the given mission and to do it in an adverse environment.
The fact of the matter is that we need to mold the military to face our most likely threats and China is not going to be one of them. We need to face the fact that we are going to be confronting Jihadists for a very long time and no amount of whishing or Asia pivots are going to change that. Not doing that is going to result in more 9-11’s happening when they are completely preventable.

falcaner on February 26, 2014 at 12:13 PM

I want the most powerful Navy and Air Force in the world…the Army does need to be massive. We are not going to be fighting huge Soviet tank formations on flat ground in Europe in my life time.

William Eaton on February 25, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Prove it.

No? Well, then. It is reported that His Excellency, General George Washington commented during the Constitutional Convention that he’d be happy to have a standing army restricted to 3000 men, provided that any opposing force could also be restricted to 3000 men.

That Congress got the point. You don’t size your armed forces to what you hope they’ll fight. You size them according to what they may have to fight. And our forces may have to fight on dozens of different fronts on dozens of different islands, plus the Russian Empire invading Poland and Eastern Europe (again). Plus the Shia Caliphate of Persia taking on the the Sunni world, a resurgent Jihaddi force in Africa, and goodness knows what [expletive deleted] going on in Latin America.

And it doesn’t matter what the ratios of spending are, between “Us” and “Them”. Other countries, especially in the non-Free world, don’t pay their soldiers as much as we do; nor the factory workers who supply the munitions etc. to support those armies. The Chinese can muster half a billion slave soldiers at need.

So how big an Army do we need, again?

ReggieA on February 26, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3