Army planning to cut number of combat brigades, officials say [45 to as low as 32....

[JakeStarkey]

Because the nature of war has changed fundamentally with atomics.

The neo-cons failed to understand that a massive commitment was necessary for Iraq, and that is why we won the war but lost the peace. The American people will never tolerate such an adventure again.

Show me who China or Russia is going to invade.

 

[High_Gravity]

Because the nature of war has changed fundamentally with atomics.

The neo-cons failed to understand that a massive commitment was necessary for Iraq, and that is why we won the war but lost the peace. The American people will never tolerate such an adventure again.

Show me who China or Russia is going to invade.

I can't predict whats going to happen in the future, but what I can tell you is that us cutting our Military like this is getting the Russians and Chinese cocks hard. The ground force is the back bone of any Military, you can't win a war with just drone strikes and air power alone.

 

[idb]

We are not "occupying" Japan or Germany, our troops are there at the request of those various governments.

Ooohhh...riiiiiiight!

What the fuck does that mean? US Troops are not "occupying" Japan or Germany idiot.

Ouch...that was too easy!
You bite like a big dog.

 

[High_Gravity]

Ooohhh...riiiiiiight!

What the fuck does that mean? US Troops are not "occupying" Japan or Germany idiot.

Ouch...that was too easy!
You bite like a big dog.

 

[idb]

Because the nature of war has changed fundamentally with atomics.

The neo-cons failed to understand that a massive commitment was necessary for Iraq, and that is why we won the war but lost the peace. The American people will never tolerate such an adventure again.

Show me who China or Russia is going to invade.

I can't predict whats going to happen in the future, but what I can tell you is that us cutting our Military like this is getting the Russians and Chinese cocks hard. The ground force is the back bone of any Military, you can't win a war with just drone strikes and air power alone.

Isn't the new strategy focussing more on intelligent and surgical use of forces rather than large massed armies?
I think Special Forces such as the Seals are intended to be beefed up if I read correctly.

 

[idb]

What the fuck does that mean? US Troops are not "occupying" Japan or Germany idiot.

Ouch...that was too easy!
You bite like a big dog.

Oh well

 

[High_Gravity]

Ouch...that was too easy!
You bite like a big dog.

Oh well

It's all good man, I'm not mad at you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because the nature of war has changed fundamentally with atomics.

The neo-cons failed to understand that a massive commitment was necessary for Iraq, and that is why we won the war but lost the peace. The American people will never tolerate such an adventure again.

Show me who China or Russia is going to invade.

I can't predict whats going to happen in the future, but what I can tell you is that us cutting our Military like this is getting the Russians and Chinese cocks hard. The ground force is the back bone of any Military, you can't win a war with just drone strikes and air power alone.

The idea is not to end the military but to down size for appropriate operations in this century.

A solid AF and USN protects the borders and projects power to hurt bad guys if necessary overseas.

A thirty plus brigade configuration gives us plenty of power and shield to grow behind if necessary.

 

[High_Gravity]

Because the nature of war has changed fundamentally with atomics.

The neo-cons failed to understand that a massive commitment was necessary for Iraq, and that is why we won the war but lost the peace. The American people will never tolerate such an adventure again.

Show me who China or Russia is going to invade.

I can't predict whats going to happen in the future, but what I can tell you is that us cutting our Military like this is getting the Russians and Chinese cocks hard. The ground force is the back bone of any Military, you can't win a war with just drone strikes and air power alone.

The idea is not to end the military but to down size for appropriate operations in this century.

A solid AF and USN protects the borders and projects power to hurt bad guys if necessary overseas.

A thirty plus brigade configuration gives us plenty of power and shield to grow behind if necessary.

I really hope your right about this, still doesn't sit well with me to reduce the force now when we are still running ground ops in Afghanistan, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I gather the downsizing of the Afghanforce is beginning now and all combat units will be withdrawn by the end of next year.

A ? that remains is the classification of combat units to non-combat units. Will real combat units be simply renamed there and still remain, or will they actually be withdrawn. This argument occurred when Iraq was wound down. Turned out that the real combat units were withdrawn. I hope the same happens in Afghn.

2001 to 2010 can accurately be identified as the 'Decade of Neo-Conservative Failure Overseas.' All that time, energy, morale, blood, and treasure expended on an Iraq now that draws nearer to Iran, and on Afghanistan, which for us, is basically only Fortress Kabul now.

What truly irks me is that the situations could be far different in both countries, but the neo-cons of both parties thought they could wage war and win peace on inexpensive terms. The experts told them differently, yet they knew better.

If I sound bitter, I am, at the cost it has brought to America.

 

[High_Gravity]

I gather the downsizing of the Afghanforce is beginning now and all combat units will be withdrawn by the end of next year.

A ? that remains is the classification of combat units to non-combat units. Will real combat units be simply renamed there and still remain, or will they actually be withdrawn. This argument occurred when Iraq was wound down. Turned out that the real combat units were withdrawn. I hope the same happens in Afghn.

2001 to 2010 can accurately be identified as the 'Decade of Neo-Conservative Failure Overseas.' All that time, energy, morale, blood, and treasure expended on an Iraq now that draws nearer to Iran, and on Afghanistan, which for us, is basically only Fortress Kabul now.

What truly irks me is that the situations could be far different in both countries, but the neo-cons of both parties thought they could wage war and win peace on inexpensive terms. The experts told them differently, yet they knew better.

If I sound bitter, I am, at the cost it has brought to America.

We never had enough Troops on the ground in either country Iraq or Afghanistan, so if we make the Military even smaller we would struggle to invade Puerto Rico, let alone anything bigger.

 

[idb]

I gather the downsizing of the Afghanforce is beginning now and all combat units will be withdrawn by the end of next year.

A ? that remains is the classification of combat units to non-combat units. Will real combat units be simply renamed there and still remain, or will they actually be withdrawn. This argument occurred when Iraq was wound down. Turned out that the real combat units were withdrawn. I hope the same happens in Afghn.

2001 to 2010 can accurately be identified as the 'Decade of Neo-Conservative Failure Overseas.' All that time, energy, morale, blood, and treasure expended on an Iraq now that draws nearer to Iran, and on Afghanistan, which for us, is basically only Fortress Kabul now.

What truly irks me is that the situations could be far different in both countries, but the neo-cons of both parties thought they could wage war and win peace on inexpensive terms. The experts told them differently, yet they knew better.

If I sound bitter, I am, at the cost it has brought to America.

We never had enough Troops on the ground in either country Iraq or Afghanistan, so if we make the Military even smaller we would struggle to invade Puerto Rico, let alone anything bigger.

When you put it that way I suddenly feel safer!!!

 

[High_Gravity]

I gather the downsizing of the Afghanforce is beginning now and all combat units will be withdrawn by the end of next year.

A ? that remains is the classification of combat units to non-combat units. Will real combat units be simply renamed there and still remain, or will they actually be withdrawn. This argument occurred when Iraq was wound down. Turned out that the real combat units were withdrawn. I hope the same happens in Afghn.

2001 to 2010 can accurately be identified as the 'Decade of Neo-Conservative Failure Overseas.' All that time, energy, morale, blood, and treasure expended on an Iraq now that draws nearer to Iran, and on Afghanistan, which for us, is basically only Fortress Kabul now.

What truly irks me is that the situations could be far different in both countries, but the neo-cons of both parties thought they could wage war and win peace on inexpensive terms. The experts told them differently, yet they knew better.

If I sound bitter, I am, at the cost it has brought to America.

We never had enough Troops on the ground in either country Iraq or Afghanistan, so if we make the Military even smaller we would struggle to invade Puerto Rico, let alone anything bigger.

When you put it that way I suddenly feel safer!!!

LOL! Why? New Zealand is an ally of the US.

 

[zzzz]

A diminished Navy can't meet its multiple global missions.

The Navy's fleet is already too small and its ships too old to perform its multiple missions. The fleet has shrunk by half in two decades and currently stands at 285. At the height of the Reagan Cold War buildup in 1987, the Navy had 568 carriers, destroyers, submarines and other ships.

Five years ago, the Navy pledged to get back to a floor of 313 ships sometime in the next decade. But even that shipbuilding plan was stingy in ambition and funding, favoring smaller, relatively inexpensive combat and supply ships. An update last year cut the number of ballistic missile submarines to 12 from 14. The Pentagon's latest budget plan makes it virtually impossible for the Navy to meet the 313 ship goal.

Some of that decline is the result of increasing force projection of our newest ships. Compare a cruiser in 1960 to one today. The cruiser of today can project deadly force in a higher magnitude and accuracy than several cruisers from years past. And the new destroyers we are building can almost match the Ticonderoga class cruisers we have in service. So comparing a 600 ship navy of the 80's with today's fleet is an exercise in futility except to try to warp the discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Excellent comment on force comparisons over time.

For instance, a combat heavy division in the Army know has probably 10 to 15 times more offensive power than in 1945.

 

[idb]

We never had enough Troops on the ground in either country Iraq or Afghanistan, so if we make the Military even smaller we would struggle to invade Puerto Rico, let alone anything bigger.

When you put it that way I suddenly feel safer!!!

LOL! Why? New Zealand is an ally of the US.

Yeah I know but, well, someone in Washington might wake up in a bad mood one day and decide to kick the cat - or invade a small country in the middle of the ocean.
Either way it would hardly register in the US - in fact, cruelty to a cat would probably cause more of a storm in certain parts of the media.

 

[idb]

I'm joking of course

 

[Trajan]

Aren't they still talking like they can make those cuts and still fight 2 wars? They're lying if they're saying that.

exactly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They are not saying that.

 

[Trajan]

The paring back means the USA will not be able to fight two major land wars at once.

Trajan's concern reflects some realities; however, our air power and air craft carrier groups will be enough for the next ten to fifteen years. No studies exist to contradict such a position.

The real threats are terrorist attacks in the home land and cyber warfare on our communications systems.

sure they do, here are some for the air force;

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/081001_aircraft_modernstudy.pdf

Budget Cuts Could Spark Showdown for AF, Guard and Reserves

and the navy;

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/01/24/report-adds-still-more-gloom-to-navy-ship-outlook/

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

New Navy budgets may sink plans for aircraft carriers - Washington Times


example-
11 carriers-
3 on station
3 returning from their stations
3 in prep
2 dry-docked hard.

and there it is.

If say, Iran gets cheeky, 2 at the straits, one in the Atlantic and 1 in the south china sea thats 4, and there it is. The size of the planet hasn't changed not will it, neither will sailing time at approx. 750 miles per day and the concomitant time necessary to outfit and deploy them effectively.

The problem with say China is; as they build and gain strength they receive an added bonus at no cost to them, they gain a + force multiplier because we are shrinking at the same time.....its a 2 fer.