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

[Trajan]

They are not saying that.

thats right but thats not what he infers or he doesn't have grasp of what hes actually saying-

The president insisted the new strategy - which eliminates the military's ability to actively fight two major wars at once - will allow U.S. armed forces to effectively combat terrorism while confronting any new threats from countries like China and Iran.


so china and Iran, oh wait, they would never ever start anything at once together.......which is it?

I am already on record, want to cut the ground troops, rifleman, tankers arty, ok, but, the air force needs new aircraft, the navy at 20 ships and 10 carriers is well, that is dangerously slim. And those 20K marines he want to cut, where will that come from? Amongst sppt. or the ground pounders? They are the first to fight and gain us valuable time, I think thats a bad idea.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not fighting with you, Trajan, on this: the problem is the question of what is "slim", and I firmly agree with you that our AF and USN need to be competently equipped in appropriate numbers.

We cannot fight a land war in China. We won't fight a land war in Iran. Iraq taught us that we don't have the force structure to win a peace after winning the war. We may have to consider the "impossible" and quietly inform Iran that nukes are on the table if the mullahs go crazy.

 

[The Gadfly]

I am not fighting with you, Trajan, on this: the problem is the question of what is "slim", and I firmly agree with you that our AF and USN need to be competently equipped in appropriate numbers.

We cannot fight a land war in China. We won't fight a land war in Iran. Iraq taught us that we don't have the force structure to win a peace after winning the war. We may have to consider the "impossible" and quietly inform Iran that nukes are on the table if the mullahs go crazy.

The question is, Jake, in that case, are you REALLY willing to turn some large pieces of Iran into glass? You had better be sure, because with other (lesser) options simply not available, that may HAVE to be done. What are you willing to do, if, say, the Iranians give a nuke to some terrorist group, they detonate it in one of our major cities; and the material traces back to Iran? You don't rely on rattling that particular saber until and unless you are damn well willing to actually USE it!

 

[Trajan]

I am not fighting with you, Trajan, on this: the problem is the question of what is "slim", and I firmly agree with you that our AF and USN need to be competently equipped in appropriate numbers.

We cannot fight a land war in China. We won't fight a land war in Iran. Iraq taught us that we don't have the force structure to win a peace after winning the war. We may have to consider the "impossible" and quietly inform Iran that nukes are on the table if the mullahs go crazy.

The question is, Jake, in that case, are you REALLY willing to turn some large pieces of Iran into glass? You had better be sure, because with other (lesser) options simply not available, that may HAVE to be done. What are you willing to do, if, say, the Iranians give a nuke to some terrorist group, they detonate it in one of our major cities; and the material traces back to Iran? You don't rely on rattling that particular saber until and unless you are damn well willing to actually USE it!

thats why like bush has iraq, obama vis a vis missile defense will have a HUGGGGE strategic blunder directly attributable to him, he gave it up to make nice to putin and the Russians and they kick us right back in the ass by threatening to veto any action on say, Syria and even send Assad arms.....whos kidding who here?

If Iran is willing to commit terrorist acts ON our turf, in the US NOW, how brave do we think they will become when they have the ultimate blackmail trump card?

if anyone really thinks we won't be involved in a major land war in the next 10 years, you have a very poor grasp of history and are not paying attention to current events and the swirl and repetition of historical context and human interaction on national scales.

 

[The Gadfly]

I'll take my earlier reasoning one step further; for those here who believe that dropping a nuke on Iran will permanently solve that particular problem, if/when it arises, why not go ahead and test the hypothesis now? Detonate one 20 megaton thermonuclear device about 12,000 feet above downtown Tehran. That way, if this fails to achieve the desired result, (and it might not), there will at least be other options. We didn't nuke Afghanistan because, among other things, you cannot bomb people back to the Stone Age when they are already there. Even Mutually Assured Destruction only works with an adversary (like the Soviet Union) that actually has something significant to lose. From the point of view of the Iranian mullahs, they may have very little to lose by calling our bluff.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Ask Georgia and Tibet.

 

[Jroc]

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.

Umm..Taiwan

 

[Unkotare]

Hell, Russia is STILL hanging on to Japanese territory they grabbed at the end of WWII. And you can ask Vietnam how unthinkable it is that China would invade. Chinese tanks rolled into North Korea in 2010.

 

[Bravo32]

Many are disappointed by the news of US army numbers reducing to cut costs, but it seems to me that it was just a red herring to cover huge expenditures of US intelligence services. The best way to cut costs is to reduce financing of the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI. For many decades they used enemy images of evil empires like Russia just to get some extra cash for their expensive toys which can be easily captured by Iranian slobs. And this happening in period while US economy burn with fever. Of course it’s always easier to reduce army and send the same people to Iraq and Afghanistan over and over again while intelligence services will beg for money to fight some illusive enemies and do nothing to tame their appetite for huge budgets.

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

If something happened to New Zealand the US would be some of the first boots on the ground to help you out.

 

[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.

Umm..Taiwan

And we will prevent with U.S. ground forces in Taiwan? Think it through. I have said we need a competent USN and AF, which will shield Taiwan, as they always have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hell, Russia is STILL hanging on to Japanese territory they grabbed at the end of WWII. And you can ask Vietnam how unthinkable it is that China would invade. Chinese tanks rolled into North Korea in 2010.

The USA is not going to fight a major land war in Asia, not in China or Manchuria or Vietnam. Neither will China, when economically its power continues to grow. There is no need for a Patton in the future.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

If something happened to New Zealand the US would be some of the first boots on the ground to help you out.

And chase your women. That's one of the many things American soldiers do well overseas.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

There are a million and a half government agencies that should be cut or literally done away with. Let's take the Department of Education for example. Since the inception of the Department of Education, test scores have fallen dramatically. National teacher unions have successfully blocked most attempts to give education consumers two very basic rights: Choice and teachers who can actually teach. Instead, they have consistently railed against vouchers and have continued to support tenure instead of getting rid of these teachers who only go through the motions.

Now, the Obama administration wants to GUT the American military. When are we going to learn? When will we STOP and look at history and absolutely KNOW in our hearts and our minds that each and every time we do that, it is the lowly GI who will pay the price with their blood.

The American military is in serious need of an overhaul. We have missles sitting in silos that were built in the 70's. We have bombers that are older than I am. For two years we will be down to 10 aircraft carrier battle groups until the Gerald R. Ford comes on line. The Raptor was capped at 89 planes because the F-15 was "fine" (built in the 70's and a third generation fighter - The Russians and the Chinese are building their 5th generation fighters). The C-5's are going to be retired because they are way past their air frame life. The A-10 should have been replaced ten years ago. The M-1 (which the Democrats tried to kill because it 'wasn't necessary') rocked the desert but is woefully out-of-date. When the turd hits the fan, it's the Marines that everyone looks to. They have two expeditionary forces, one in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific... under strength and under gunned. They are still relying on the Harrier and the Cobra (both developed in the 60's) for Christ's sake.

Obama is walking the same path that every other President who sees a "peace dividend" walks... That path is covered in the blood of American GI's. Because you absolutely KNOW that some idiot out there is going to think, "Well the US is weak now so I can go and ....". And we'll have to straighten their ass out...

When are we going to learn?

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

If something happened to New Zealand the US would be some of the first boots on the ground to help you out.

And chase your women. That's one of the many things American soldiers do well overseas.

Actually for the most part, the foreign women chase us.

 

[High_Gravity]

There are a million and a half government agencies that should be cut or literally done away with. Let's take the Department of Education for example. Since the inception of the Department of Education, test scores have fallen dramatically. National teacher unions have successfully blocked most attempts to give education consumers two very basic rights: Choice and teachers who can actually teach. Instead, they have consistently railed against vouchers and have continued to support tenure instead of getting rid of these teachers who only go through the motions.

Now, the Obama administration wants to GUT the American military. When are we going to learn? When will we STOP and look at history and absolutely KNOW in our hearts and our minds that each and every time we do that, it is the lowly GI who will pay the price with their blood.

The American military is in serious need of an overhaul. We have missles sitting in silos that were built in the 70's. We have bombers that are older than I am. For two years we will be down to 10 aircraft carrier battle groups until the Gerald R. Ford comes on line. The Raptor was capped at 89 planes because the F-15 was "fine" (built in the 70's and a third generation fighter - The Russians and the Chinese are building their 5th generation fighters). The C-5's are going to be retired because they are way past their air frame life. The A-10 should have been replaced ten years ago. The M-1 (which the Democrats tried to kill because it 'wasn't necessary') rocked the desert but is woefully out-of-date. When the turd hits the fan, it's the Marines that everyone looks to. They have two expeditionary forces, one in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific... under strength and under gunned. They are still relying on the Harrier and the Cobra (both developed in the 60's) for Christ's sake.

Obama is walking the same path that every other President who sees a "peace dividend" walks... That path is covered in the blood of American GI's. Because you absolutely KNOW that some idiot out there is going to think, "Well the US is weak now so I can go and ....". And we'll have to straighten their ass out...

When are we going to learn?

Your damn right Sniper, like I said before drones and air strikes are a good thing to have but you don't win wars like that. We bombed the shit out of Iraq for years back in the 90's and Saddam Husseins regime was able to survive, we put boots on the ground and in less than 3 weeks that regime is finished. Now I'm not saying the Iraq invasion was right or wrong, but ground forces did in less than 3 weeks what air power couldn't do in years. Our ground forces are the back bone of our Military and for alot of these third world shit hole leaders, troops on the ground is all they fear. Take that off the table, and they will feel more confident.

 

[Unkotare]

Hell, Russia is STILL hanging on to Japanese territory they grabbed at the end of WWII. And you can ask Vietnam how unthinkable it is that China would invade. Chinese tanks rolled into North Korea in 2010.

The USA is not going to fight a major land war in Asia, not in China or Manchuria or Vietnam. Neither will China, when economically its power continues to grow. There is no need for a Patton in the future.

Yeah, and WWI was 'The War to End All Wars.' You remember how that assumption/hope worked out, right?

 

[Unkotare]

There are a million and a half government agencies that should be cut or literally done away with. Let's take the Department of Education for example. Since the inception of the Department of Education, test scores have fallen dramatically. National teacher unions have successfully blocked most attempts to give education consumers two very basic rights: Choice and teachers who can actually teach. Instead, they have consistently railed against vouchers and have continued to support tenure instead of getting rid of these teachers who only go through the motions.

Now, the Obama administration wants to GUT the American military. When are we going to learn? When will we STOP and look at history and absolutely KNOW in our hearts and our minds that each and every time we do that, it is the lowly GI who will pay the price with their blood.

The American military is in serious need of an overhaul. We have missles sitting in silos that were built in the 70's. We have bombers that are older than I am. For two years we will be down to 10 aircraft carrier battle groups until the Gerald R. Ford comes on line. The Raptor was capped at 89 planes because the F-15 was "fine" (built in the 70's and a third generation fighter - The Russians and the Chinese are building their 5th generation fighters). The C-5's are going to be retired because they are way past their air frame life. The A-10 should have been replaced ten years ago. The M-1 (which the Democrats tried to kill because it 'wasn't necessary') rocked the desert but is woefully out-of-date. When the turd hits the fan, it's the Marines that everyone looks to. They have two expeditionary forces, one in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific... under strength and under gunned. They are still relying on the Harrier and the Cobra (both developed in the 60's) for Christ's sake.

Obama is walking the same path that every other President who sees a "peace dividend" walks... That path is covered in the blood of American GI's. Because you absolutely KNOW that some idiot out there is going to think, "Well the US is weak now so I can go and ....". And we'll have to straighten their ass out...

When are we going to learn?

Your damn right Sniper, like I said before drones and air strikes are a good thing to have but you don't win wars like that. We bombed the shit out of Iraq for years back in the 90's and Saddam Husseins regime was able to survive, we put boots on the ground and in less than 3 weeks that regime is finished. Now I'm not saying the Iraq invasion was right or wrong, but ground forces did in less than 3 weeks what air power couldn't do in years. Our ground forces are the back bone of our Military and for alot of these third world shit hole leaders, troops on the ground is all they fear. Take that off the table, and they will feel more confident.

Both quote and comments bear repeating - right on the money.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hell, Russia is STILL hanging on to Japanese territory they grabbed at the end of WWII. And you can ask Vietnam how unthinkable it is that China would invade. Chinese tanks rolled into North Korea in 2010.

The USA is not going to fight a major land war in Asia, not in China or Manchuria or Vietnam. Neither will China, when economically its power continues to grow. There is no need for a Patton in the future.

Yeah, and WWI was 'The War to End All Wars.' You remember how that assumption/hope worked out, right?

False analogy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We will not send massive numbers of troops overseas in combat formations in the future.

Why? The win wars but not the peace.

Force demand and configuration needs have changed dramatically over the last twenty years.

Get rid of satellites and nuclear weapons, and then we need the force sizes the neanderthal strategos here are arguing for.