It’s Time to Bring the Boys Home from World War II
The estimate is that terrorists spent $5M on 9/11. Our response (and the rest of the world’s) has a price tag in the trillions. We cannot maintain such a lopsided ratio and effectively defend ourselves. Despite the military’s publicity to the contrary, these wars have been fought in a low-tech way. What do I mean by low-tech? We actually have U.S. troops patrolling back alleys by foot. That’s as low-tech as it gets. But all of that is a consequence of using troops to invade and occupy in the first place. Future retaliations or preemptive strikes should not use large armies. Elite squads such as the Navy Seals or Green Berets and ultra high-tech will be the name of the game. B2 bombers flying from safe bases in the U.S. will rain smart munitions on specific targets. It makes no sense to send an accountant who is also a reservist into a Baghdad alley with a backpack, rifle, and webcam.
And that brings me to the core of my argument. Our enemies have changed. They use completely different strategies and tactics than our old traditional adversaries. This means our approaches must change to accommodate these realities. Our old enemies need to wake up to this fact as well. No one will invade Russia, China, or the U.S. — end of story. There is no percentage in it. If China wants to own Intel for instance, all it needs to do is buy it on the open market. It would be much faster and cheaper than an invasion, plus the country gets to collect a nice dividend. So keeping a large army up and running serves no purpose against the real enemies of the U.S. (or Russia or China or India): the terrorist who wants to smuggle in a nuclear weapon.
Therefore, having bases in Europe, South Korea, and Japan are expensive and serve little purpose. Worse still, we are spending billions of dollars maintaining these bases to “defend” their hosts. True, they serve some logistical purpose and North Korea is in the hands of an unpredictable fellow who makes many threats. But if the host countries want our protection they should pay for it. Cost plus a 10% fixed profit. And if they do not want to pay, we should up and leave. Aircraft carriers make great forward bases if we need them to support a foray somewhere or other. But if we are not going to invade a country, having a huge base of operations in Japan or South Korea is extraneous.
These bases have become the Maginot Line of the 21st century. On April 7, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. electric grid system was penetrated by the Russians and Chinese with worms and viruses. How much use would a base in Japan be to counteract this threat? Here is a case where a few million dollars spent on malware can destroy billions of dollars of electrical generation equipment and cause widespread social disruption. We need to spend our money to defend against these kinds of threats.
We cannot continue to spend in the ratio of nearly a million to one against our real enemies. It is a battle we will surely lose. We must change the way we fight wars and be honest about who our true enemies are in order to dramatically lower that ratio by at least a factor of 100 to 1000. Our allies need to stand on their own two feet. WWII has been over for six decades. Europe can survive without our airbases, soldiers, and spending. The South Koreans have the money to defend themselves from the North Koreans without our military.
We face a radically different set of enemies with a dramatically different set of weapons that can harm us. Unlike our previous enemies who just wanted to enslave us economically, our new foes want to kill as many of us as they can. The Defense Department must restructure and re-task to meet the new threat. Gates is not going far enough. Jettisoning our bases in foreign lands not only saves money and personnel, but heralds the beginning of a new era in U.S. defense. We cannot and should not be the world’s police force. The reality is we can’t afford it.
TO: Seymour Friedel
RE: If….
….your premise were true, why is the Obama administration slashing military funding instead?
Therefore, your premise is false.
RE: As If….
….our military forces overseas were not part of the War on Global Terrorism….
…they rotate forces into Iraq and Afghanistan with the forces form CONUS, buckie.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. You’re ignorant, if not much worse…..
I spent some time in S. Korea when I was in the Army. I was privileged to sit in on some intelligence briefings. This was in the late seventies, but is probably still true: the U.S. Army’s 2nd Invfantry Division at Uijongbu is not only a tripwire against an invasion from the north, it serves to keep the South Koreans from going north. Remember: China is on the northern border of North Korea.
That said, yes; the Koreans should pay the U.S. for the protection it receives from our troops. Same goes for Japan and Germany.
We do need small units — special operations and intelligence units (both human and electronic) on the ground.
There is nothing like “boots on the ground” to deter the ambitions of despots.
This article is right in part: its too bloody expensive to have 200,000 plus troops abroad. Roads, medical care, food and other support is costing a fortune. With little utility other than pure speculation that they might be useful “one day”.
Aside from that, we encourage everyone else to ignore their own obligation to defend themselves: does Canada even bother with an army or navy? WHY? We’re here.
South Korea is good example: Boots in Korea hasn’t stopped NK from going nuclear and are merely a speed bump NK has to cross on the way to Seoul. I don’t want to pay for a “trip wire” between these two countries. If SK cannot hold its own what are we doing there? The USSR is gone. No one seems to think a SK base is an impediment to the Mainland Chinese or even a spy base that one in Japan can’t equal. If China decided to take SK, we would not be in a position to do a thing, troops or no troops. So why stay? Plus, Hyundai and other SK companies make a mint from the US while SK pays nothing for our troops and feels little if any gratitude. Bring those 24,000 troops home, save the money and let the SK’s defend themselves. Stay in Japan, Germany (great medical and air base in a stable country) but get out of as many places as we can.
Mr. Freidel:
“These bases have become the Maginot Line of the 21st century.”
With the exception of South Korea, I heartily agree.
The time to have closed our bases in Europe and Japan was 1995…50 years of occupation and defense is quite long enough.
(Frankly, I’m surprised that Clinton didn’t have his ceremony and present those folks with the keys to their territory back).
Your apparent advocacy for “downsizing” of the conventional ground forces is unbelievably short-sighted, though.
As has been said, “Quantity has a Quality all it’s own.”.
Consider as recently as 2003, the entire northern flank of the US forces that would have invaded Iraq sat at anchor in the Black Sea when Turkey denied them transit through it’s territory, and yet we STILL had enough “steam” on the southern flank to take out Sadaam Hussein’s forces in three weeks…
Contrast that with the British effort to retake the Falkland Islands. Had the Argies put up a stiffer fight, and interdicted the UK’s sea lines of communication more effectively, the Limeys wold have shot their wad in one campaign.
As much regard as I have for SEALs and the Army people, (and I may be uncommon in being a former Marine grunt who recognizes and appreciates those lads’ expertise in their respective specialties,all the “snake-eaters” in the world would be of little use against a human wave assault a-la Korea in the 1950′s.
When it comes down to brass tacks, it’s STILL who has the best and the most Infantry, Artillery, and Armor in the field that the smart money bets on.
Demographics is destiny. The Europeans are going to be Arabized and Islamicized in 50 years no matter what we do. I say don’t spend another dime on their Anti-American asses.
This is certainly a “stimulus column” !
Provoking, and puzzling.
I tend to think that a move like the one proposed in this article would “look” like a colossal American “defeat”…And we know how much the “look” is important in strategic matters.
It wouldn’t look so bad if at the same we multiplied exponentially our fleets (air and sea and space)and if we made clear that our capability of projection of power will INCREASE.
An Obama administration moving away from all the fronts of WW II would anyway sound like “the end of America’s might” with very dangerous consequences.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
The article sounds like a closet liberal desperately trying to wrap his real objective of slashing the US military in a concealing cloth of correct details. Yes some bases could be closed. Yes, some forward equipment could come home. Unfortunately, everything else is required for a superpower. We need bases to project power and influence. You can’t do everything with aircraft carriers, which are more and more vulnerable. Drastically cutting troop levels is daring the Russians to see what more they can get away with. We still live in a world where dictatorships can and do sack other countries too weak to hold their own land.
Chuck Pelto:
You missed one of my points: We shouldn’t be fighting with massive troops on the ground. Do I think that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing? Sure. Do I think we did it in a cost effective manner? No way.
New approaches to our safety are required.
Seymour Friedel
7: Ozzie:
People who know me will be in stitches when they read your comment about me being a closet liberal.
I want the US well defended. We don’t have infinite money and I think the use of armies and troops around the world is not cost effective.
But thanks for calling me a closet liberal, I have quite a few friends who will get a big kick out of that!
Seymour Friedel
A year ago I visited a friend at the Hanau Army Garrison in Germany. It closed down this past summer. The locals were very upset because our soldiers were a great source of income and also a great way for young German girls to get into the US. From what I’ve been reading all will be closed except Landstuhl.
Ozzie #7: ” . . .required for a superpower.”
Only for a superspending power …with a misguided idea of what “influence” is.
First, its counterproductive: Everyone we protect at cost to our cities won’t spend a dime to defend themselves. we breed dependency.
Second, its not useful: You can gauge the gratitude from France’s refusal to allow overflights in 1986 for US planes on the way to bomb Libya, Turkey’s refusal to assist with Iraq, and all the help we got in Iraq and Afghanistan. Except for Britain, Australia and Poland it was token forces or High Noon.
Third, we need it here: Why spend hundreds of millions millions on bases, medical care, food and roads in South Korea when trauma wards are closing here? So they can sell us Hyundais and insult us? No US interest justifies sending US troops to war over SK. If they can’t/won’t defend themselves, why should we?
Fourth, its insane: We are like some volunteer police officer safeguarding the streets of ungrateful countries while our house leaks, the heater is brokem, our budget is in the red and we can’t pay our hospital bills. Do we like wearing a uniform that much? The owners of the houses we guard sell our family goods at inflated prices and snicker at us.
The miitary is a great bunch of guys, but for any country, they are a drain on a productive economy and needed only to the extent it protects us.
Stay in Germany, Japan and the UK. Good people, stable countries, stand alone military capacity and worth helping. And in Quatar etc for the oil. Maybe Poland since they’re so loyal and spunky. Say goodbye to the rest.
Anyone that wants to say “superpower” needs to shake the dust from their eyes: the US was stronger internally before WWII and all these overseas comittments. It made an artificial jump in propserity after WWII while everyone else lay exhausted. But now, the credit’s maxed out. The USSR is gone. Time to stand down. We don’t owe South Korea anything.
FYI: I remember during the Vietnam war, watching film from Saigon as fleets of kids riding vespas went by. Meanwhile our kids were doing their fighting. Almost the same thing now. Enough.
We should have quit NATO within a year of the fall of the Berlin Wall. We should quit Korea and Asia, Iraq and Afghanistan soon after wards. Europe, Korea and Asia CAN protect themselves if they would. The more people we have overseas the more targets our enemies have. Continental defense is our responsibility, other countries can protect themselves.
Perhaps we will always have interests other places–we do not need dead Americans. So many of the people trashing our troops for Iraq and Afganistan are the same people who clamor it get us involved in the Balkans, DarFur and such.
A little Splendid Isolation for a generation or two might do us all good.
Chuck Pelto:
1. Defense spending is going up 4% next year, it is not being slashed.
2. The budget is moving away from cool expensive technology to effect cheap technology which can be used to fight irregular or guerrilla wars. (The Raptor is an awesome plane, but I don’t think it is the most effect weapon against Haji and his IED.)
3. Gates is a smart guy with recent combat leadership experience. He’s not gutting America’s defenses. He’s making use more effective based on his experience…it’s called intelligence.
P.S. – You’re both dangerous and a fool.
Germany might stay unharmed if US Forces left since Germans are tied in commerce with Russia, and Russian interests would be severely harmed unless Putin & his armies actually intervened in Germany..
Bases in Asia is another matter – in particular South Korea whose land area might be deluged if Kim Jong Il decided to launch his armies on this inferior ‘brother’.
Thankfully, new rocket technology infusing poison gas in mountain caves of the Northy will stave off possible invasion of the South..
#3
“…does Canada even bother with an army or navy”
Be careful there. Canadians went ashore on D-Day.
Event today the Canadians pull their weight. Canada does have an army and an navy. They are not large, but they do get sent on NATO missions and help make the world safe for coffee and donuts.
Having said that, I am still trying to figure out why they think they needed to buy a used submarine.
15: Paul: I didn’t mean to impugn the Canadians. Solid people. But they have no airlift capacity and no navy of note. And it makes sense: why should they? We’re right next door.
I agree. Let the euro-weanies fend for themselves.
Bring the troops home and put them on our boarders with orders to shoot as necessary.
# think about finding jobs to your troops at home
#8 SAF:
“Do I think that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing? Sure. Do I think we did it in a cost effective manner? No way.”
Heck man, the military and the naval forces aren’t cost-effective by their very nature.
During the Revolution, the Navy could not get trained mariners to man it’s ships, since the salts had all raced down to the harbor and signed aboard privateers, (where you could make a share of the loot), and a privateer cost the government only the parchment and ink required to draft a Letter of Marque
As my fellow Seafarers and Maersk line mariners on the Maersk Alabama just proved, 20 unarmed profit-minded civilians can do a job that 15 warships cannot.
Which explains why the Feds will never, EVER allow us to have firearms with which to defend our ships with.
#13 Terry S:
“Gates is a smart guy with recent combat leadership experience.”
Really? When was that?
What I remember Gates best for was as Reagan’s DDI over at CIA, who conveniently “found” evidence of “Iranian Moderates” for the Reagan Administration to “not” deal with.
As far as I’m concerned, Gates is a guy who has built his career on telling the Boss what the Boss wants to hear, regardless of facts n’ sh+t.
As a Army Vet. that was stationed in Mainz Germany, 1961-62, believe that we should be closing all of the European Bases. NATO is not really a functional military allience, not sure it ever was. Never saw a German or French Soldier in any joint field operations during my service time.
We have in Canada a real friend, and they will fight with our guys in active combat if required. same for Australia and New Zeland and English.
Get out of the Nation Building Business. Stop this thinking that we can go into 14th Century cultures and create rule of law and equal rights for everyone. All in 2 years or less, that way the American Voter will not turn
We pull back to the States and build up our Nuclear Missle System by Submarine and traditional launch.
We increase Navy Carrier Force and Airforce Fighter capability. Big Time. Finally, we increase the Marine Corp and Army infantry and Airborne Divisions. Build a number of first response units. Increase Special forces and Airborne Ranger capability for special operation requirements.
Finally, we make sure every country that provides military threat to the United States and Allies, know that we will defend our national interest. Make sure they understand.
Paul from Hamburg @15 – re. the subs; Canadians actually got a good deal on them, and simply blew it by leaviong them in drydock for way too long. Britain was decommissioning them as they switched to small nukes, Canada picked the Upholder/Vicoria’s up, to replace their rather aging fleet of Oberon Class subs essentially in exchange for Brits being allowed areas in Canada to train their pilots. The money looks significant on paper, but it wasn’t real. As for why they bought them, subs are just really useful for any maritime nation. Deisel-electrics are an excellent choice for the sort of littoral combat that is most likely to occur. A little side bonus is that there are a large number of similar small subs in the hands of unstable 3rd world countries these days, so if nothing else NATO navies can train against them…
Re. comment #3, you’re right; Canadian armed forces served well in the major wars of the 20thC, and they continue to do so where needed. These soldiers are actualy well supported by Canadians in general (those interested should google “Highway of Heroes” for some examples). In Afghanistan they’ve been in the hot zone of Khandahar for a number of years while many larger countries dither in safer areas. Unfortunately Canada is still feeling the after effects of the Trudeau era, which did such damage to Canada’s military (at the end of WWII, for example, it had the world’s the largest navy; by now our military is still waiting -for 20 years- on replacements for the 1960′s era Sea King helicopters). They were notoriously under-armoured when they first went in, and suffered significantly from things like poor communications, particularly with forces from other countries. But slowly that gets fixed; it’s unfortunate that it takes soldiers’ deaths to smarten up politicians.
As for the main article, the author has missed a big historical point. It’s usually not until you are weak that others attack you. Given that Obama seems most likely to qualify for a Neville Chamberlain award, America’s (sort-of) allies should be very concerned about their own fates. America’s own interests would be better served by pushing harder on NATO members -including Canada- and various Asian allies (particularly Japan) to pick up their share of the load; their freedom has been subsidized for far too long.
As for the overall US cost, one should look at non-contingency military spending in terms of GDP; on a historical basis US spending is still quite small.
TO: Terry S
RE: On the One Hand
By the Numbers….
You seem to think that 4% increase in the budget, plotted out in the previous Fiscal Year [Note: I used to do the Command Operating Budget Estimate (COBE) for Fort Carson], is ‘significant’.
4%???!?!? Gee. That’s almost the usual rate of inflation under normal fiscal circumstances. And you think this is ‘significant’? Where did you study ‘sadistics’ anyway? Only things of 10% or OVER are considered statistically ‘significant’.
And the Raptor program is to be CUT from that budget. How much of that budget is going to the Raptor program and how will that money be re-allocated? I haven’t seen those plans yet. [Note: I used to pull money from places in the Fort Carson budget and stuff them into other places too. So I know a bit about how the process works.]
The reason we’re so powerful is because we have weapon systems that outperform all of our possible opponents.
That includes the Raptor.
Obviously you are ignorant of that famous axiom rooted in the fact that…
Case in point, during Viet Nam—you ARE old enough to remember Viet Nam—the C47 equipped with the 20mm rotary-barrel gun system was considered ‘magic’ by the Viet Cong. It was affectionately referred to by our troops as “Puff the Magic Dragon”. Why? Because the Viet Cong thought it WAS a fire-breathing dragon.
You keep the technological edge on ALL your enemies. Either that or you are defeated on the modern battlefield: Land, Sea OR Air.
Maybe you and I should play a game of Civilization IV. You keep your bows and arrows and when I show up on your borders with an army of heavy mechanized infantry and modern, composite armor tanks, we’ll see who perseveres.
Or, if you doubt that, take a lesson from the Polish Lancers who bravely charged the Nazi Panzers….breaking their lances on the armor plate of the tanks and being slaughtered.
I never said he wasn’t. But he IS a politician and one who knows how to say, “Yes sir. Yes sir. Three bags full,” when his boss, The One, tells him to do something.
There probably are some programs that could be cut. But I don’t think the Raptor is one of them.
RE: On the Other Hand
Thanks for the compliment. I AM ‘dangerous’. You, or probably your parents, paid good money to make me such. And I appreciate all the training and experiences I had in 27 years in the infantry.
RE: On the Third Hand
Based on your args here, I suspect you’re projecting. But that’s typical of a number of people who say that to me.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. -- Benjamin Franklin]
P.S. And what have YOU done for US that makes you such a subject matter expert on this matter?
whoops, typo, at the end of WWII canada had the world’s fourth largest navy…..
TO: Seymour Friedel
RE: Missing the Point
Not really. I’m all too familiar with the idea of massive combat with lots of people strewn about the battlefield.
Hence my args to Terry S about ‘magic’.
You should tailor your combat requirements to beat the opponent handily with the right about of overwhelming combat power to keep your own casualties to a minimum. Sort of like Gulf War I and II.
Advanced weapon systems add what is referred to as ‘combat multipliers’. Cutting out the combat multipliers and you have to make up for that lost firepower with troops on the ground.
One could turn the arg into something to embarrass Obama and Gates…..they don’t care about American soldiers lives.
What would you have done differently? Bomb him? I think that was considered as an option, but dismissed for several good reasons. Among the foremost being he was hard to track for targeting. Look how long it took US to FINALLY capture him.
We’d have been blowing up people without hitting the intended target.
RE: The Overseas Forces in Europe
Ever hear of a concept called ‘Pax Americana’? Do you REALLY think there would have been the longest period of peace in Europe if we had NOT been ‘on the ground there?
I’d wager good money that if our troops were pulled out, there would be war in Europe again in 20 years. Maybe sooner.
So, I disagree with your isolationist—as I perceive it—attitude.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[National isolation breeds national neurosis. -- Hubert H. Humphrey]
13: Terry S…where are you getting your figures from? I work for the DoD and we are still waiting to hear from the Obama administration to find out how much we have to spend on the programs at our command. Yes, we usually have spending approved years in advance but when there is a new administration they can change it. This transparent administration has had closed door meetings and nothing is being released.
“Never saw a German or French Soldier in any joint field operations during my service time.”
even in the Kneipen ?
Tell me where you were, cuz Germany was separated in 4 zones, also Berlin :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_de_l'Allemagne_apr%C3%A8s_la_Seconde_Guerre_mondiale
P.S. About bombing Hussein….
….I do remember that we tried that. But ‘missed’. As I said, he was a hard-to-track target.
P.P.S. But no matter how advanced the weapons systems become, you STILL need to stand your combat soldiers on the ground if you want to defend it.
As it was so wisely stated back in the 1960s by a school teacher of history who served through the Korean War….
Your question seems to be what is the proper ‘mix’….
D Foster check if the NATO tigers don’t meet and train together :
http://mysoupis.blogspot.com/2009/01/tigers-inthe-sky-nato-comrades-are.html
TO: Terry S
RE: An Additional ‘Thought’
Do you remember Gulf War I? Do you recall the famous ‘Highway of Death’?
Our air forces, Air Force, Army and Navy Aviation, had a ‘field day’. What amounted to a modern ‘Marianas Turkey Shoot’. I do believe we slaughtered almost 100,000 Iraqi soldiers as they tried to flee from Kuwait. The road was blockaded with burnt out vehicles—tanks, BMPs, cars, trucks, EVERYTHING—for miles.
That was all accomplished by achieving what is called ‘air superiority’.
If you don’t have THAT, or worse, the enemy has it, your ground forces are pretty much in a world of hurt.
History has proven that time and again. Did you ever study the history of that?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For those who do not remember it, history repeats itself.....with a VENGEANCE!]
the “white booklet” of our Ministery forecats about the same approaches of the next conflicts :
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/128605/1125557/version/1/file/LB+pr%C3%A9sentation+en+anglais++white_paper_press_kit.pdf
“FYI: I remember during the Vietnam war, watching film from Saigon as fleets of kids riding vespas went by. Meanwhile our kids were doing their fighting.”
The ARVN lost somewhere between 175,000-250,000 dead in the war. We lost 60,000. They did most of the fighting and most of the dying.
The US can’t even protect it’s own borders. Why do you want to have troops on the other side of the globe?
TO: JL
RE: Defending Our Border
Defending our borders takes nothing more than the will to defend them. Not the troops to line the border.
We have the tech. Our gutless government just doesn’t have the gonads to do it.
Hope that helps….but I have my doubts….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Good fences make for good neighbors.]
I make my liberal and Bush bashing friends really mad when I agree with them that Iraq was a mistake. We never should have invaded. We should have sent the Air Force, along about 9-21. Start degrading infrastructure, spend two weeks or so on the elements of the Arab world that let them wage their assymetrical war. All the terrorist camps, research facilities and whatever. Then tell ‘em “we can do this as long as we want to, it’s not costing us much and we don’t care what it costs you.” It’s the gonads issue that’s in doubt here and that’s the only one that counts.
Mr. Friedel is guilty of first order thinking. The reason that large conventional forces appear to be unncecessary is their deterrent value. If we eliminate our conventional forces then new options become available to our adversaries that are forclosed to them now. I guarentee that if we follow Mr. Friedel’s suggestion new conventional wars will happen.
Chuck,
Thank you for some very salient posts, I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said. It’s obvious to me your opinions come from real-world personal experience and not from detached book or media learning. All you folks who have never served in the military would do well to listen to the voice of practical experience Chuck is offering.
we- the usa- will be at war with europe within the next 40-60 years. europe is allowing itself to be colonized by an ideology pretending to be a religion. islam claims to be the fastest growing religion on earth as though people are falling over themselves to convert. that’s bullshit. if islam grows it is only because they outbred more civilized peoples (albeit those same cicilized people are mere sheep and cowards = europeans unwilling to defend their heritage. as an american i am no longer willing to support defense of a people too afraid of being called racist by others wishing to destroy their civilation. as an american iwant only two things from europe: your art and your nukes. your muslims masters will destroy your art in due course and will use your nukes against the last great hope for freedom: the usa.
CHUCKLES; Doubletime thyself to mysa.com.
Under opinion columnists, you will find that Unca Fehrenbach is still at it. Under his recent columns (still available I hope) are his thoughts on why a large ground Army is most necessary along with all those other goodies.
BTW; In “This Kind Of War”, he noted how Lieutenant Colonels wer directing platoons in the closing stages of Korea. This was done so that young Second Lieutenants would not make any beginner mistakes and take casualties. He predicted that those protected butterbars would then proceed to make their mistakes about the time they were Lieutenant Colonels with Battalions instead of platoons. And that their
inexperience as junior officers would severely hamper their abilities to select and coach their successors.
On my 3rd VN tour and last trip to the field, I saw his predictions come true with a vengenance. Twenty-two dead, thirty-two wounded, (twenty-two of whom had to be medically discharged) and we never drew a bead on a single enemy.
When T. R. Fehrenbach talks, wise men listen.
THE MAGINOT LINE; The Maginot Line worked. It was supposed to stop the krauts up the middle and it did. The problem was that the French, having procured a great front line, refused to recruit any linebackers or defensive secondary
personnel.
They also refused to listen that that gadfly, DeGaulle, and crippled both their armor and their air support.
And then they got sold out to boot. And ever since then, the less-than-knowlegdgeabale have been blaming things on the Maginot Line.
Vietnamese youth on Vespas? What were we supposed to be doing? Depriving the Vietnamese
of material prosperity? And those of us in the know, do not mistake 50cc Hondas for Vespas.
And besides that: When the French left, Ike Eisenhower and Matt Ridgway knew they had a looming problem. So they made ARVN stout enough to repel an invasion across the Ben Hai.
Then they carefully inserted a slightly reinforced regiment of Marines into Northeast Thailand. That effectively cut off infiltration (except for small parties) and kept the Ho Chi Minh Trail a footpath instead of a highway.
Then came Kennedy-McNamara: Marines withdrawn, tried to replace them with a coup in Laos and when that failed, resorted to overthrowing an allied government in Saigon. And THAT is why we wound up with the war we had.
In addition to which, the Marines in Thailand had a profound effect on the locals. Typical of what happens when people rub shoulders with American soldiers. When they were withdrawn, the Bangkok establishment ried “business as usual”; the people would have none of it and THAT is why there was a nasty insurgency in Northeast Thailand. An insurgency that was finally defeated by doing as the jarheads had done.
Rememember: The damage came from withdrawing Americans, not inserting them. That can happen elsewhere as well.
Along with defense against ballistic missles (SDI) air dominance is critical to our survival. Either the skies are friendly or we are in a world of hurt.
That means F22 Raptor. Lots of them. 600-to-800 minimum, not counting those supplied to allies. You keep the skies ours by having redundancy to go with your technological superiority.
It is the F35—–an advanced ground support craft——whose numbers MIGHT be reduced. Its high-speed capabilites will be needed in environs where the other side has lots of anti-aircraft capability. Other places, Afghanistan comes to mind, it would be better to have a turboprop version of the A1 Skyraider that could easily stay on patrol for eight hours and then have enough fuel left to answer a call or three at the last moment. Armed only with machine guns and rockets, it would not have to expend ordinance before landing if nothing happened that day.
In short, the “smart guys” have gotten all theis bass-ackwards.
Ditto for those critical of the aircraft carrier. A carrier is not a fighter. It is an airfield. It is there to be sure airplanes
can get to where they are needed.
And there also needs to be a largish rebuild of airlift capability. If Pushtuns threathen the Kyyber Pass, overfly them for the time being while flying in the engineers who make the pass
non-harassable. So forth and so on.
I would recomment a 5 to 6 million man Army, split roughtly 1/3 Regulars and 2/3s Guard and Reserves. Proportionate increases in other branches of service as well.
Now where do you put them? You put them where they can do tucing enemy capabilities and rendering them harmless.
Set the goal: Maintain and perpetuate the United States of America as a free and independent federal republic.
The rest of the world will then divide into two categories: assets and liabilities. Be very nice to the assets. Inform the liabilities that either they will clean up their act or we shall clean it up for them. Then proceed to deter, invade, conquer and occupy when, where and as needed.
If this be imperialism, let us make the most of it. The world is full of envious people, governments and terrorist groups. By virtue of our success, we are their prime targets. “Bringing the boys home” feeds that envy. Sending them “over there” inspires more ethical behavior. “Nuff said.
Oops! Almost forgot one other thing on the technological front.
Space. Right now the situation is like about 1920. Then, the battleship reigned supreme just as the aircraft carrier was starting to replace the battlewagon.
Today, there is a plethora of spaceborne potentials out there. Strategic bombardment wan best be accomplished from orbit or from Luna. Usually using kinetic energy only coupled with pinpoint accuracy. Suborbital transport can ge the Mike Force there before you can say “Do you prefer Halls of Montezuma or Red Dawn?” And on and on and on.
And now for the beauty of a Space Navy: Spaceborned enterprises/industry can make everything down here look inexpensive.
THAT is how we can pay for all this without depriving ourselves or others. Good news finally, eh?
“It’s Time to Bring the Boys Home from World War II”
I agree. Not only that, but I don’t think we ever should have been in Europe or Asia in the first place.
Dave,
http://gallery.dralzheimer.stylesyndication.de/La%20Ligne%20Maginot/
and the historical Saarland aborted expedition
http://www.historynet.com/operation-saar-a-lost-opportunity-september-99-world-war-ii-feature.htm
Mr Z, the transatlantic union will be more harmful :
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/118&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A6-2009-0114+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
“The Maginot Line worked”
Apparently the flanking maneuver, known and used for thousands of years by warring humans all across the planet, was a concept beyond the grasp of French military thinking.
#23. Chuck Pelto:
I’ll change my question. Hope that helps….but I have my doubts….
What’s the point in having troops on the other side of the Globe, if the government don’t have the gonads to defend it’s own border?
TO: Dave
RE: [OT] Good LORD!
He’s STILL amongst the quick? Wonderful? I’d love to shake his hand and get his autograph in my copy of his book.
While attending IOAC at Benning School for Boys EVERY general officer who came to address the assembled classes told us to BUY THIS BOOK!
When I got to my next duty station, Carson, I asked Tattered Cover to track down a copy for me. I couldn’t put the book down.
When I got to the Logistics Executive Development Course (LEDC) in ’92, they were using it there as well. Task Force SMITH was a BIG example of how we’d fallen behind ‘technologically’ as well as ‘logistically’.
RE: Yeah
And the only places men would stand and fight was wherever the brigade commander was standing. Because only they had the authority to ‘punish’ bad conduct. NCOs and company-grade officers had been striped of that authority by the Doolittle Commission.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The notion that disarmament can put a stop to war is contradicted by the nearest dogfight. -- George Bernard Shaw]
TO: Dave
RE: Overloading In the ‘Rank’ Department
While assigned to 82d Airborne, we had a real-world mission assignment: Rescue American nationals from Kenya during a war.
My brigade was DRB3, i.e., we were supporting the load-out of the Division Ready Brigade 1. I recall hearing troops coming back from the marshaling area saying they saw a two-star loading a duce-and-a-half.
Sheesh…..don’t these people have something BETTER to do than get in the way of the men?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I don't know what this damned logistics is. All I know is that I want some. -- anonymous US General]
Obama (hat in hand): Pardon me Mr. Eeyuu, but could you spare a brigade or two to help a fellow who’s down on his armies?
Mr. Eeyuu: Sorry my good fellow, but things are a bit tight now. Perhaps some other time?
Obama: Sure, (looking dejected) that’s okay (turns away). Thanks anyway.
Then, Obama brightens. Hey! I know where I can get some more soldiers. I’ve got thousands of ‘em right near Mr. Eeyuu’s neighborhood. Since they already said they needed to keep their boys home, I think it’ll be just fine to pull a few of ours out of there since they already have their bases covered.
Vladimir ain’t arming up for an attack nohow, and even if he did, he knows we could nuke him as he comes through the Fulda gap. Shoot. This is a win win. Pulling them outta there will be like pulling the cork on a bottle of wine with nothing in it and putting it in another bottle that actually has something worth containing.
TO: Dave, et al.
RE: Speaking of Future Enemies
You recall how Imperial Japan bought all that scrap metal from US and then gave it back?
Where do you think the Communist Chinese are getting all the money to build up their own military? I mean look at THIS!
It is blatantly obvious to the casual, yet honest, observer that some people are getting ready for a BIG fight.
And people like Seymour Friedel and Terry S keep on singing….
It ain’t gonna war, no more, no more…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Maybe Friedel can talk the Communist Chinese out of THEIR massive ground combat forces……
TO: JL
RE: Changing the Question
Here’s a socratic reply for you you chew on….
What’s the use of having troops on THIS side of the globe, i.e., in the US, if the government don’t have the gonads to use them to defend it’s own borders?
There’s an adage that I think applies here….
So your question is, therefore, ‘moot’.
As I said earlier, we have the tech to do the job. Our ‘governmnent’ lacks the will.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A lack of planning is no substitute for inaction. -- sardonic Army staff puke axiom.]
#44 Dave:
“Oops! Almost forgot one other thing on the technological front.”
Uhhh, I didn’t see Sealift capabilty in your analysis.
Tanks and guns and the things they shoot and the fuel they run on are kind of a hassle to transport by air.
One of the reasons we took from August 90 to January 1991 to open the can on Sadaam was the lack of sealift capability.
And it’s not a widely-touted fact, but 17 Flag-of-Convenience ships chartered with Uncle Sammy’s gear and goo refused to sail into the Persian Gulf for the festivities,(and Iraq being such a renowned naval power n’all).
Gotta make a pitch for the personal rice bowl, y’know.
While I agree that both NATO and our bases there are mostly a big waste of money, we still must NOT minimize the need for logistical bases around the world. Forward bases in Japan and South Korea are very important. One look at a world map will tell you that. Sure, you can always send an aircraft carrier to North Korea, but there is a big difference in response time if that carrier is based in Japan rather than Hawaii. Likewise, we will need forward bases to project power in the Middle East, especially in the Persian Gulf. If we close some bases in Germany, we will still need access to ports in Bahrain or Oman. We also need bases around the world as emergency destinations for either wounded American soldiers (such as our German bases for wounded troops coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan) or Persian Gulf ports (such as Bahrain, which assisted the USS Stark and the USS Samuel B. Roberts after they were damaged during the “Tanker Wars” of the 1980s). So while we can substantially reduce our presence in Europe, Japan, and South Korea, we will always need at least some ports or bases there in order to maintain a forward presence around the world, thus giving us the “global reach” that a superpower like the United States needs.
Mr. Friedel is simply repeating the tired old Ron Paul narrative about disassemling what he hysterically (and inaccurately) calls an “Empire”. This is just thinly re-dressed as fiscal restraint and strategic re-alignment.
Would that we could just crawl into a hole here in “bunker America” and pull the hole in behind us, eh? But, alas, the world just won’t go away! This is something that President Monroe understood about 200 years ago and modern technology hasn’t mitigated that reality even one little bit.
Yes..our aircraft carriers, and the huge fleets that escort them both above and below the water, are great tactical and strategic assets …but our land bases (strategically placed around the globe) are essentially un-sinkable aircraft carriers with lots of deployable troops on board.
Our national interests and our national security are not defined by our geographic borders. We would deny ourselves that reality at our own peril.
And to think we lost our bases in the Philippines without so much as a backwards glance. Of course, Mt Pinatubo had some small part to play in that drama.
The question that should be asked is this: Who is responsible for making this decision? The Executive, Legislative, the Pentagon offices?
Why can’t we get some light shed on who is standing in the way of changing this system?
People have been asking this question about American troops overseas for decades and I’ve yet to hear any answers to these questions.
TO: Oldguy
RE: Seeing the ‘Light’
“Why can’t we get some light shed on who is standing in the way of changing this system?” — Oldguy
Personally, I’d really like to see the results of the ‘wargames’ the Puzzle Palace plays. [Note: Heck. While attending IOAC, I was selected, along with several other classmates, to step out of the training program and develop a scenario to test a hypothetical weapons system. It was a wonderful experience, as I'm an avid 'wargamer' with an emphasis on tactical and operational level actions.]
However, to disclose them in public IS, in my professional opinion, a breach of national security. After all, it would be showing our potential enemies what we’re thinking and planning for several years down the proverbial ‘road’.
As for the idea of “who is standing the the way of changing the system”, all you have to do is pay attention.
Then again, you need to be able to discern whether the ‘change’ should occur or should not.
During the Bush II administration, the Defense Department canceled the ‘Paladin’ artillery system. I thought that a good move. It looked to me to be a logistical nightmare.
However, as I’ve stated earlier in this thread, canceling the Raptor doesn’t look that good to me.
Who is ‘standing the way’? Of progress? Three guesses….first two don’t count…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[One of the key indicators of someones interest AGAINST the best interests of the United States is what they do within their power.]
P.S. I ‘hope’ everyone is enjoying the ‘change’……
HalifaxCB: Lots of good points. Thank you. Most of what I said wasn’t intended to be taken too seriously, but I think that Canada’s contribution to WWII is not well known in the United States.
Regarding the subs, I do know several Canadians who think they weren’t a great purchase. I do understand your arguments; one other thing submarines are good for is putting ashore special forces in the middle of the night.
Is it true that one of the one of the subs is the HMCS Tim Hortons?
The point of the article is becoming lost in a welter of claims over weapons. The issue is whether troops overseas in places like south Korea have an appreciable utility that justifies their cost. They don’t. If they did, the South Koreans would be paying for them, and their not. They use our troops to operate a compettive country that sells to us. We get nothing in return that we can’t get from a base in Japan. We ought to move them tomorrow from the marginal and untenable locations. Put that money back into our economy and create jobs here.
We ought to have the best and most weapons we can afford: unfortunately, the military’s inability to fight a nothing country like Iraq without spending $300 billion and the drain of troops where they are not needed is constricting those systems like the Raptor, closing our hospitals and draining us here at home.
So back to the article: bring the troops home from the marginal places now.
#62 Blackwell
Thank you! As a uneducated reader, I would like to hear some ideas on how to implement the major points suggested.
TO: Blackwell
RE: Heh
As I’ve stated in other comments in this thread, I disagree.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For additional information, please re-read this comment.]
Mr. Pelto and others sound like the man that decides he needs to protect his family and spends next year’s mortgage money on high tech pistols, shotguns and ammo. Now he’s in foreclosure, the mean kids still live down the block and he’s still buying more stuff.
The US does NOT need troops in 135 countries: its so self-evident no one on this thread has yet explained why the author is wrong. The enormous cost strains our budget, our ability to control our boarders and buy neat stuff like F-22 Raptors.
Mr. Pelto and other military people are entitled to no deference on this, and the people that bleat, “bah, bah, listen to these guys” are missing it. The active duty military work for us and much as we love them, they have to be watched. The higher echelons are as full of empire builders as any government department. Before Pearl Harbor, the US Pacific Fleet was clogged with 10 or 12 useless battleships with their white-winformed admirals and staff, but they had only three carriers. (After being creamed in a surprise attack some junior fellows had predicted would occur in just the way it did, the Navy now wants only the biggest, most expensive carriers and needless to say, ones that are vulnerable in any war, and which any big country will take out the first thing); while Germany and Britain were launching jet fighters in 1944, the US Army was planning the B-36,a monster propeller-powered bomber.
Little has changed: The Warthog tank killer was resisted by the military that wanted expensive jets to do the job: the Warthog is now the best tank killer there is. The “Puff” gunship from Vietnam was an existing gun on an existing plane–no need for pricey jets. A year ago the USAF awarded a $70 billion tanker contract to Airbus–the Euro competitor to Boeing. The procurement officer said they “didn’t consider” american jobs when making the award. The sole distinguishing feature of the Euro plane: it was bigger and hence more vulnerable, and we’d have to buy more of them.
So forget any military “expertise” on the overall issue. Cops tell you they need to break down doors and beat up suspects to get evidence; liberals insist that only higher taxes wills ave us; military guys always want more stuff and the most expensive. The taxpayers have to draw the line, since the military can’t.
How do troops in South Korea or Italy help us? While we bleed money to keep troops in South Korea so Huyandai can undersell our manufacturers without supporting a South Korean army, Iran is moving into Nicuaruaga; Chavez is courting the Russians. North Korea and Iran are pushing ahead with nukes. What are troops in South Korea doing to help? No one has offered a value for them there that I can see.
I doubt “need” 56,000 troops in Germany, 33,00 in Japan, 26,000 in South Korea, or 9,700 in Italy, even with airbases to run and secure. Rumsfeld was right: draw down these large numbers and keep a fast reaction force intact in each place if need be. Those troops are spending money that supports local contractors and businesses–in Germany and South Korea. better to have that money here.
Second, we don’t have the money to buy the F-22 and the F-35: the Raptor is too expensive at 130 million per plane (the unit cost if we order more of them), to be more than an interceptor for the continental US. The military contractors and their Pentagon buddies will always want more, more expensive and bigger stuff. They have to be controlled. No one seems to know where that Raptor is going to be used anyway. Its a terrific plane–but pretty pricey to have for fun-especially if the F-35 is coming online next.
All those troops ddn’t detect bin laden, can’t get the pirates off somolia, chavez to behave, stop NK’s nukes or Iran’s either. Meanwhile we are bleeding to death financially to protect everyone else. They laugh at us and sell us things that ruin our balance of payments. They use money they don’t spend on weapons to educate their kids, build affordable hospitals and so on.
Time to call it a day for some places. We need the money here.
TO: Blackwell
RE: Sounds Like….
….projection to me.
RE: Italy and South Korea….Let Alone Anyone Else
Obviously, it sounds to me like Blackwell wouldn’t lift a finger to save his own grandmother from the ravenous Bugbladderbeast of Thrall.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
P.S. I’ve not bought a weapon in over 40 years.
People just give them to me……
Go fig…..
TO: All
RE: Isn’t It ‘Interesting’….
….that all I did was ‘disagree’ with Blackwell and he goes off on that polemic.
I’ll pick it apart, fisking-style, tomorrow. Right now, I have to focus on preparing supper.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I’m particularly intrigued by his comment….
“So forget any military “expertise” on the overall issue.” — Blackwell
As if we should staff the Puzzle Palace and the upper echelons of division and corps commands with whatever sort of neophyte we can drag in from the street. Perhaps even based on their experience with HALO or DOOM 8…..
Typical of idiots to suggest that experience has nothing to do with good judgment.
On the other hand, as one general who spoke to the assembled classes at Benning School for Boys put it….
Good judgment is based on experience. Experience is based on bad judgment.
I suggest that Blackwell has a LOT to ‘learn’……
P.P.S. I intend to give him some harsh lessons…..
Mr. Pelto, you continue to post without a point. The US does not owe closure of its trauma wards, ruin of its roads, schools, and credit, to support countries that will not defend themselves or pay for us to do so.
An overworked Los Angeles trauma nurse should not be flayed for more taxes so (a) South Korean auto executives can avoid paying for their own army; (b) the US troops in South Korea can use the nurses taxes to support South Korean grocers, cleaners, etc., instead of spending that money –our money-here.
More importantly, we are running a bit low on money if you haven’t noticed. Part of the reason is that the US military can’t knock off a moustachioed tin horn dictator without spending several hundred billion. If we don’t cut costs, we may have to dry dock some of those big carriers to keep protecting South Korea.
If the US has an interest in having troops somewhere–Quatar to protect the oil, Japan as an outpost near China, I am all for it, provided the base is reasonable. But no one has identified anything reasonable that justifies the cost of 27,000 troops in Korea, 56,000 in Germany or 9,700 in Italy.
Military empire builders and generals still gearing up to fight the USSR are like the man found atop an english hill in 1939 with a spyglass: his predecessors had been given the job of watching for Napoleon and the job just continued, through inertia, till it was eliminated.
The ex-military types sound like cops: they need more cruisers, automatic weapons, swat teams, spy gear, red light cameras…it never stops. There is a limit to what we should spend: there are places in which we DON’T have an interest (Kosovo being one). Some places are indefensible or not worth it: e.g., South Korea. Some places are worth it: Germany, Japan, Quatar are examples.
I’ll be waiting Mr. Pelto. Do try to collect your thoughts. Try and stay awake, coherent and on topic.
Try and remember too, that the military upper echelons are some real stodgy people without the best and most reliable input on things: WWII found us with an unworkable torpedo, a surplus of useless battleships, second rate fighter planes that did not belong in the sky with the Spitfire and Messerschmidt, not to mention a fleet caught asleep on December 7, and McArthur caught sleeping 12 hours later. And the war had been on for more than a year! The end of the war had the germans flying a jet fighter and the US planning for more propeller planes.
The Navy tried to cashier Hyman Rickover (father of the nuclear sub), and the army so mismanaged Vietnam it still takes your breath away.
So do tell why your experience as a “jumpmaster” and out to pasture ex-military guy (and the experience you described elsewhere as preventing a “major” earthquake in Oregon–which hasn’t had one since 1700) ought to have any weight in deciding why we need all those troops in over 100 countries.
Don’t eat too much.
Blackwell: Troops are to be staioned where they can
(a) reduce enemy capabilities
(b) render them harmless.
Which means
(c) They will either be stationed where you do not approve or the USA does not survive.
And every arg you make about equipment was made
against converting 1858 rifled muskets to Trapdoor Springfields.
Bilgeman #55;
Forgive me for omitting sealift. Emotional hangup as I remember a troopship called the “Breckinridge”. The Loveboat, it warn’t.
Why oh why did they have to name it after a good Confederate?
And her sister was the “Mitchell”. Wasn’t the Court Martial enough punishment for Poor Old Billy?
Bilgeman: What would you think of constructing a more-than-adequate fleet of up to date Liberty/Victory ships but only comissioning a few?
The rest would be in component parts stored on dry land so nothing would deteriorate. Need arises, they could be assembled in short order.
While under-utilized airplanes can be kept in working order at reasonable cost, my understanding is that ships cannot.
This dodge might be a way around the problem.
Blackwell #71: At the end of WWII, the US P80
was ready for mass production if needed. It was equal in performance to the ME262, plus had MUCH more reliable engines, plus did not kill 200 pilots in training by refusing to get its tail off the ground when takeoff speed was reached
AND it had superior firepower combined with superior accuracy.
And since when can the prewar lack of preparedness be laid at the feet of George Marshall, Hap Arnold, Chester Nimitz et al?
And then there was the micro-management (by civilians) that so delayed the development of the P38—–the ONE piece of the equipment that could have given adequate warning at Pearl Harbor. Etc.
#74 Dave:
“What would you think of constructing a more-than-adequate fleet of up to date Liberty/Victory ships but only comissioning a few?”
That’s basically what we’ve done with the Fast Sealift Ships, (former Sea Land SL-7′s and the LMSR,(Large Medium Speed Roll-on Roll-off), ships.
If you have Virtual Earth, and look up CSX Yards in Newport News VA, last I checked you get a pretty good aerial view of five of the LMSRs all layberthed together.
The problem with your idea is at least threefold.
1) Who would operate them? A ship is a stoopidly complex machine that requires decades of man-years experience to operate.
They can be made more “turn-key”, but that requires a level of complexity and expense that is several orders of magnitude more than is needed if you had enough trained and experienced mariners.
On that Virtual Earth, you can scoot across the harbor to Norfolk, right south of the Navy’s “Destroyer Row”, and catch a peek at an old ride of mine, the SS Cape May, built to transport 1000 ton barges, which it lifts via elevator and stows in the holds with a transporter,(think God’s electrically-powered rolling garage hydraulic floor jack). The contraption actually works,(despite everyone being associated with the concept, design, architecture and engineering of the 3 ships of this class being obviously whacked out of their gourds on the powerful LSD of the late 1960′s), but for the same price you could have built two LASH crane ships or three Float-On/Float-Offs that would do the same job.
2) The only outfit with the kind of budget to swing something like that would be the Navy, which means an Admiral,(or his designated team of people who would like very much to be Admirals also, or just make a sh+t-pile of cash when they retire and get a seat on the board of some shipping line), would be the one to design these cargo ships.
With all due respect to my brothers at sea in the Naval services, skimming about in a frigate or bubbling somewhere far below in a nuclear tube has about as much to do with pushing cargo along at 14 knots or so as being a NASCAR driver has to do with driving a dump-truck.
Refer back to the LMSRs…they were designed by the Navy. And that is precisely WHY they’re deteriotaing while tied to a rotting pier at Newport News, rather than motoring up and down the East Coast with truck trailers inside of them, alleviating I-95 congestion and actually making, y’know, some MONEY.
3) Sad to say, but we simply don’t have the shipyards or “yardbirds” anymore with anything near the capacity to assemble even modularly pre-assembled oceangoing vessels. Even in World War 2, Henry Kaiser had to build his yards from scratch to crank out his Libertys and Victorys. All that’s left of his empire today is the workers health insurance program he pioneered.
US shipyards that don’t build for the Navy or Coast Guard, (and the Coasties screwed the pooch with their brand-spankin’ new class of unseaworthy cutters), are not much more than “repair yards”.
TO: All
RE: Blackwell & Stupidity
Here’s the first indication that Blackwell talks out of his fourth-point-of-contact.
On the other hand, he doesn’t seem to mind that Obama has just done EXACTLY what he accuses me of.
We’ve got troops in 135 countries? Heck. That’s most of the nations in the world. I wonder if he can tell US how many troops we have in each country.
How much does anyone care to wager that most of the countries this half-truth uttering character have only the military staff in the embassy. And HE/SHE thinks that is ‘too much’?
Gotta love this one. Subject Matter Expertise and experience mean nothing.
I guess that Blackwell goes to his plumber to get medical advice. Talk about REAL ‘stupid’.
I was there when the A10 first worked with the US Army at Fort Irwin. I was the heavy weapons platoon leader for my infantry company.
We were in position on the reverse side of a pile of rock that posses as a ‘mountain’ there, conducting a combined-arms live-fire exercise, firing into the engagement area when we got a ‘check-fire’ call. So we stopped shoveling rounds over the mountain. A couple of minutes later we heard what sounded like a VERY LARGE buzz-saw on the other side of the mountain. A minute later we heard a strange whirring sound and around the corner of the pile of rock we were half-way up, came that beautifully ugly aircraft. The pilot, like the Tom Cruise character in Top Gun looked at us ‘straight-up’ through the canopy of his standing-on-wing-tip aircraft and waved at us lousy, dirty grunts.
Blackwell paints with a very broad brush when he/she says “the military”. He/she should learn to be a tad more precise. It was the Air Force that wanted the high-speed attack-fighters. The Army LOVES the A10.
What the Airbus deal has to do with the AC47, only exists in Blackwell’s tiny pathetic brain.
As for the AC47, it was a work of genius. And it’s contemporary counter-part, the AC130, is a similar act.
As for the Airbus deal, Blackwell, with their ever-omniprescient mentality thinks I agreed with that deal. How very odd.
Here we go again. Blackwell suggests that if you need your car repaired, go to see your dentist. Expertise means nothing. Heck. Even a fifth grader can determine how better to spend money for national defense, using Blackwellian logic.
Using typical Blackwellian logic, how do ANY troops ANYWHERE help US? Why not get rid of all of them. And the cops too. And spend the money on more ‘useful’ things….like Obama did with billions for golf courses and Hawaiian canoe tours, etc., etc., etc…..
I wonder if Blackwell understands that 3300 troops in Japan are mostly Air Force and Navy types.
As for the 9700 in Italy, it looks like Blackwell is rather ignorant of how he/she just contradicted themselves. Most of those are, again, Air Force and Navy personnel necessary to support the ‘rapid reaction force’ that is/was the 509th Parachute Infantry stationed there. Yeah. You’ve got an independent rapid reaction force there. But in order to deploy them, you need an airbase from which they can deploy. That’s a goodly number of people as well.
I could go for a less expensive Raptor. That’s up to the negotiators. Not me. But I cannot go for no Raptro. The fleet of F15 and F16 aircraft is aging. What would Blackwellian logic do? Let them rot and have nothing to replace them with. Where does that leave US? Probably losing our tech-edge on our ‘friends’ who-are-not-really-so-friendly.
Oh. Great. Combat forces were supposed to ‘detect’ bin Laden. We’re talking a real moronic argument there. I always thought it was the CIA, FBI and NSA who were supposed to ‘detect’ the likes of bin Laden and do something about him. Not that they could do much of anything during the Clinton administration.
And the primary reason we are ‘bleeding to death financially’ is NOT the military. It’s because of Obama.
This character is a REAL ‘jackass’ of the Democratic true-believer persuasion.
If Blackwell REALLY believed that, he’d be bitching about Obama’s spending instead of looking to leave national defense bereft of funding or combat capability.
As he/she does NOT address, let alone reproach, Obama’s spending, there is a key and telling ‘indicator’ of their politics.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A tree is known by its fruit. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago]
P.S. Here’s an interesting item from later that I can’t pass up…..
I defy Blackwell to show where I said any such thing…..
…in other words, it is my considered and supportable opinion that this character is a pathological liar.
TO: All
RE: I See….
…that Stephen Green has started an article on PJM relating to Gates’ plans to cut expenditures on new weapons systems.
Hereafter, I’ll be posting remarks on that issue on that thread. Remarks relating directly to manpower overseas will be addressed on THIS thread.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. It’s interesting that Terry S has not posted further comments on this thread, especially in response to my reply to his initial missive here.
Is he another silly drive-by blogosphere gang-banger? All ‘blow’ and no staying power?
Mr. Pelto, in the off-chance that you can contribute to this discussion without coming unglued, look at the facts: we do have troops in over 100 countries as any Google search will confirm and 33,000 are in Japan (not 3300 Mr. Pelto). No where do you explain why we need 33,000 there, 26,000 in South Korea or 9,700 in Italy, as only a few examples.
Obama’s out-of-control domestic spending (and that of his predecessor) is no reason to blindly endorse over-positioning of US troops abroad where they do not serve a distinct advantage to us such as South Korea or in the 33,000 in Japan. Rumsefeld rightly drew down some troops from South Korea, for example, where they serve no defensive purpose in that number, are not paid for by the South Koreans, and only induce the SK’s to skimp on their own defense.
The notion that the US can spend whatever it wants is held by some in the Democratic party for domestic spending, and misguided military types for military spending. Neither is right: the excesses of one do not excuse the other.
The idea that the US “must have” troops everywhere is contrary to commmon sense and is being used by host countries to avoid their own defense: absorbing the military defense of those countries with no corresponding benefit to us amkes no sense. We prevent the growth of their defense whihc will hurt us in the long run since we cannot be eevrywhere at once. We should encourage the Japanese, Germans, French, etc to build up their own armies and air forces at their expense not ours.
Stripping money from our domestic uses for South Korea is insane. No where in your polemic do you provide any reason for them to be there. If the NK’s decide to invade those 27,000 troops won’t stop them. And if as you say we ahve 9.700 in Italy as a rapid reaction force, then why do we need 9700 in the UK, 56,000 in Germany and 27,000 in South Korea?
Drawing down those troops do not endanger us or weaken us: its only a misplaced bravado (and gullability exploited by the europeans) that makes people think we have to spend our money to keep our troops there. Even good hearted people like you whos eem absolutely impervious to logic and common sense. You will abnkrupt us to keep some troops where they are not needed and where the local politicians snicker at your inability to perceive the interests of the US.
Since you keep drifting back to equipment, the F15′s and 16′s are indeed aging: thats why we are going to do the F35 and table the Raptor, which is too expensive to build in large numbers. Get it? No reason to have them both.
Yours is unfortunately, a regrettable example of the “military mind” in its most stultified form, which fortunately is not shared by the young soldiers and pilots serving today, or the drafted ones from years past. Rather, you just don’t get it: the miitary is supposed to secure and protect the US; not bleed its capacity away (and bleed us here at home) by over positoning itself to aid over a hundred other countries that refuse to pay for us while they spend on their own domestic improvements.
I suspect you are a great patriot but a misguided one: like the battleship admirals that cashiered Billy Mitchell; the army stiffs in air conditioned Saigon offices generating indescipherable acronmyms and memos, leaving the real fighting to the guys in the field, who wearied of the REMF’s as the neatly uniformed memo writers and gung-ho guys in the rear were called.
But enough on this one: perhaps a real miliary man can provide somehting of value here. I’m done.
(PPS: MR. Pelto: if you want to deny that you claimed earlier this year to have advised some agency in Oregon on preparedness and helped prevent damage from a “major earthquake” that occurred there a year after, thats fine. Saul A ripped you apart in that exchange. You know you did. So do others on this blog who remember it. It says a lot that you evade it).
#75: Dave:
Yes the P-80 was ready for production–in 1945. And only after the US fouond the ME 262 flying and rushed to build a jet–based on the British Glouster which had also been shelved before the way by military fuds who though bi-planes were the thing. The US military, with 2 years to prepare for the war, missed that boat entirely. Just as it missed rockets and a lot else.
Dave, we were lucky Hitler didn’t consider the working–working and flying–ME 262 was needed. Just as we were lucky-lucky– the carriers were at sea on December 7. None of this blundering was the fault of the US draftee fighting man–it was due to the stodgy, stultified mind set of professional military types who are always fighting the last war. It must never happen again. regards,
TO: All
RE: David S and Equivocation
First he claims I prevented a major earthquake.
Then, when challenged as a pathological liar, he back-peddles.
At least he can recognize the truth…..when confronted with it. There IS some form of ‘hope’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar. -- Abraham Lincoln]
P.S. Blackwell just proved the truth of Lincoln’s wisdom…..
TO: All
RE: Blackwell and BS
Notice how Blackwell cannot associate overspending, which he/she supposedly abhors, in one venue, i.e., Obama, with another, the military.
A very telling indicator. In other words, it’s okay for Obama to bankrupt the nation, but it’s hateful for the military to be able to do its duty for national defense.
This cretin is a hypocrite of the first water.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Where there is not religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]
#81, Chuck Pelto:
I knew if I gave you enough room you’d paint yourself into a corner. Sheesh, you are so inept its almost a wonder our military survived your stint as a jumpmaster or whatever you were doing on the public dole.
Larry, Moe and Curly would be an improvement.
Allow me to provide to you, your own claim that you helped Oregon prepare for an earthquake a year before “a major earthquake” hit their state: (and as everyone knows, none ever has hit Oregon since 1700).
This is from your comments to “Can American Dissent Turn Violent?” on this Blog where Saul A shredded you up one side and down the other:
“370. Chuck Pelto:
TO: Saul A******
RE: What, Indeed?
“What may I ask has Mr. Pelto ever done to improve the country except serve (as drafted probably) in a forgettable capacity no one else cares about…” — Saul A
Sorry I missed that query in your initial dispensing of offal here. But after reading your first statement, I figured you were a waste of bandwidth. So I didn’t catch you question, which appeared later.
Thanks to Bilgeman, I see you HAD an actual question.
Allow me to answer:
• Developed a computer application as principal staff officer for logistics in a mech-heavy brigade that allowed logisticians in reserve component formations to quickly determine what types and how many rail cars they need to move their mobilized formations during Gulf War I. Thus allowing their men and women a tad more family time before deployment.
• Helped prepare the State of Oregon’s State Area Command (STARC) in how to respond to a major earthquake, a year before a major earthquake actually hit their state.”
There it is Chuck? What do you have to say? Still want to call me the liar? Here you were bloviating at full steam confident no one would remember or call you on it. But there it is! And worse for you, anyone can find it by Googling “Pelto, earthquake and oregon.”
You are pontificating blowhard. You have added nothing to this debate except invective and misguided generalities of no use whatever. Kindly keep silent from now on.
TO: All
RE: Blackwell and More BS
Notice that Blackwell doesn’t answer the question asked of him/her in item #77 of this thread about how many people are stationed in all those countries.
Typical evasion on the part of a liar.
And by the way, my use of 3300 military/naval personnel in Japan was based on HIS/HER information at item 65 in this thread when he/she stated….
As I stated in my promised reply to Blackwell (see item #77), I would like to see the breakout of military/naval personnel in each of the 133 countries he claimed have such a presence.
I do believe that we have military personnel in all those countries. However, I suspect that the vast majority of that ‘presence’ is made up of the personnel that staff our embassies overseas, e.g., Army, Air Force and Naval staff pukes on embassy duty, the Marine guard contingent, etc. And this is an egregious ‘burden’ on the nation? Compared to billions spent by Obama on golf courses, Hawaiian canoe tours, etc., etc., etc?
THIS person is delusional. Or, more likely in my personally held opinion, much, much worse. [Note: I’m beginning to recognize another member of the Obots I’m calling ‘The Army of One’, I see in David S/DZunga/mvfreeman.]
“Blindly”? 27 years in the infantry and a VERY strong background in logistics and fiscal issues and I’m ‘blind’? How very odd. And, it being THAT ‘odd’, I suspect a good deal of ‘projection’ on the part of Blackwell. But that’s hardly ‘unexpected’.
However, it should be pointed out for the rest of the readers here. As it is my considered and honestly held opinion that he/she couldn’t hold the Truth with a pair of pliers.
Well…..
….why don’t we see MORE ‘Democrats’ at these Tea Party events? And why didn’t Blackwell, make this opinion of his/her known on other threads in PJM where this issue came up?
Eh?
Three guesses. First two don’t count…..
Oh. Wow. We’ve got troops EVERYWHERE! And earlier he/she stated we had them in 133 countries.
However, for some odd reason, I do believe that the United Nations identifies 147 nation-states.
So what aboutt the other 14 nation-states? Why don’t we have troops THERE, if we don’t have them EVERYWHERE, according to Blackwell?
Hardly insane. And, I do believe this statement on Blackwell’s part proves the point I made in item #77 of this thread where he/she would emasculate the military to support social programs.
I particularly like his idiotic arg that a reinforced division of infantry couldn’t stop North Korea from invading South Korea.
Well…after a fashion he, in his half-truth lie, is right. North Korea can ‘invade’ South Korea ANY TIME IT LIKES.
As a matter of fact, it’s forces do that on a recurring basis. Mostly in the covert form. With small formations of special forces-esque units. And those troops we have there cannot stop that. Neither can the South Koreans stop it.
On the other hand, if the North Koreans decide to do a large-scale ‘invasion’ of South Korea, you can wager dollars against donuts that those 27K troops will make them pay a dear price for such stupidity.
For the ignorant people out there, e.g., Blackwell, it’s called a ‘deterrent’.
But, if we look at Blackwell’s arg logically, obviously Blackwell doesn’t care if there is war in the Korean peninsula or not. All he/she cares about is their sorry little fourth-point-of-contact and ‘getting theirs’. And they resent the military.
Yeah. Right. Sort of like removing the locks and bolts from the front door of a house. No ‘danger’ to THAT.
Maybe Blackwell will prove his/her point by unlocking all the entries to his/her residence. But I kind of doubt it. As T.R. Fehrenbach put it in his classic work about the Korean Ware, “In this world there are ‘tigers’.”
Or mabye Blackwell is something of an isolationist. And anyone of US who study history, know how THAT turned out in the 1930s-40s. How many millions dead?
Then again, maybe Blackwell is something of a ‘racist’. After all Klavan brings that possibility up in his recent article on PJM. After all, they aren’t ‘white’, those Koreans.
Back to the ‘hard’ issues.
At least Blackwell recognizes the problem of aging tech/weapons-systems. However, oddly enough Blackwell doesn’t mention how much the proposed F35 will cost, vis-a-vis the F22 (Raptor). I wonder why that is. For all the world, it looks to me like evasion.
NOW HEAR THIS!….
Anyone who has a “military mind” is ‘stultified’. Despite the fact they can argue with the likes of Blackwell effectively.
Yeah. Got it. Just because I’m military I haven’t got a brain. Nor gonads. Let alone one that qualifies to be a member of Mensa. Sheesh! Where do these cretins get off. I wonder what his/her IQ is. [Note: He/she will probably pull the ‘hat-trick’ used by David S on another thread....”I don’t have to prove ANYTHING to ANYBODY.” Yeah....Sure....You betcha......]
So I “just don’t get it”. Obviously not from Blackwell’s perspective. Why? Because I disagree with Blackwell. So I’m supposed to, as Klavan puts it in his PJM video, “Shut up!”
But then again, I do have an open mind. And, based on these encounters, much more open than Blackwell’s.
Obviously, Blackwell couldn’t recognize a REMF from his/her fourth-point-of-contact. And, accordingly, he/she is getting rather desperate in bringing REMFs into the discussion. Maybe he/she should have read that item #77 again, with particular attention to the A10 experience. It would probably have helped.
But then again, it goes far to the explanation of his/her inability to “contribute to this discussion without coming unglued”. More projection….people. Plain and simple.
But he/she is getting one think right…..
And, reflecting on what I stated in earlier in this missive he/she can ‘learn’. Let’s all pray for him/her.
A ‘Monty Python’ moment?
One can only hope.
On the other hand, I have to wonder what Blackwell has done for US in his sad short sojourn in this venue.
Anything to do with the ‘military’? I doubt it, otherwise he wouldn’t be so desperate as to ask for “miliary”—he can’t spell millinary(?)—men to help him/her out here?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I offer Blackwell the same opportunity I offered Terry S….
….to play a game of Civilization IV and lets see who comes out ‘on top’.
I also invite Bilgeman and others here to participate as well. Could be quite an event…..
….in more ways than one.
P.P.S. I notice that Blackwell failed to answer any of the question I offered in item #77. Instead he/she dances around them.
Not that I expected straight answers from them. It’s typical of ‘progressives’ to refuse to answer questions. Why? Because to answer a question makes a ‘point’. A place where they have to stand by as a statement of ‘fact’ as they understand it. And that is anathema to their ilk.
Hence ‘progressives’ seldom answer questions put to them. That way they can’t be held ‘accountable’ for anything. As I’ve often observed, ‘progressives’ hate facts. Let alone standing by such. So, as I’ve seen, they live by the credo….
Yesterday’s ‘truth’ is today’s ‘lie’.
TO: Blackwell
RE: Heh
So where in all of that do I say I was responsible for ….
Do tell US all.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. And why is it you don’t do a Paul Harvey and provide the proverbial ‘rest of the story’?
TO: All
RE: Again….
…this dork thinks that because I disagree with him I should…..
Shut Up!
Typical ‘progressive’ mentality. If you disagree with THEM….you should be silenced.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Obviously Blackwell and his/her ilk hate the Constitution of the United States. Especially the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
In other words, they are a traitorous lot….the bulk of them…..
Mr. Pelto:
you miss the ppoint continuously. No one wants to pay for 27,000 US troops in South Korea. Not even the South Koreans you evidently want to defend at cost to over worked nurses, secretaries and destitute hedge fund wives.
The troops there are no deterrent to the NK’s, they haven’t deterred the NK nuclear development and are a drag our economy. Nor do I wish to go to war to protect SK’s who do not wish to protect themselves. I doubt too many others do either. As I said–(you can read it or have it read to you)–I want US troops where they serve the US – - not some other country’s interest. And certainly not because some armchair loser from Colorado wants to do so.
So you are the representative of the people that want to keep troops in over 100 countries? Sheesh.
Oh, and there was no major earthquake in Oregon in this century. You know it. Google confirms it. Your claim to have helped Oregon just before “a major earthquake hit actually hit their state” was a lie when you said it to puff up your profile, and its clearly one you know is a lie. Your desparate wiggling away from it now won’t help. You’re exposed for all to see.
I wonder if you really were any more than a PX potato peeler in the army.
Bow before your Master chuck. You’ve been exposed as a bloviating fraud. Be glad I didn’t bash you about even more.
TO: All
RE: Yeah….Right….
As I commented earlier, but obviously Blackwell has completely failed to comprehend, or probably more accurately, the liar won’t recognize, there’s something to being a jumpmaster that is a tad beyond being an ‘armchair loser’.
And I just have to wonder, how much does Blackwell actually resent the fact he/she never had a life in the first place.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier. -- Samuel Johnson]
P.S. As I like to put it, “You haven’t lived until you’ve almost died.”
P.P.S. I’ve never….
…asked anyone to bow to me. It’s against my Christian principles.
P.P.P.S. At least….
…he/she is speaking the truth there. The question becomes, in the mind of the observer, which of the two of us is the ‘bloviating fraud’.
Only time and the intelligent observer will discern…..
TO: All
RE: Heh
Maybe Blackwell should look up some articles in the professional journals of TRANSLOG and INFANTRY from the late 80s. Things to do with planning railcar requirements to move units across country: Translog March 1986, page 1, Infantry July-August 1986, page 17. In the latter, you’ll even get to see a photo of me.
Enjoy….dork…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. What on God’s Green Earth have YOU done for US? Ever?
P.P.S. Thanks for reminding me of something I’d forgotten….
I DID pull some time on KP duty, during Basic Training at Fort Lewis in 1970.
However, oddly enough, after I was asked to join the White House Communications Agency (WHCA)—something to do with my service entry test scores, I suspect—that sort of detail never came up again. No idea as to why….{nudge-nudge, wink-wink}
Thanks for bringing that to mind…..
#87 Blackwell:
“Nor do I wish to go to war to protect SK’s who do not wish to protect themselves.”
Hang on a minute, Blackwell. What’s this beef you have about the South Koreans?
Whatever makes you state with such apparent assurance that they’re not willing to fight?
By all accounts, the SoKo’s are fightin’ sonsabitches.
I happen to agree with you that our continued miltary presence in Europe is a waste that mainly serves nowadays as a nifty tool for a recruiting poster:
“Join the Army/Air Force/Navy and ditch li’l ole Mary-Sue Sugarbritches who would never give your pimply mug the time of day…you’ll soon be rolling around hip-deep in frauleins/mama-sans/monkey girls in places that look nothing like back home in East Pig Knuckle, Arkansas”.
American military presence abroad should be dictated by one thing and one thing ONLY:
Does it serve OUR strategic interest?
One of the factors in answering that question is if the ally we are basing in has the stones to put up a fight for his own turf.
In my opinion the South Koreans DO, and the rest of ‘em DON’T.
Hiya Bilge:
I recall a day when the three most beautiful things in the world were two ROKs and a BAR.
As the dinks were tooting their bugles for another rush and as I was down to 14 rounds, I called it a rather timely arrival.
South Korea certainly pulls it own weight militarily. Germany did too so long as the Evil Empire was in business. As did the other NATO members. Problem is that since that time,folks have been totally unclear as to what to do with NATO. Disband, or comprehensively reorganize it.
Point is this: put the troops where they can (a)reduce enemy capabilities and (b) render them harmless.
Propriety is determined by behavior, not by geographic whereabouts. And if other countries benefit from our military efforts, who the hell ever said this was a zero-sum game?
And BTW: The P80 did not come from the Meteor.
The Airplane Without A Propeller That Was Flown By the Gorilla Wearing A Derby And Waving A Cigar
(frequently not seen by cadets strafing the Japanese cruiser in the Mojave Desert) showed what engine designs were best. Then Kelly Johnson took over.
“It showed the potential devastation of a nuclear war to thinking men on all sides.”
Nonsense! Anyone comparing a melt down to a pika dan isn’t a ‘homo sapient’ but a bloody moron. The sort of expert that confuses a cow with a horse.
Since there are two places where nuclear weapons were used, there is no logical reason a direct one to one comparison cannot be made.
Knee jerk liberals like Mr. Friedal don’t do logic, which is why they don’t want to compare Hiroshima or Nagasaki to Chernobyl.
http://www.radscihealth.org/RSH/Docs/Kondo93/sk1_C1.html
Looking at it logically, liberals suffer from a phobia regarding anything nuclear.
“We need bases to project power and influence. You can’t do everything with aircraft carriers, which are more and more vulnerable. Drastically cutting troop levels is daring the Russians to see what more they can get away with. We still live in a world where dictatorships can and do sack other countries too weak to hold their own land.”
We might need it, but can we realistically support all of that?
I say that we can not. We can not economically support all of that.
Good article. I’ve said for several years that the United States can’t be the world’s police force or psychiatrist. Our needs at home are greater than ever, the military must become more efficient at rapid deployment and less dependent on land bases around the world.
To illustrate how incompetent Gates is, consider the KC-30 tanker competition.
Northrop Grumman won the tanker competition hands down, hired many people and began tooling up for the contract they actually won.
Gates rescinded the win, then kicked the can down the road for the next SecDef, who turned out to be himself.
If he second guesses a decision after a decision is made, how can he be trusted to make the proper initial decisions in the future?
I enjoy Chuck’s posts when I stop by here, but I disagree.
IMO, we should have gone isolationist in 1898…and stayed that way.
Screwing around in Europe and Asia has, on balance, been a big mistake.
Mr. Surls, screwing around in Europe and Asia has kept us ( the USA) from having to ‘screw around’ in Florida, New York and Kansas. I consider that a good thang, except, perhaps for New York. I am more then willing to give New England to Canada, if they are dumb enough to take it. Everything East of the Ohio and north of the Mason Dixon line.
As you are a liberal I need a little help from you with something. I’m confused as to why when it comes to global warming, world government, peace treaties and other crackpot leftest ideas, it’s one small planet. Spaceship Earth.
When it comes to defense of the most precious place on earth and the ideas that created America, The planet is suddenly a huge place and what happens on the other side of it doesn’t matter. Would you mind clearing up that confusion for me? I’m old and conservative and believe in what’s sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander.
A remark earlier about SoD’s military leadership skills got me confused again. Instead of a ple for aid, I googled;
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=115
It seems Mr. Gates is a career bureaucrat.
A year in military intelligence…… Yes, feel free to giggle.
I’m not sure ‘budget battles’ fall under the category of military leadership. He only got the job because President Bush had spent all his political capital backing the wrong horse in Iraq. The Democrats choose Gates and Bush went along because he was the ONLY person that could get confirmed.
“Mr. Surls, screwing around in Europe and Asia has kept us ( the USA) from having to ’screw around’ in Florida, New York and Kansas.”
I think it’s pretty unlikely that Kaiser Wilhelm’s or Ho Chi Minh’s boys ever would have wound up in Kansas, but since we don’t have crystal balls, it’s not really possible to say for sure.
My judgement is is that no one we’ve fought in the last hundred years or so, had either the capability or intention to snag Kansas away from us.
I think we would have been be a lot better off if we’d adopted a policy of strict neutrality, starting with the Spanish-American War…and then kept it. Let Europeans and Asians slaughter each other like they’ve been doing for thousands of years, while we stay over making money like the Swiss have done.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that adopting a position of strict neutrality is going to keep you out of trouble. It sure didn’t work for nations like Norway and Belgium during WWII…the Germans just invaded them anyway, but as far as the United States goes, I think it would have worked for us in the past, and would work now.
Right now, we’re in the middle of a fight with Al Qaida, so we can’t suddenly adopt a neutral position (despite what nitwits like Ron Paul think) any more than we could have on 12/8/41. But, what I would do, after this current squabble is over, is pull out of NATO and the UN, cancel all of our alliances, shut down our overseas bases, bring our forces back to America, and tell the Euros and Asians: “You’re on your own. Have fun slaughtering each other”.