ping
Posted on 12/04/2011 7:06:42 AM PST by MontaniSemperLiberi
As Defense Secretary Leon Panetta prepares his recommendations for Pentagon budget cuts, he is likely to reduce the military's resources for future, large-scale counterinsurgency operations of the sort that were ballyhooed just a few years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The boom in "COIN," as these operations are known, has proved to be something of a bubble. Budget pressures have curbed the appetite for the ambitious, "protect-the-population" missions that were promoted with such enthusiasm by Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The focus increasingly is on raids by the tighter, more kinetic Special Operations Forces, which are seen as the big success story of these wars, to the extent success can be claimed.
"It's not going to be likely that we will deploy 150,000 troops to an area the way we did in Afghanistan and Iraq," said one top Pentagon official, explaining the rationale for Panetta's budget review.
Panetta has been signaling for several months that the Army and Marines, which have carried the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be cut in his 2013 budget. His final recommendations won't be finished until year-end, but the Army and the Marines are already planning force reductions, recognizing that new and prolonged large-scale counterinsurgency missions aren't likely anytime soon.
A second big theme of Panetta's review is an emphasis on Asia -- and on countering China's growing military power there. President Obama last month announced that he will send 2,500 Marines to Australia to convey the message: "We are here to stay." And he underlined, if anyone missed the point, that defense cuts "will not -- I repeat, will not -- come at the expense of the Asia-Pacific."
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Ummm, I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd say they're lying.
Isn’t cheaper to have 150,000 demoblized troops on unempoyment in the US than keeping them in Afghanistan a nation that has not been conquered since Alexander the Great.
“Isn’t cheaper to have 150,000 demobilized troops on unemployment in the US…”
The cost to the country may be more than keeping 150,000 in the Army. But the cost to the Defense Department (different money pot) will be less. Unlike China, our national policies are not integrated across the government. (Don’t get me wrong, China has decreased the number of gun carrying men due to technological advances, but given the size of their domestic police budgets I suspect they’re in the police ranks now.)
Leon flies home to California on the weekends. We’ve got a couple of wars going on, and he flies home to California on the weekends. He’s really committed himself to winning, hasn’t he? Every Soldier walking point in the Korengal Valley can take comfort knowing that Leon “Frequent Fliar” Panetta is home watching out for himself. I can see the meetings.
“Mr. Secretary.....what should we do in Afghanistan?”
“Have you seen the pictures of my new pool?”
“Mr. Secretary.....what weapons will we need in the future?”
“Do you like this carpet, or should we go with a shag?”
“Mr. Secretary.....will we have enough units to win?”
“Did the wind blow over any trees in my yard?”
Just as shortcuts aren't always shortcuts, "bargains" aren't always bargains. Without the ability to put boots on the ground at a moments notice, the only alternative to a really nasty surprise is to be able to project massive, collateral damage rich, mass destruction. If anyone gets forced to use nukes, the world will change in ways we don't want to imagine. On the flip side, if we refuse to use nukes, the world will change in ways we don't want to imagine.
Either way, we're screwed if we decimate our ground pounders.
It would be far cheaper to bring them home. Just supplying air conditioning to our Iraq and Afghanistan trrops is costing $20 billion a year. Shipping fuel to them is outrageously expensive. By the time it gets to them, it is about $200-$300 a barrel.
Sending them home and sitting in their home bases doing nothing would be vastly less expensive.
He can't.
Obama's goal is to abandon the ME to islam, and from there the world.
Truth.
I can’t see why continually keeping a military capable of beating every other military combined on THEIR home turf makes sense.
I guess it does if one believes in big government.
Some congressman needs to introduce a bill that says that Leon can’t jet home to California on the weekends until he’s opened every coffin coming in from the wars and kissed each dead Soldier on the cheek.
The admirals and generals should be forced to kiss every dead Soldier’s ass. Worthless, incompetent fools can’t figure out how to win in 10 years. Why are we paying these assholes?
The problem with COIN is that it cannot be piecemeal, “putting a band-aide on a bullet hole.” Some lessons that should be remembered.
When we entered Iraq, it was a fairly modern, but brutalitarian place, whose infrastructure and institutions were corrupt and worthless. As Petraeus himself observed, having the US rebuild minimal infrastructure was hugely successful in winning hearts and minds, as well as employing Iraqis.
Bottom line: everything we replaced with known functional systems as used in the west, worked. But everything we tried to salvage did not. This also applied to their government.
Afghanistan was much worse. The US should have done several things right from the start. The first is to write for them a “MacArthur(PBUH) constitution”, with Americans running all parts of their government to western standards of efficiency and honesty. This constitution would exist for a minimum of 25 years before it could be changed.
Second, by law all children would be required to attend secure boarding schools in the big cities, where they would be taught a western curriculum, and western language along with Afghan. This would be the future leaders, who would take over from the American government and run their military.
Third, because wages are tiny in Afghanistan, all unemployed men in hostile areas will be put to work in national infrastructure projects. This would actually cost only $1b a year, by their prevailing wage.
Fourth, in addition to the pursuit of the war in Afghanistan, the border with Pakistan would be sealed to impede passage (something adamantly opposed by Karzai).
While this would not prevent Taliban from crossing the border, it would make it impossible for them to do so easily or quickly, in either direction, and not in vehicles or with any substantial amount of gear. The US would man the few major border crossings.
Had we done these things at the start, by now we would be well on our way to leaving a prosperous and relatively peaceful Afghanistan behind.
The problem with COIN is that it cannot be piecemeal, “putting a band-aide on a bullet hole.” Some lessons that should be remembered.
When we entered Iraq, it was a fairly modern, but brutalitarian place, whose infrastructure and institutions were corrupt and worthless. As Petraeus himself observed, having the US rebuild minimal infrastructure was hugely successful in winning hearts and minds, as well as employing Iraqis.
Bottom line: everything we replaced with known functional systems as used in the west, worked. But everything we tried to salvage did not. This also applied to their government.
Afghanistan was much worse. The US should have done several things right from the start. The first is to write for them a “MacArthur(PBUH) constitution”, with Americans running all parts of their government to western standards of efficiency and honesty. This constitution would exist for a minimum of 25 years before it could be changed.
Second, by law all children would be required to attend secure boarding schools in the big cities, where they would be taught a western curriculum, and western language along with Afghan. This would be the future leaders, who would take over from the American government and run their military.
Third, because wages are tiny in Afghanistan, all unemployed men in hostile areas will be put to work in national infrastructure projects. This would actually cost only $1b a year, by their prevailing wage.
Fourth, in addition to the pursuit of the war in Afghanistan, the border with Pakistan would be sealed to impede passage (something adamantly opposed by Karzai).
While this would not prevent Taliban from crossing the border, it would make it impossible for them to do so easily or quickly, in either direction, and not in vehicles or with any substantial amount of gear. The US would man the few major border crossings.
Had we done these things at the start, by now we would be well on our way to leaving a prosperous and relatively peaceful Afghanistan behind.
ping
It would save far more American lives and demonstrably improve the quality of life in this country if we put those 150,000 troops on the border with Mexico. But if you haven't been keeping up with current events I'll let you in on something. It's not our government in D.C. anymore and its not our government commanding the military.
I tried to comment on your post this morning - but FR was down for several hours today - or I have a bug in my PC? Anyway, Every time I hear mention of the Korengal, my blood boils to think what the evil traitor in Chief has done, with impunity, to our troops since he took office - beginning with his murderous Taliban favored ROE - to, in April 2010, pulling our troops out and gifting the Korengal (especially "Restrepo") to the Taliban - complete with great cache of weapons and NOW that the Taliban have had time to take over the Valley and get dug in hard, he's sending even smaller numbers of our troops back into that hell hole.
I pray to live to see the day this Traitor in Chief gets his just deserts. Although I can't think of any punishment that could equal what he's due.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.