Posted on 10/01/2014 11:37:37 AM PDT by centurion316
In recent years, ground warfare has again gotten a bad name in the United States.
This is understandable. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been very costly in lives, treasure, and enduring injury ...to American troopers and their families. The outcomes have been mediocre...
... A recent Chief of Naval Operations wrote a paper last year calling for an active-duty Army only half the size of its recent wartime peak. Ongoing budget pressures, with the pending return of sequestration in 2016, have many defense planners wondering if the Army can in effect become the bill payer for the modernization needs of the other military services.
This debate is understandable at one level. On another, it is potentially dangerous. We have seen periods like it before... In the 1950s, nuclear weapons were going to replace traditional ground forces for many missions. That left the Army unprepared for Vietnam in the 1960s, and it resorted to a firepower-heavy form of warfare that was arguably its least impressive wartime performance in American military history. In the 1980s and 1990s, fresh off Vietnam, the Army itself decided not to prepare for such counterinsurgency scenarios any longer. That worked out fine for Operation Desert Storm in 1991 but much less well for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As we look to the future, while it is possible that the Army can decline a bit more in size than present plans would counsel, we have to be wary about rushing to major change. Already, the Army is headed towards an active-duty strength of no more than 450,000 soldiers, 10 percent less than in the Clinton years and 20 percent less than in the late Bush/early Obama period. Some Pentagon options investigated in 2013 would have cut it back much further, to 380,000 or so...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
I am disturbed by two things in this article. He cites the opinion of the Chief of Naval Operations who advocates for an Army half the size of the 10 division force of two years ago. With all respect, the CNO needs to stay in his lane. His argument smacks of someone trying to expand his piece of the defense pie in a manner that has not served this country very well in the past. Secondly, O'Hanlon seems to be proud that his research has given him the answers that he needs. We have plenty of brainy people with both the experience of ground combat and the intellect to use that experience to properly advise this country. I'm not sure that we need Beltway pinheads and Admirals to lead us forward.
There, fixed it.
Yes, this smacks of the Navy pushing itself forward at the expense of the Army.
Worse, the article notes we cut back ground forces after Korea relying on heavy weapons to take up the slack. Most of those heavy weapons have now been phased out. I don’t think now we could respond to a first strike to ensure the enemy is obliterated nor do we have the will to do it. As far as battlefield nukes go, I have heard nothing of any potential use for them too. We have also removed our supply of nerve weapons so what is left? Recently we had to resort to flying B-2s from the US to Iraq which is like using a sledge hammer to drive a tack.
And for the millionth time in the last six years... it’s NOT America’s mistake cutting the military too quickly, it’s electing the ignorant Marxist O-hole!
Less land forces would work if we used more bombs.
Right — cutting forces too quickly wasn’t “America’s” big mistake. It was Obama’s big mistake.
More Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi than Obama, but yeah.
TC
I was under the distinct impression that America elected the guy, twice.
Our military has been shrinking for decades. The alarming thing is, the same people who have been in favor of it, are still not statisfied.
We went from a two theater military preparedness to a one theater of preparedness. We close ten if not hundreds of military bases. We cut our Navy more than in half. We cut aircraft orders in half.
What’s the song and dance today, they want to cut 1/2 of our land forces on top of everything else.
We slashed our nuclear capabilities and are flying 50 plus year old bombers.
And then we get the folks who think their Conservatives acting as if this is the best act of Conservatism in decades.
Who pulls for secure ocean lanes, the disruption of terrorist on their soil, and the continuing safety of the United States?
Essentially, none but a small remnant of folks old enough to remember what happens when our armed forces shrink as badly as they are now.
Grammatical errors are present folks. Sorry about that.
But, shhhh. We might disturb Congress’ sleep.
History does not repeat it's self, but it does rhyme. - Twain
Really, who did not see this coming. Revolution, 1812, Mexico, “Civil War”, War with Spain, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and now GWOT (phase 1).
Politicians always shout “peace dividend” after the last war and wonder why the next war happens.
Navy and Air Force equipment cost more, therefore there is more opportunity for graft. This is why they get more funding.
The article’s obligatory statement that Iraq and Afghanistan were so costly in lives is ridiculous.
Of course every life is precious but the military achieved both missions at very low loss levels if one is talking about any serious war.
The politicians just couldn’t stay the course and in fact mocked that approach. The military is being cut because Obama is a leftist who is diverting resources to welfare programs.
more died by gun shots in Chicago alone than than in both wars
Clinton used that Cold War Peace Dividend to buy Democrat votes. Where’s my War On Poverty Peace Dividend?
Yeah, I had to look twice. Pigs are taking wing inside the Beltway.
This really isn't a manning issue so much as it is the lack of any coherent guidance from the administration as to what the mission is likely to be. I have a sickly suspicion that somewhere very high in the administration there are people who truly believed we'd need a smaller military once 0bama was in charge because, well, because he's not Bush. And who made genuine spending decisions based on an assumption less substantial than fairy dust.
Right-sizing the military is an issue slightly older than the country. Hamilton and Jefferson both made estimates in that regard despite a clear aversion to having a standing army at all: very roughly, the right size at the time was roughly 1% of the population. That would result in a current manning level of around 3.3 million people, and those estimates did not take into account the worldwide commitments the U.S. has acquired since then. The numbers cited in the article are a fraction of even that.
They can suffice if the mission is clearly defined. One needs far fewer sailors for a combat-effective ship in this age of technology, for example, at a more or less known cost per ship multiplied by the number of ships we need...for what? There is no mission requirement and hence no answer. That's the problem.
I do not get the sense that the 0bama administration is remotely interested in this sort of long-term planning that is so vital to the interests of the country they're supposed to be leading, nor have they shown any signs of competency in it even if they should suddenly take interest. That's the price of electing an administration on the basis of looks over talent. It's likely to be a high one.
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.