More Obama Murder of America: The Pentagon Cuts

[Sheilbh]

3) Having a strategy of engaging in two conflicts simultaneously but doing a crappy job in both?

The Rumsfeld strategy, going strong.

[grumbler]

Geography isnt as important in the sense that nations dont have to be neighbours to be threats to one another.  The fact that the threat is further away geographically actually makes this doctrine more problematic in the modern age since the need to send troops off quickly in order to achieve the decisive victory increases.

nations don't have to be neighbors to be threats, correct. the use of navy, nuclear arms, drones, air power, etc. in general makes this so. i don't see where there's this need for troops, however

I suppose if it is possible to achieve a decisive victory the revised doctrine calls for without troops then I yield the point.  But is that possible?

You really need to be much more subtle in moving the goal posts like this.  You went from "nations dont have to be neighbours to be threats to one another" to "achieve a decisive victory the revised doctrine calls for without troops" in one step.   No one is arguing that the doctrine calls for achieving a decisive victory without troops. 

What you seem to misunderstand in all of this is that holding off one opponent while defeating another is not a new strategy.  The Romans held off Hannibal while decisively overrunning Carthaginian Spain.  Napoleon had Moreau hold of Archduke Karl in Germany while Napoleon lead the Army of the Reserve to a decisive victory over Melas in Italy. Von Moltke had 48,000 men hold off the 120,000 men of the South German Confederation in 1866 while he lead 178,000 men against the Austrian Army.  The Allies held off the Japanese while concentrating on the defeat of Germany. The "new' US strategy is more of the same.

The most effective and low-cost way to hold off a foe with inferior numbers in today's combat environment is to use air and sea power to deny that enemy the ability to move as he wishes and to deny him the ability to locate and concentrate against your inferior numbers.  Troops will be needed for the decisive victory against the first opponent and for the follow-up campaign against the second. 

There is no need for your proposed decisive victory without troops... but I suspect that you knew that even before you posted it.

[crazy canuck]

What you seem to misunderstand in all of this is that holding off one opponent while defeating another is not a new strategy.

Given that my very first was about repeating past mistakes this is rich.  Even for you.

[grumbler]

What you seem to misunderstand in all of this is that holding off one opponent while defeating another is not a new strategy.

Given that my very first was about repeating past mistakes this is rich.  Even for you.

Given that every example I gave was an example of the success of the strategy, your response is highly amusing.  Do you even read posts before you respond?

I take it, though, that you are dropping that silly "decisive victory without troops" argument.  That's probably the smartest thing you've done so far in the thread.

[crazy canuck]

What you seem to misunderstand in all of this is that holding off one opponent while defeating another is not a new strategy.

Given that my very first was about repeating past mistakes this is rich.  Even for you.

Given that every example I gave was an example of the success of the strategy, your response is highly amusing.  Do you even read posts before you respond?

Cherry picking doesnt mean you are correct.  It just means you are a good cherry picker.

[grumbler]

Cherry picking doesnt mean you are correct.  It just means you are a good cherry picker.

I gave five examples, you gave one, and you claim that I am the cherry-picker?

[crazy canuck]

Cherry picking doesnt mean you are correct.  It just means you are a good cherry picker.

I gave five examples, you gave one, and you claim that I am the cherry-picker?

Funnily enough that I wasnt giving examples of anything.  But if you want to be the big man who wins an argument nobody else was making fill your boots.

[grumbler]

Funnily enough that I wasnt giving examples of anything.  But if you want to be the big man who wins an argument nobody else was making fill your boots.

So you are also abandoning the Schlieffen Plan comparison?  Smart.  I think we are done, then.

[crazy canuck]

Funnily enough that I wasnt giving examples of anything.  But if you want to be the big man who wins an argument nobody else was making fill your boots.

So you are also abandoning the Schlieffen Plan comparison?  Smart.  I think we are done, then.

I will wait for someone La C to come back so I can continue the discussion with him.  You can continuing arguing with shadows.

[Ed Anger]

All this talk of cherries makes me want some cherry butter.

Asses. 

[crazy canuck]

All this talk of cherries makes me want some cherry butter.

Asses. 

Grumbler could pick some for you 

[alfred russel]

So what happens next time we have a difficult occupation?  Going to have all the growing pains of last time, desperately trying to increase numbers, lower standards, and inadequately train soldiers as the country tries to save face.

I find that argument to be pursuasive.

Why don't we just not try any difficult occupations?

[lustindarkness]

We should only get involved when it is worth nuking someone or conquring them.

[crazy canuck]

So what happens next time we have a difficult occupation?  Going to have all the growing pains of last time, desperately trying to increase numbers, lower standards, and inadequately train soldiers as the country tries to save face.

I find that argument to be pursuasive.

Why don't we just not try any difficult occupations?

I am pretty sure people said Afganistan was one such choice.

[derspiess]

Who said Afghanistan was not going to be difficult?