Obama's War Machine for the 21st Century

[Eddie Teach]

Now it seems that we are confident we won't ever have to fight a war like that again, so we can cut some more, because there is no way we would ever need the kinds of numbers on the ground necessary to fail at keeping the peace in Afghanistan.

We really don't *need* those numbers. Look how easily the Taliban, Saddam and Qaddafi's regimes fell. And that's with smart bombs, if we didn't fret about civilian casualties we could pacify these places even more cheaply. Our forces are totally overkill for national defense.

[CountDeMoney]

He cautioned that  "it would be really a mistake for ... anyone to walk  away with the impression that we're going to niche ourselves to some  point on the spectrum of conflict and declare ourselves a global power."

I think that is exactly what we are going to do.

Which perhaps is fine - maybe the US can be done doing the worlds dirty work. But we can at least be honest about it.

The only time you worry about someone wailing about defense cuts is when they stop bitching.  Relax already.

I think you're missing the important part: "However, US forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations".  Which means no more 10 year x2 occupations. Which, I think, is fine for all involved.

[CountDeMoney]

Besides, the bigger picture here in all this is the formal acknowledgement that the geopolitical priorities for our power projection have shifted to the Pacific Rim.  Which has been long overdue.

[Sheilbh]

Also military spending as a % of GDP is falling to roughly the levels of mid-70s detente.  It's not going to the level of the 90s and certainly not falling below that.  So Berk shouldn't worry too much on that front.

[KRonn]

How long does it take to build an ICBM?  A month?

Actually, we do still make them, or have the capacity to make them, right?

I'm sure we have manufacturing contracts for those with China or something.   

[Valmy]

SO we cut down because we didn't need to fight the Soviets.

Then we had GF1, and we gutted that force because we would never have to fight a regional power like that again.

Then we had GF2, and Afghanistan, so we cut down to focus more on those kinds of counter-insurgency wars.

And we are still spending 680 billion dollars plus the Veteran's affairs budget.  Good thing we did cut down so radically or I guess our entire economy would be going to the military by now.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Since I'm not in the DoD anymore I can say that probably more than any other government agency it is in serious need of better financial reporting and oversight systems. There's just too many different spending ideologies, I genuinely think you could reduce the budget of the DoD by 1/3rd and still maintain all of the military's current capabilities if you streamlined things.

Not that it would ever happen. Any conservative who works for government only becomes more convinced how shitty government is at everything it does the longer they work there. I know one stereotype of bureaucrats is we're all left-leaning union types, but the reality is there's a lot of conservatives in my office and most of us spend 80% of the day talking about how inefficient it is and how lazy most of the staff are.

[Phillip V]

Since I'm not in the DoD anymore I can say that probably more than any other government agency it is in serious need of better financial reporting and oversight systems. There's just too many different spending ideologies, I genuinely think you could reduce the budget of the DoD by 1/3rd and still maintain all of the military's current capabilities if you streamlined things.

Not that it would ever happen. Any conservative who works for government only becomes more convinced how shitty government is at everything it does the longer they work there. I know one stereotype of bureaucrats is we're all left-leaning union types, but the reality is there's a lot of conservatives in my office and most of us spend 80% of the day talking about how inefficient it is and how lazy most of the staff are.

I complain, too. But I still enjoy the bloated paycheck.

[Sheilbh]

I know one stereotype of bureaucrats is we're all left-leaning union types, but the reality is there's a lot of conservatives in my office and most of us spend 80% of the day talking about how inefficient it is and how lazy most of the staff are.

[grumbler]

SO we cut down because we didn't need to fight the Soviets.

Then we had GF1, and we gutted that force because we would never have to fight a regional power like that again.

Then we had GF2, and Afghanistan, so we cut down to focus more on those kinds of counter-insurgency wars.

Now it seems that we are confident we won't ever have to fight a war like that again, so we can cut some more, because there is no way we would ever need the kinds of numbers on the ground necessary to fail at keeping the peace in Afghanistan.

But don't worry, we are still going to be the pre-eminent military power, capable of fighting and winning...well, some kind of war anyway. Just nothing large enough to require the massive numbers of combat troops deployed to Afghanistan.

Not sure what GF1 and GF2 we had, but we sure didn't "cut down" to wage them.

The defense budget is massively bloated and spending is poorly distributed.  We are spending half the world's total defense spending and getting nothing near half the world's combat power.  There have always been wars we could not afford to fight.  That this will continue to be true is not cause for tears or despair.

He cautioned that  "it would be really a mistake for ... anyone to walk  away with the impression that we're going to niche ourselves to some  point on the spectrum of conflict and declare ourselves a global power."

I think that is exactly what we are going to do.

Why are you going to do that? 

[Phillip V]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577142691225718730.html

[mongers]

SO we cut down because we didn't need to fight the Soviets.

Then we had GF1, and we gutted that force because we would never have to fight a regional power like that again.

Then we had GF2, and Afghanistan, so we cut down to focus more on those kinds of counter-insurgency wars.

Now it seems that we are confident we won't ever have to fight a war like that again, so we can cut some more, because there is no way we would ever need the kinds of numbers on the ground necessary to fail at keeping the peace in Afghanistan.

But don't worry, we are still going to be the pre-eminent military power, capable of fighting and winning...well, some kind of war anyway. Just nothing large enough to require the massive numbers of combat troops deployed to Afghanistan.

Not sure what GF1 and GF2 we had, but we sure didn't "cut down" to wage them.

The defense budget is massively bloated and spending is poorly distributed.  We are spending half the world's total defense spending and getting nothing near half the world's combat power. There have always been wars we could not afford to fight.  That this will continue to be true is not cause for tears or despair.

He cautioned that  "it would be really a mistake for ... anyone to walk  away with the impression that we're going to niche ourselves to some  point on the spectrum of conflict and declare ourselves a global power."

I think that is exactly what we are going to do.

Why are you going to do that?

Yes, it doesn't make sense in terms of spending vs the rest of the world, has there ever been a greater inbalance in living memory ?

If Berkut was a Russian he'd be correct, they've slashed their military and massively underspent for most of two decades now, the chinese are still trying to get one mid-sized carrier up and running vs what, 11 US carriers.

As for aircraft, is there any air force in the world that can field even a tenth of the modern aircraft the US has ? That's before leaving out all the high tech stuff.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think Berkut's point is different - it;s not that the US doesn't have impressive capabilities - clearly it does.  He is questioning to what extent those capabilities, if cut further - will be capable of translating into the ability to fight and win whatever conflicts the US may find itself in the future (which cannot be known with any precision now).  I.e. is the US at risk of building an array of highly specialized, capital and tech intensive capabilities that may not match whatever future challenges it may face?

Given the budgetary dynamics, the cuts are coming, they will be big and they are coming soon, so it is imperative the US gets this right.

[Sheilbh]

Given the budgetary dynamics, the cuts are coming, they will be big and they are coming soon, so it is imperative the US gets this right.

I suggest they learn from our process.

Not only do we not have any carriers now, when we get a carrier again in about 10 years it won't have planes and because we're depending on a joint US project for those planes the delivery estimate's been pushed back by several years.  Yay

[mongers]

I think Berkut's point is different - it;s not that the US doesn't have impressive capabilities - clearly it does.  He is questioning to what extent those capabilities, if cut further - will be capable of translating into the ability to fight and win whatever conflicts the US may find itself in the future (which cannot be known with any precision now).  I.e. is the US at risk of building an array of highly specialized, capital and tech intensive capabilities that may not match whatever future challenges it may face?

Given the budgetary dynamics, the cuts are coming, they will be big and they are coming soon, so it is imperative the US gets this right.

Well as Otto has mentioned and i think most people here would agree, the bureaucracy is a huge challenge to overcome to get cost effective weapons programs into the hands of the military; he'll maybe that's the US military greatest challenge, rather than as you say the unknowns of the future.