More Obama Murder of America: The Pentagon Cuts

[alfred russel]

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

We probably needed to go into Afghanistan in some capacity. But stay there? What did that get done?

It would probably be better to intervene in the country every 5 or so years than to do what we did.

[crazy canuck]

We probably needed to go into Afghanistan in some capacity. But stay there? What did that get done?

It would probably be better to intervene in the country every 5 or so years than to do what we did.

The story of what went wrong in Afganistan fills many books.  But I think you are missing the point that every time I hear people say that the US can discipline itself not to get involved in another difficult occupation I have to say that history says otherwise.

[LaCroix]

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?

this is getting into a subject matter i'm not entirely knowledgeable in, but i would think decisive victory is possible with non-troops--depending on the circumstance. if the US were defending taiwan from china, and the US destroyed china's air and naval capabilities thus preventing them from conquering taiwan, then that is a decisive victory. if we're talking about subjugating china, then, no, troops would probably be required. but i don't see why they would be needed on day 1

i forget exactly what you started off arguing, but i don't think it's necessary to retain a large enough army to defeat two powers at once. it would be a huge expensive for such an unlikely scenario, and as grumbler pointed out it would be unneeded from a military standpoint, too

[crazy canuck]

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?

this is getting into a subject matter i'm not entirely knowledgeable in, but i would think decisive victory is possible with non-troops--depending on the circumstance. if the US were defending taiwan from china, and the US destroyed china's air and naval capabilities thus preventing them from conquering taiwan, then that is a decisive victory. if we're talking about subjugating china, then, no, troops would probably be required. but i don't see why they would be needed on day 1

i forget exactly what you started off arguing, but i don't think it's necessary to retain a large enough army to defeat two powers at once. it would be a huge expensive for such an unlikely scenario, and as grumbler pointed out it would be unneeded from a military standpoint, too

I think you are starting to convince me.

[grumbler]

this is getting into a subject matter i'm not entirely knowledgeable in, but i would think decisive victory is possible with non-troops--depending on the circumstance. if the US were defending taiwan from china, and the US destroyed china's air and naval capabilities thus preventing them from conquering taiwan, then that is a decisive victory. if we're talking about subjugating china, then, no, troops would probably be required. but i don't see why they would be needed on day 1

I agree that such a victory might be decisive, but only if it convinced the PRC that it could not achieve its goals through force, and thus compelled it to negotiate an end to the war and the threat to Taiwan.  If the PRC simply started to rebuild their forces awaiting the time when US forces defending Taiwan were weakened, then such a victory would not be decisive.  Japan, for instance, destroyed US and British naval and air forces from dec 7-10, 1941, and thus prevented the US and Britain from interfering with their advance into Malaya and the DEI, but that victory was not decisive.  That's why a "boots on the ground" win is preferable.

But the kind of victory you describe could certainly count as the holding action, and could be accomplished while the major ground forces were deployed elsewhere.

[Siege]

[Darth Wagtaros]

The Ukraine-Russia thing means we will have to re-arm Europe. 

[Siege]

But there is always money to pay for the new Rifle Combat Sights with engraved rules of engagement.

[Siege]

[grumbler]

Is there any way you can work out the sense of victimhood and get yourself a real job?

[Admiral Yi]

Her statement has a lot of merit.

[Razgovory]

 

[Sheilbh]

Her statement has a lot of merit.

I agree. But the greatest litany of victimhood in American politics is mainly by conservatives.

[grumbler]

Her statement has a lot of merit.

It describes the Limbaugh-listeners and the "from-my-cold-dead-hand"ers pretty well.  I shouldn't think that they were the objects of her statement, but it applies both ways.

[dps]

Her statement has a lot of merit.

I agree, but I don't see it as particularly applicable to the question of how large of a military we should maintain.