Tzar
Member
Here is another interesting article on planning for urban warfare in Iraq: Bracing for Primordial Combat - Washington Post
Bracing for Primordial Combat
- Thread starter Tzar
- Start date
Deltapooh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Closer than is safe for my enemies
- Country
-
These kinds of articles, though not entirely inaccurate, can give the wrong impression to the American people. Yes, urban warfare is bad. Yes, a commander should avoid if at all possible. And Yes, it does equalize the battlefield.
Yet, authors should do some research. Saddam Hussein does not understand urban warfare, nor does his commanders. US experiences in Somalia and Russia in Grozy can paint a dark picture, but this can be an illusion. In Somalia, a force of 99 men held off thousands of any locals. Many of them had extensive urban combat experience. The American force did incur alot of casualties, but most were due to critical mistakes commanders will probably not make again.
The Russian Army was ill-prepared for MOUT in 1995 and 1996. Morale was low, and deteriorated early on in the intensive combat operation. The close-in battle usually had the military fighting at platoon and squad level, where Russian leadership is very weak. They didn't grasp MOUT doctrine and fought the battle like their military has for decades- Attrition.
In 2000, Russian commanders applied lessons learned in rounds one and two to achieve better results. Yet, in my opinion, the Russian military still has alot to learn about urban warfare.
The US Army is alot different. Leadership at all levels is far better than in Russia. Non-commissioned officers are no less prepared to lead men into battle than commissioned officers. (Some might say they are better.) Most importantly, the US military has adopted the tactic of fighting smart in MOUT. We are not going to just hurl men and equipment at the city until their lines crumble. Our troops will encircle, divide, and conquer. Iraqi troops will find themselves isolated fighting an enemy using combined arms and maneuver warfare to destroy them. If Saddam really knew what he was talking about, he might not be so quick to pull his troops into the concrete jungle.
I'm not saying it will either easy or bloodless. Small Iraqi units could mount stubborn defenses. Our forces will be solely responsible for the welfare and protection of non-combatants, which will strain our supplies. Boobytraps, and concrete obstacles could slow our advance. And of course, there is the chemical and biological weapon threat.
Yet, despite this, our soldiers will fare better than the Iraqis. The Iraqi Army depends heavily on centralized command and complicated plans. Iraqi commanders, even at the RGFC level, will have probably have trouble making independent decisions. In MOUT, commanders must be able to carry out their mission without constant instructions from higher command. Maintaining communication is difficult. Troops will always feel isolated, knowing only what is happening in front of them. Commanders must rely on their higher-CO intent and orders to coordinate their efforts with other units.
Once the battle is joined, the Iraqis will react according to their complicated, well-thoughtout plan. However, if anything goes wrong, their effectiveness and unity will be seriously degraded. This was apparent both in DESERT STORM, and in the Iran-Iraq War. They can't adjust planning to address the situation.
In order to minimize casualties, the United States will need to rapidly isolate the city, destroy the main force, then consolidate. The longer the battle last, the more casualties we will incur. We will also need to keep advancing. It will be a tough fight, but I believe we will not see a bloodbath unless commanders ignore all the lessons learned, doctrine, and fail to adopt to the situation.
Yet, authors should do some research. Saddam Hussein does not understand urban warfare, nor does his commanders. US experiences in Somalia and Russia in Grozy can paint a dark picture, but this can be an illusion. In Somalia, a force of 99 men held off thousands of any locals. Many of them had extensive urban combat experience. The American force did incur alot of casualties, but most were due to critical mistakes commanders will probably not make again.
The Russian Army was ill-prepared for MOUT in 1995 and 1996. Morale was low, and deteriorated early on in the intensive combat operation. The close-in battle usually had the military fighting at platoon and squad level, where Russian leadership is very weak. They didn't grasp MOUT doctrine and fought the battle like their military has for decades- Attrition.
In 2000, Russian commanders applied lessons learned in rounds one and two to achieve better results. Yet, in my opinion, the Russian military still has alot to learn about urban warfare.
The US Army is alot different. Leadership at all levels is far better than in Russia. Non-commissioned officers are no less prepared to lead men into battle than commissioned officers. (Some might say they are better.) Most importantly, the US military has adopted the tactic of fighting smart in MOUT. We are not going to just hurl men and equipment at the city until their lines crumble. Our troops will encircle, divide, and conquer. Iraqi troops will find themselves isolated fighting an enemy using combined arms and maneuver warfare to destroy them. If Saddam really knew what he was talking about, he might not be so quick to pull his troops into the concrete jungle.
I'm not saying it will either easy or bloodless. Small Iraqi units could mount stubborn defenses. Our forces will be solely responsible for the welfare and protection of non-combatants, which will strain our supplies. Boobytraps, and concrete obstacles could slow our advance. And of course, there is the chemical and biological weapon threat.
Yet, despite this, our soldiers will fare better than the Iraqis. The Iraqi Army depends heavily on centralized command and complicated plans. Iraqi commanders, even at the RGFC level, will have probably have trouble making independent decisions. In MOUT, commanders must be able to carry out their mission without constant instructions from higher command. Maintaining communication is difficult. Troops will always feel isolated, knowing only what is happening in front of them. Commanders must rely on their higher-CO intent and orders to coordinate their efforts with other units.
Once the battle is joined, the Iraqis will react according to their complicated, well-thoughtout plan. However, if anything goes wrong, their effectiveness and unity will be seriously degraded. This was apparent both in DESERT STORM, and in the Iran-Iraq War. They can't adjust planning to address the situation.
In order to minimize casualties, the United States will need to rapidly isolate the city, destroy the main force, then consolidate. The longer the battle last, the more casualties we will incur. We will also need to keep advancing. It will be a tough fight, but I believe we will not see a bloodbath unless commanders ignore all the lessons learned, doctrine, and fail to adopt to the situation.
Dr Zaius
Chief Defender of the Faith
- Joined
- May 1, 2001
- Messages
- 8,902
- Reaction score
- 408
- Location
- The Forbidden Zone
- First name
- Don
- Country
-
I generally agree with Deltaphooh on this, however, any military action on this scale is not without a considerable degree of risk. The Iraqis are not complete idiots and it's not like they have no time to think about this problem and develop ideas for how best to utilize their forces. Their military does not have the same tradition of conducting thorough AARs like a Western army, but they do have a much better appreciation for our capabilities than they did the first time around. They were completely shocked at how effective we were before and adapted poorly to a very fluid situation. Lack of communication and their centralized command style handicapped them as well. That degree of surprise will be difficult to replicate.
The Iraqis now understand their extreme vulnerability against our forces out in the open desert. Maneuver warfare on this scale is very difficult to coordinate successfully, and the Iraqis learned this lessen well, thus their inclination to take the fight into the urban locations.
We don't want to give the Iraqis more credit than they're due because that can lead to overcautious leadership, and ultimately, to higher attrition rates. On the other hand we shouldn't assume that they haven't learned anything from Desert Storm and our continual air campaign. At a minimum, they now have a better understanding of what they can't do against us.
Some have been quick to point out that the Iraqi military is only a shadow of its former self with only about 33% the effective combat power it fielded in 1991. The response is, of course, so is ours. The US Army has shrunk from 16 full active divisions to less than ten divisions, and these often are not 100% strength. Many include a "roundout" brigade from the reserves that is only available in time of war. The Navy and Air Force have suffered similar reductions. Part of this has been offset with better technology, however, training standards are generally somewhat lower than they were in the late '80s and early '90s. All things being equal we're are somewhat weaker now VS the Iraqis compared to what we were in 1991. The Iraqis have lost about 66% of their combat strength since 1991 while we've lost 40-50%. However, since our forces pound for pound were much more powerful to begin with, the 40-50% for us represents a much higher proportion of total combat power lost.
During Desert Storm a great deal of the Army's combat assets deployed to the Gulf came from Germany. These forces were no longer needed for their original Cold War responsibilities, so it made sense to deploy them. The US military is stretched paper thin at present. Every new mission we are tasked with at this point involves robbing Peter to pay Paul to some extent. If everything goes smoothly in Iraq (assuming a military action even takes place) the US has sufficient combat power to defeat the Iraqi military, however, if the unexpected happens we no longer have several additional divisions just sitting around doing nothing. High casualty rates due to urban combat might eventually erode popular support for military action in the Middle East and could lead to some type of half-assed compromise. Sound familiar?
Can America defeat the Iraqis in urban combat? Yes, but we shouldn't get too overconfident out it. We are not invincible and one can't help but think of how capable the Germans were when they rolled into Stalingrad. That's not an entirely effective analogy, but this is one area in which we should proceed with extreme caution. This is the one type of fighting that does "equalize" the odds and negate our technology and training advantages to some extent. Just how much of an extent is impossible to tell. Only a war would prove that.
The Iraqis now understand their extreme vulnerability against our forces out in the open desert. Maneuver warfare on this scale is very difficult to coordinate successfully, and the Iraqis learned this lessen well, thus their inclination to take the fight into the urban locations.
We don't want to give the Iraqis more credit than they're due because that can lead to overcautious leadership, and ultimately, to higher attrition rates. On the other hand we shouldn't assume that they haven't learned anything from Desert Storm and our continual air campaign. At a minimum, they now have a better understanding of what they can't do against us.
Some have been quick to point out that the Iraqi military is only a shadow of its former self with only about 33% the effective combat power it fielded in 1991. The response is, of course, so is ours. The US Army has shrunk from 16 full active divisions to less than ten divisions, and these often are not 100% strength. Many include a "roundout" brigade from the reserves that is only available in time of war. The Navy and Air Force have suffered similar reductions. Part of this has been offset with better technology, however, training standards are generally somewhat lower than they were in the late '80s and early '90s. All things being equal we're are somewhat weaker now VS the Iraqis compared to what we were in 1991. The Iraqis have lost about 66% of their combat strength since 1991 while we've lost 40-50%. However, since our forces pound for pound were much more powerful to begin with, the 40-50% for us represents a much higher proportion of total combat power lost.
During Desert Storm a great deal of the Army's combat assets deployed to the Gulf came from Germany. These forces were no longer needed for their original Cold War responsibilities, so it made sense to deploy them. The US military is stretched paper thin at present. Every new mission we are tasked with at this point involves robbing Peter to pay Paul to some extent. If everything goes smoothly in Iraq (assuming a military action even takes place) the US has sufficient combat power to defeat the Iraqi military, however, if the unexpected happens we no longer have several additional divisions just sitting around doing nothing. High casualty rates due to urban combat might eventually erode popular support for military action in the Middle East and could lead to some type of half-assed compromise. Sound familiar?
Can America defeat the Iraqis in urban combat? Yes, but we shouldn't get too overconfident out it. We are not invincible and one can't help but think of how capable the Germans were when they rolled into Stalingrad. That's not an entirely effective analogy, but this is one area in which we should proceed with extreme caution. This is the one type of fighting that does "equalize" the odds and negate our technology and training advantages to some extent. Just how much of an extent is impossible to tell. Only a war would prove that.
Deltapooh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Closer than is safe for my enemies
- Country
-
Good comments. We should make no mistake, it will be a fight, but I believe our troops are better prepared than the Iraqis for MOUT. The media have been drumming the same opinion they did in 1990. "The US Army can't fight and will get their asses handed to them by the Iraqis." While this did nothing to discourage our forces, it's still wrong.
Military commanders are not scared of fighting in cities because they fear our troops aren't prepared. They fear urban combat because it is usually casualty intensive. They aren't politically stupid. Commanders realize Americans will likely not have the stomach for this kind of warfare, and none want to see their troops get torn apart in a battle people will not support.
One thing I am very concerned with is how political considerations will influence the Battle for Baghdad. While destroying the city will not be the goal of our forces, severe structural damage is likely. I hope Washinton, in their quest not to inflame Middle Eastearn sentiment, does not impose exaggerated restrictions on our forces that causes unneccessary casualties.
In the end, American soldiers worst enemy might not be the Iraqis, but the American people.
Military commanders are not scared of fighting in cities because they fear our troops aren't prepared. They fear urban combat because it is usually casualty intensive. They aren't politically stupid. Commanders realize Americans will likely not have the stomach for this kind of warfare, and none want to see their troops get torn apart in a battle people will not support.
One thing I am very concerned with is how political considerations will influence the Battle for Baghdad. While destroying the city will not be the goal of our forces, severe structural damage is likely. I hope Washinton, in their quest not to inflame Middle Eastearn sentiment, does not impose exaggerated restrictions on our forces that causes unneccessary casualties.
In the end, American soldiers worst enemy might not be the Iraqis, but the American people.
oh ye... maybe this is a better expression:
the greatest difficulty for the American operation in Bagdah, in the end, does not come from the Iraqi soldiers, but from domestic concerns.
.... hmm.. still not quite sound... ... hmm... ...
the greatest difficulty for the American operation in Bagdah, in the end, does not come from the Iraqi soldiers, but from domestic concerns.
.... hmm.. still not quite sound... ... hmm... ...
ok.. finally, I think this might sound better:
The greatest constraint for the American operation in Bagdah, in the end, does not come from either the ability of the enemy soldiers or the ability of the US soldiers, instead, comes from political and domestic concerns.
....
The greatest constraint for the American operation in Bagdah, in the end, does not come from either the ability of the enemy soldiers or the ability of the US soldiers, instead, comes from political and domestic concerns.
....
Tzar
Member
ER Chaser,
What Deltapooh says reminds me of what Richard Nixon said in 1970, during the Vietnam war: "North Vietnam cannot humiliate, ridiculize or defeat the United States. Only Americans can do that..." He was referring, obviously, to the anti-war movement and the divided house that was the U.S. at that moment.
What Deltapooh says reminds me of what Richard Nixon said in 1970, during the Vietnam war: "North Vietnam cannot humiliate, ridiculize or defeat the United States. Only Americans can do that..." He was referring, obviously, to the anti-war movement and the divided house that was the U.S. at that moment.
Cheetah772
Member
I suppose we need....
Hello,
I am honestly surprised that the US Army is reduced to that size!
I hope you're not saying that we only have 100,000 soldiers or so to defend USA and to conduct a few major US Army operations especially during the war on terrorism.
That would make me furious...
Anyway, I wonder what's the maximum number of divisions can USA field in the time of war? In WWII, I've heard that USA could easily field more than 200 divisions, about 3 million soldiers in all, is this true? Of course, it doesn't include the US Navy and US Air Force (I think it came into existence after WWII, the airplanes were under US Army or US Navy's control only).
I have to wonder what's happening to the sense of performing the patriotic duty of joining the US Army, after all, we're in war with terrorists!
Dan
Hello,
I am honestly surprised that the US Army is reduced to that size!
I always thought the US Army had perhaps 30 or 40 divisions to start with. Assuming that each division has about 10 to 20 thousand troops.
I hope you're not saying that we only have 100,000 soldiers or so to defend USA and to conduct a few major US Army operations especially during the war on terrorism.
That would make me furious...
Anyway, I wonder what's the maximum number of divisions can USA field in the time of war? In WWII, I've heard that USA could easily field more than 200 divisions, about 3 million soldiers in all, is this true? Of course, it doesn't include the US Navy and US Air Force (I think it came into existence after WWII, the airplanes were under US Army or US Navy's control only).
I have to wonder what's happening to the sense of performing the patriotic duty of joining the US Army, after all, we're in war with terrorists!
Dan
Cheetah772
Member
ER_Chaser....
Hello,
Americans sure know how to kill each other better than Hitler or Giap could ever hope in their lifetimes. All thanks to the greatest generals in the world history, Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman!
I'll wager a bet that even if Sun Tzu or Genghis Khan were to fight against these fine American generals, they would make short work of Genghis and Tzu. :devious:
Nobody does it better than an American!
Yeah, yeah, I know I'm biased, but I'm a proud American, and I can't imagine supporting a foreign general in glorifying a foreign nation other than America in furthering the "Amerization" of the world!
Dan
Hello,
Americans sure know how to kill each other better than Hitler or Giap could ever hope in their lifetimes. All thanks to the greatest generals in the world history, Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman!
I'll wager a bet that even if Sun Tzu or Genghis Khan were to fight against these fine American generals, they would make short work of Genghis and Tzu. :devious:
Nobody does it better than an American!
Yeah, yeah, I know I'm biased, but I'm a proud American, and I can't imagine supporting a foreign general in glorifying a foreign nation other than America in furthering the "Amerization" of the world!
Dan
Deltapooh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Closer than is safe for my enemies
- Country
-
The public opinion is a force to be reckoned with. In this day and age of instant information, the American people becomes a part of the force. Think about it. Public opinion can influence political & military objectives, morale, TTPs, and the duration of the conflict. The people can turn victory into defeat (as was the case in Somalia) and defeat into victory, should they choose to.
Political and Military leaders are completely aware of this. Their mission is altered to ensure public support. Sometimes, this can a bad thing. In Afghanistan, commanders were concerned the public would not tolerate large numbers of casaulties. So they elected to rely on local forces to do most of the work. We became the support force, ultimately having little power in deciding how the battles were fought. American soldiers could do little to intercede when NA forces basically allowed Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces to escape.
Polls indicate less than half of the United States would tolerate casualties exceeding 5,000 dead. This kind of "conditional support" can cause alot of problems in an invasion. Commanders might elect to gambles or hesitate. In either situation, more soldiers can end up dead. Why risk 1,000 when you will not accept 5,000? It doesn't make alot of sense.
While the people have a duty to voice their opinion about government actions done in their name, they can't provide limited support. If you are going to ask one man to die, you should make sure it's worth it. I feel it would be a great tragedy to see 6,000 - 7,000 die in futile efforts. If the job is worth you sending 5,000 men to die, it should be worth sending 10,000 into that exact situation.
I'm not saying people are wrong to want to limit the war. Yet, we should avoid excessive abuse of this right. If the American people wish to invade Iraq, we should make clear our desire to be destroyed as a nation to defeat Saddam.
The page offers a nice Table of Organization for the US Army. We could field a much larger force if the President instituted the Draft. However, it takes months to train, equip, and prepare this kind of force for combat. Modern wars don't last that long. So you can imagine the problem. Leaders underestimated, or didn't care, about the new level of committment "The New World Disorder" required. As Maddog said, Saddam picked a bad time to invade Kuwait. The Cold War had just ended, and downsizing had yet to occur. We could spare the force. This is not the case today. We are danger-close to our limitiations.
Political and Military leaders are completely aware of this. Their mission is altered to ensure public support. Sometimes, this can a bad thing. In Afghanistan, commanders were concerned the public would not tolerate large numbers of casaulties. So they elected to rely on local forces to do most of the work. We became the support force, ultimately having little power in deciding how the battles were fought. American soldiers could do little to intercede when NA forces basically allowed Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces to escape.
Polls indicate less than half of the United States would tolerate casualties exceeding 5,000 dead. This kind of "conditional support" can cause alot of problems in an invasion. Commanders might elect to gambles or hesitate. In either situation, more soldiers can end up dead. Why risk 1,000 when you will not accept 5,000? It doesn't make alot of sense.
While the people have a duty to voice their opinion about government actions done in their name, they can't provide limited support. If you are going to ask one man to die, you should make sure it's worth it. I feel it would be a great tragedy to see 6,000 - 7,000 die in futile efforts. If the job is worth you sending 5,000 men to die, it should be worth sending 10,000 into that exact situation.
I'm not saying people are wrong to want to limit the war. Yet, we should avoid excessive abuse of this right. If the American people wish to invade Iraq, we should make clear our desire to be destroyed as a nation to defeat Saddam.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/index.html
The page offers a nice Table of Organization for the US Army. We could field a much larger force if the President instituted the Draft. However, it takes months to train, equip, and prepare this kind of force for combat. Modern wars don't last that long. So you can imagine the problem. Leaders underestimated, or didn't care, about the new level of committment "The New World Disorder" required. As Maddog said, Saddam picked a bad time to invade Kuwait. The Cold War had just ended, and downsizing had yet to occur. We could spare the force. This is not the case today. We are danger-close to our limitiations.
Alot of people have joined the Army. However, patroitism is not the sole reason behind it. When the economy slows, jobs disappear, and many turn to the military to for employment. This year, the Army met it's yearly requirement of new recruits last July or August. However, there are not as many positions available due to funding issues. Funding will continue to be a problem. Yesterday's elections indictated the American people are more concerned with the economy than National Security.
As Maddog said, the US military is not invincible. We can do alot of things well, and some thing excellently, but there is always room for improvement. War is a test of committment and will. We can't assume our opponents are lacking in this department. The Iraqi RGFC are committed, and will fight so. Defeating them will not be a simple task.
Tzar
Member
Good post Deltapooh.
It seems to me that the American people (well, at least a sizeable portion of it) is entertaining a lot of wishful thinking regarding war.
The survey presents a confused population. On one hand, people want war against Iraq, but on the other hand, they are not ready to accept the casualties that goes with it. I would be worry if I was in the shoes of President Bush. Will the people let the soldiers down as soon as the body count hits a certain number?
I think the last Gulf War has been too "easy". Casualties were minimal. Moreover, casualties during the invasion of Afghanistan have also been very limited.
Consequently, I suspect that a lot of people might be for war just because they inconsciously believe it will be a free ride, with just a few casualties. A walk in the park. A Nintendo war. Geez, a fun war! Like pixel battalions disappearing on a TOAW screen...But the scope of the next war in Iraq probably means a lot more casualties than before. It won't be Vietnam, but I would not be surprised to see thousands of casualties.
It seems to me that the American people (well, at least a sizeable portion of it) is entertaining a lot of wishful thinking regarding war.
The survey presents a confused population. On one hand, people want war against Iraq, but on the other hand, they are not ready to accept the casualties that goes with it. I would be worry if I was in the shoes of President Bush. Will the people let the soldiers down as soon as the body count hits a certain number?
I think the last Gulf War has been too "easy". Casualties were minimal. Moreover, casualties during the invasion of Afghanistan have also been very limited.
Consequently, I suspect that a lot of people might be for war just because they inconsciously believe it will be a free ride, with just a few casualties. A walk in the park. A Nintendo war. Geez, a fun war! Like pixel battalions disappearing on a TOAW screen...But the scope of the next war in Iraq probably means a lot more casualties than before. It won't be Vietnam, but I would not be surprised to see thousands of casualties.
Mister Lawrence
Private
Interesting thread.
I suspect the U.S. could swat Iraq like a fly anytime we wanted. It is really not a question of winning, it is a question of how many casualties will we take. I myself would hope for "not many" on either side.
Urban combat? One nuke would settle that mess. Or, for my fellow environmentalists, we could forego the nuke and blast the urban area to pieces with a massive conventional airstrike, which would take a little longer.
Of course we would not do any such thing. IMO that is what all the hoopla is about, keeping Saddam from having any nukes himself so we can maintain the ability to swat him anytime we wanted. We Americans do love to keep a big stick on hand in case we feel the need to swat someone. I believe it is a refined idea of Teddy Roosevelt modified in the Eisenhower days when we started calling it "brinkmanship" except we, and our allies, have all the aces now I guess you could change the name to "you are on the brink, cause we can blast you and you cannot blast us back."
Of course, even though Americans, and the allies, would be rather opposed to seriously swatting someone with nukes, I suspect that Saddam would not at all be opposed to the prospect. Which is the real topic on the table--want to deal with Saddam now, or deal with him when he has nukes? Maybe this is a mute topic because Israel might get tired of the international indecision and decide it is better to mushroom Iraq, than to have Iraq mushroom Tel Aviv. That would be good giant step backward for peace in the Middle East, but nuclear winter might solve the global warming problem.
We should have taken care of this back in 91 when we had everyone over there. This is going to be an ongoing thing as long as folks over there aspire to be suicide bombers as a profession (which you know falls well below crack whore on the socio-economic scale) instead of something a little more mainstream.
Just a few thoughts: Never date a woman with a dagger tattooed on her chest, never play cards with a man named after a city, and stop buying billions of dollars worth of oil from nuts bent on world destruction and neverending violence who are using the money to further their insanity and put us in a bind about how many lives we are willing to sacrifice to prevent them.
I suspect the U.S. could swat Iraq like a fly anytime we wanted. It is really not a question of winning, it is a question of how many casualties will we take. I myself would hope for "not many" on either side.
Urban combat? One nuke would settle that mess. Or, for my fellow environmentalists, we could forego the nuke and blast the urban area to pieces with a massive conventional airstrike, which would take a little longer.
Of course we would not do any such thing. IMO that is what all the hoopla is about, keeping Saddam from having any nukes himself so we can maintain the ability to swat him anytime we wanted. We Americans do love to keep a big stick on hand in case we feel the need to swat someone. I believe it is a refined idea of Teddy Roosevelt modified in the Eisenhower days when we started calling it "brinkmanship" except we, and our allies, have all the aces now I guess you could change the name to "you are on the brink, cause we can blast you and you cannot blast us back."
Of course, even though Americans, and the allies, would be rather opposed to seriously swatting someone with nukes, I suspect that Saddam would not at all be opposed to the prospect. Which is the real topic on the table--want to deal with Saddam now, or deal with him when he has nukes? Maybe this is a mute topic because Israel might get tired of the international indecision and decide it is better to mushroom Iraq, than to have Iraq mushroom Tel Aviv. That would be good giant step backward for peace in the Middle East, but nuclear winter might solve the global warming problem.
We should have taken care of this back in 91 when we had everyone over there. This is going to be an ongoing thing as long as folks over there aspire to be suicide bombers as a profession (which you know falls well below crack whore on the socio-economic scale) instead of something a little more mainstream.
Just a few thoughts: Never date a woman with a dagger tattooed on her chest, never play cards with a man named after a city, and stop buying billions of dollars worth of oil from nuts bent on world destruction and neverending violence who are using the money to further their insanity and put us in a bind about how many lives we are willing to sacrifice to prevent them.
Re: ER_Chaser....
lol .... I was teasing you guys by posting those 3 lines ... (seems worked fine ) ...
Dan:
It has always been a very entertaining topic to compare the famous generals (yes, esp. generals!) of different times and nations ---- and if some1 promote such a thread here, there would be tons of replies, and interesting readings ---- this happened about 1 year ago with the discussion of only WWII generals.
Indeed, I need to read more about Gen. Lee, Grant, Sherman..etc... American Civil War is a big blind spot of my history knowledge, but right now I am still too busy with more acient western histories (the Greeks, in particular), I will learn little by little (much limited by my english language, making it very hard to read this kind of literature.) --- then I will be able to discuss more about them with ya
tzar:Originally posted by Cheetah772
Hello,
Americans sure know how to kill each other better than Hitler or Giap could ever hope in their lifetimes. All thanks to the greatest generals in the world history, Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman!
I'll wager a bet that even if Sun Tzu or Genghis Khan were to fight against these fine American generals, they would make short work of Genghis and Tzu. :devious:
Nobody does it better than an American!
Yeah, yeah, I know I'm biased, but I'm a proud American, and I can't imagine supporting a foreign general in glorifying a foreign nation other than America in furthering the "Amerization" of the world!
Dan
lol .... I was teasing you guys by posting those 3 lines
... (seems worked fine ) ... Dan:
It has always been a very entertaining topic to compare the famous generals (yes, esp. generals!) of different times and nations ---- and if some1 promote such a thread here, there would be tons of replies, and interesting readings
---- this happened about 1 year ago with the discussion of only WWII generals. Indeed, I need to read more about Gen. Lee, Grant, Sherman..etc... American Civil War is a big blind spot of my history knowledge, but right now I am still too busy with more acient western histories (the Greeks, in particular), I will learn little by little (much limited by my english language, making it very hard to read this kind of literature.) --- then I will be able to discuss more about them with ya
Dr Zaius
Chief Defender of the Faith
- Joined
- May 1, 2001
- Messages
- 8,902
- Reaction score
- 408
- Location
- The Forbidden Zone
- First name
- Don
- Country
-
Here is a short breakdown of the US Army off the top of my head.
XVIII Airborne Corps
82 Airborne Division (Fort Bragg, NC) - The division fields around 15,500 paratroopers. This is the premiere rapid reaction force of the US Army and can be "wheels up" 18 hours after notification. The division is very light and easy to move, but suffers badly in firepower. The Army brass prefer this unit to do short deployments and not get tied down with extended peacekeeping efforts.
10th Mountain Division (Fort Drum, NY) - This is basically a light infantry division capable of rapid deployment. Doesn't have as much firepower as some other divisions.
101st Airborne Division (Fort Campbell, KY) - This is an airborne division in name only. The 101st hasn't been on jump status in many years, instead, the division fields more helicopters than any other US Army division. This division is now the "air assault" division and is probably the most mobile division in the world. It contains two combat aviation brigades with enough UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters to move the whole division in a relatively short period. Like the 82nd, this division doesn't field any heavy maneuver units so it is vulnerable, but lethal.
3rd Infantry Division (Fort Stewart, GA) - When the US Army was downsized in the '90s, the 24th Mechanized division was deactivated and the 3rd ID reactivated in its place. Not much changed except the name. This is one of the heavier and more powerful divions in the US Army. It can't deploy rapidly and is very expensive to field, but it brings a lot of combat power with it.
III Corps
1st cavalry Division (Fort Hood, TX) - One of the most powerful divisions in the US Army this is basically an armored division with a few TOE modifications. Like the 24th, it is slow and difficult to move, but very powerful once it arrives. Usually plays a prominent role in Middle East planning.
4th Infantry Division - A standard US Army infantry division, this unit brings a lot of firepower with it. 4ID works closely with 1st Cavalry and does a lot of peacekeeping rotations and deployments to Kuwait.
V Corps
1st Armored Division (Germany) - The only armored division in the United States Army that survived the downsizing of the '90s. It's sister units, 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions, were both deactivated. This is one of the most powerful units in the Army, but also suffers from the fact that it is spread out all over Germany and is frequently assigned peacekeeping and other duties for extended periods.
1st Infantry Division (Germany) - This is the famous "Big Red One" of WWII fame. The division has a proud history, but no longer fields the combat power it once had. It has been deactivated, reactivated, and moved during the drawdown, and like 1st Armored Division, is spread out all over Germany. Only a portion of the unit is currently in Europe, the rest are at Fort Riley Kansas. All of these factors significantly reduce its overall effectiveness.
8th Army
2nd Infantry Division (Korea) - This division is arguably the most powerful combat unit in the US Army. It is enhanced in several areas due to its role on the DMZ in Korea. This division does not do peacekeeping missions or any other deployments. It's permanent mission is to defend the Western Corridor in Korea (however it does has a small element based at Fort Lewis WA). Although the division is very powerful, it frquently suffers from cronic problems with low morale and constant manpower shortages. Korea is generally considered the worst assignment in the Army and soldiers serve on unaccompanied 12 month "hardship" tours. Living conditions in the 2ID area are poor and it is quite common for soldiers to retire or sign "bars to reenlistment" in order to avoid serving there. Like the 1st ID and 1st AD, the division is spread out on many different installations or "camps."
Army pacific Command
25th Infantry division (Schofield Barracks, Hawaii) - This is pretty much a standard infantry division, but only 2 of its 3 brigades are in Hawaii. The remaining brigade is at Fort Lewis Washington. The division played a major role in Vietnam, but since then has been used most for training, peacekeeping and other misc missions.
The active Army has been reduced to a total endstrength of 480,000 soldiers. This is a somewhat misleading figure however, because only 149,406 of these soldiers serve in the divisions. The US Army has a very high ratio of support vs combat units (or "teeth" to "tail"), thus the numbers of soldiers who actualy deploy and fight are considerably lower than 480,000. There are many thousands of non-deployable technical, transportation, research, and administrative support personnel. It's still the best Army around, but it is only a shadow of its former self.
http://www.militaryorder.org/Officer Review/June 2002/The U.htm
If the OPTEMPO (current operations) continue as it has for the last several years and new missions continue to be added, the readiness issues facing the Army will worsen.
An operation in Iraq, even a successful one, would stretch US forces right to the breaking point and would certainly require the activation of large numbers of reserve and National Guard soldiers for extended periods. This is becoming very unpopular as many of these soldiers have already been activated to guard airports and such since 9/11. Many face severe financial difficulties when called to active duty due to their low military pay compared to their normal wages. Some have lost their homes or now face large credit card debts.
The Army is trying to counterbalance these problems with new technology. When it works it works well, but sometimes there is no substitute for numbers and raw volume of firepower (see Blackhawk Down...). At this time there are no plans to increase troop strength and the Defense Department is already suffering from a projected budget shortfall in spite of a very large increase this year.
XVIII Airborne Corps
82 Airborne Division (Fort Bragg, NC) - The division fields around 15,500 paratroopers. This is the premiere rapid reaction force of the US Army and can be "wheels up" 18 hours after notification. The division is very light and easy to move, but suffers badly in firepower. The Army brass prefer this unit to do short deployments and not get tied down with extended peacekeeping efforts.
10th Mountain Division (Fort Drum, NY) - This is basically a light infantry division capable of rapid deployment. Doesn't have as much firepower as some other divisions.
101st Airborne Division (Fort Campbell, KY) - This is an airborne division in name only. The 101st hasn't been on jump status in many years, instead, the division fields more helicopters than any other US Army division. This division is now the "air assault" division and is probably the most mobile division in the world. It contains two combat aviation brigades with enough UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters to move the whole division in a relatively short period. Like the 82nd, this division doesn't field any heavy maneuver units so it is vulnerable, but lethal.
3rd Infantry Division (Fort Stewart, GA) - When the US Army was downsized in the '90s, the 24th Mechanized division was deactivated and the 3rd ID reactivated in its place. Not much changed except the name. This is one of the heavier and more powerful divions in the US Army. It can't deploy rapidly and is very expensive to field, but it brings a lot of combat power with it.
III Corps
1st cavalry Division (Fort Hood, TX) - One of the most powerful divisions in the US Army this is basically an armored division with a few TOE modifications. Like the 24th, it is slow and difficult to move, but very powerful once it arrives. Usually plays a prominent role in Middle East planning.
4th Infantry Division - A standard US Army infantry division, this unit brings a lot of firepower with it. 4ID works closely with 1st Cavalry and does a lot of peacekeeping rotations and deployments to Kuwait.
V Corps
1st Armored Division (Germany) - The only armored division in the United States Army that survived the downsizing of the '90s. It's sister units, 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions, were both deactivated. This is one of the most powerful units in the Army, but also suffers from the fact that it is spread out all over Germany and is frequently assigned peacekeeping and other duties for extended periods.
1st Infantry Division (Germany) - This is the famous "Big Red One" of WWII fame. The division has a proud history, but no longer fields the combat power it once had. It has been deactivated, reactivated, and moved during the drawdown, and like 1st Armored Division, is spread out all over Germany. Only a portion of the unit is currently in Europe, the rest are at Fort Riley Kansas. All of these factors significantly reduce its overall effectiveness.
8th Army
2nd Infantry Division (Korea) - This division is arguably the most powerful combat unit in the US Army. It is enhanced in several areas due to its role on the DMZ in Korea. This division does not do peacekeeping missions or any other deployments. It's permanent mission is to defend the Western Corridor in Korea (however it does has a small element based at Fort Lewis WA). Although the division is very powerful, it frquently suffers from cronic problems with low morale and constant manpower shortages. Korea is generally considered the worst assignment in the Army and soldiers serve on unaccompanied 12 month "hardship" tours. Living conditions in the 2ID area are poor and it is quite common for soldiers to retire or sign "bars to reenlistment" in order to avoid serving there. Like the 1st ID and 1st AD, the division is spread out on many different installations or "camps."
Army pacific Command
25th Infantry division (Schofield Barracks, Hawaii) - This is pretty much a standard infantry division, but only 2 of its 3 brigades are in Hawaii. The remaining brigade is at Fort Lewis Washington. The division played a major role in Vietnam, but since then has been used most for training, peacekeeping and other misc missions.
The active Army has been reduced to a total endstrength of 480,000 soldiers. This is a somewhat misleading figure however, because only 149,406 of these soldiers serve in the divisions. The US Army has a very high ratio of support vs combat units (or "teeth" to "tail"), thus the numbers of soldiers who actualy deploy and fight are considerably lower than 480,000. There are many thousands of non-deployable technical, transportation, research, and administrative support personnel. It's still the best Army around, but it is only a shadow of its former self.
http://www.militaryorder.org/Officer Review/June 2002/The U.htm
If the OPTEMPO (current operations) continue as it has for the last several years and new missions continue to be added, the readiness issues facing the Army will worsen.
An operation in Iraq, even a successful one, would stretch US forces right to the breaking point and would certainly require the activation of large numbers of reserve and National Guard soldiers for extended periods. This is becoming very unpopular as many of these soldiers have already been activated to guard airports and such since 9/11. Many face severe financial difficulties when called to active duty due to their low military pay compared to their normal wages. Some have lost their homes or now face large credit card debts.
The Army is trying to counterbalance these problems with new technology. When it works it works well, but sometimes there is no substitute for numbers and raw volume of firepower (see Blackhawk Down...). At this time there are no plans to increase troop strength and the Defense Department is already suffering from a projected budget shortfall in spite of a very large increase this year.
Cheetah772
Member
I am reminded of ancient Romans
Hello Maddog,
This reminds me of the ancient Romans. If you count both Republic and Empire periods, you can see Rome lasted nearly 1,000 years. Some might even argue, Rome actually lasted longer than that due to Byzantine Empire living in the spirit of Rome, and Roman Catholic Church still proudly carries the "torch" of Rome.
Anyway, I'm not here to discuss the longevity of Rome, but its ancient army. There was nothing to compare the Roman legions to any other army in the world. Not even Chinese armies could ever hope to match the lethal military discipline of Roman armies. Indeed, the Roman armies were very the best one in the ancient world.
I can see clearly a few parallels to America and ancient Rome. To be honest, it frightens me greatly.
First of all, Roman armies once were only for citizens of Rome or the people living in ancient Italy. Over time, the Roman army was forced to recuit from outside Italy, into its neighboring provinces. Just as our Army was for the whites only, now, it is forced to draw from different races in order to meet its requirements.
The Roman army once only trained for the combat and safeguarding the city of Rome for a while, but soon Rome conquered far too much territory in that over time its army eroded in its discipline and reared to frontier defense as it was stretched thinnly. America's army was not originally a permanent military insititution. Like other countries, America usually downsized its army after a major war or conflict that no longer demands America's attention. After WWII, the Army was finally given a permanent home, saw its ranks enlarged "permanently", even though it was downsized in spite of aftermath of WWII. During the Cold War, the Army trained extensively in combat, ready for any Soviet attack across the plains of Central Europe, then into Western Europe. Indeed, during the Cold War, American army was diligent in its training, fully aware of its mission to safeguard the democratic principles. Unfortunately, after the Cold War was over, the Army was downsized once again, and forced to perform peacekeeping operations akin to ancient Roman's frontier defense. It caused low morale and frustration within the rank-and-file.
The ancient Roman army wasn't always a bad place for a Roman citizen or a foreigner from a Roman province. It gave them an opportunity to see the world, had some nice benefits, and a modest salary to begin with. A foreigner in a Roman army usually receives a Roman citizenship when he finished his service. A Roman citizenship meant a lot for many people. It signals for them the final journey in reaping the benefits of a Roman citizenship. Just like America, its army wasn't always the best way to climb the social ladder, but for many people, it was the best place to start a new life afresh, and received some training that aided them in searching for a good civilian job. It remains even today a great place for young people to receive some training that some companies look for. For many companies, recuiting somebody out of Army is lucrative, especially, if a soldier was given extensive training with technology and other things.
The ancient Roman army was the most advanced army in the ancient world, what we know, is lost forever to the history. It built the roads, navies, and other things that rivaled even ancient Greece's engineering skills. Just like America's army, it is still the most advanced army in the world. It researched the latest in technology that has both military and civilian applications, etc.
After Marcus Aurelius (161 to 180 AD., no, I'm not going to use 'CE', it is a political correctly term to respect the nonChristian religions) died, the Roman army broke down, though, it was still a highly disciplined and lethal military machine to contend with anywhere. Just like America, after Regean, and Bush left the office, the army was in bad shape, and made even worse considering Clinton's attitude toward the army. Though, like after Aurelius, there were periods of revival within the Roman army, however, it was a shadow of its former self. Like today, America army is given a new life when Junior Bush entered the office, and especially in the wake of 9/11 attacks.
It is my greatest fear that in light of impending Iraqi war, there would be other hotspots that we are forced to watch from sidelines. We couldn't even seriously contend with Chinese army even if we wanted to protect Tawain from the aggressive Chinese army moves. For all technology we had, there's nothing to compare the raw human resources of China to America. Just as the ancient Roman army was the finest one in the world, it coudn't contend with raw numbers of vicious and savage people migrating from only God knows where to frontiers of Roman Empire.
What we are witnessing may be just the beginning of the demise of America as a superpower and a source of pride to the world.
Due to prosperity and peace, the Roman army was hard-pressed to recuit young people who wanted nothing to do with harsh life and hardships of a typical Roman soldier especially during the Empire period. Just like America, we are experiencing unpercedented prosperity and peace, now, for many young people, they no longer want to do anything with US Army due to its poor benefits, salary, and hardships of a typical American soldier.
I still insist that we must fight Iraqis to get rid of Saddam Hussein, because he is a danger to the democratic principles that America is sworn to uphold even in face of moral degradation of our society.
I fear that one day, that our army may become the "ghost" army akin to the long forgotten ancient Roman army whose testimony and legends still speaks of what it once did for the known world.
Dan
Hello Maddog,
This reminds me of the ancient Romans. If you count both Republic and Empire periods, you can see Rome lasted nearly 1,000 years. Some might even argue, Rome actually lasted longer than that due to Byzantine Empire living in the spirit of Rome, and Roman Catholic Church still proudly carries the "torch" of Rome.
Anyway, I'm not here to discuss the longevity of Rome, but its ancient army. There was nothing to compare the Roman legions to any other army in the world. Not even Chinese armies could ever hope to match the lethal military discipline of Roman armies. Indeed, the Roman armies were very the best one in the ancient world.
I can see clearly a few parallels to America and ancient Rome. To be honest, it frightens me greatly.
First of all, Roman armies once were only for citizens of Rome or the people living in ancient Italy. Over time, the Roman army was forced to recuit from outside Italy, into its neighboring provinces. Just as our Army was for the whites only, now, it is forced to draw from different races in order to meet its requirements.
The Roman army once only trained for the combat and safeguarding the city of Rome for a while, but soon Rome conquered far too much territory in that over time its army eroded in its discipline and reared to frontier defense as it was stretched thinnly. America's army was not originally a permanent military insititution. Like other countries, America usually downsized its army after a major war or conflict that no longer demands America's attention. After WWII, the Army was finally given a permanent home, saw its ranks enlarged "permanently", even though it was downsized in spite of aftermath of WWII. During the Cold War, the Army trained extensively in combat, ready for any Soviet attack across the plains of Central Europe, then into Western Europe. Indeed, during the Cold War, American army was diligent in its training, fully aware of its mission to safeguard the democratic principles. Unfortunately, after the Cold War was over, the Army was downsized once again, and forced to perform peacekeeping operations akin to ancient Roman's frontier defense. It caused low morale and frustration within the rank-and-file.
The ancient Roman army wasn't always a bad place for a Roman citizen or a foreigner from a Roman province. It gave them an opportunity to see the world, had some nice benefits, and a modest salary to begin with. A foreigner in a Roman army usually receives a Roman citizenship when he finished his service. A Roman citizenship meant a lot for many people. It signals for them the final journey in reaping the benefits of a Roman citizenship. Just like America, its army wasn't always the best way to climb the social ladder, but for many people, it was the best place to start a new life afresh, and received some training that aided them in searching for a good civilian job. It remains even today a great place for young people to receive some training that some companies look for. For many companies, recuiting somebody out of Army is lucrative, especially, if a soldier was given extensive training with technology and other things.
The ancient Roman army was the most advanced army in the ancient world, what we know, is lost forever to the history. It built the roads, navies, and other things that rivaled even ancient Greece's engineering skills. Just like America's army, it is still the most advanced army in the world. It researched the latest in technology that has both military and civilian applications, etc.
After Marcus Aurelius (161 to 180 AD., no, I'm not going to use 'CE', it is a political correctly term to respect the nonChristian religions) died, the Roman army broke down, though, it was still a highly disciplined and lethal military machine to contend with anywhere. Just like America, after Regean, and Bush left the office, the army was in bad shape, and made even worse considering Clinton's attitude toward the army. Though, like after Aurelius, there were periods of revival within the Roman army, however, it was a shadow of its former self. Like today, America army is given a new life when Junior Bush entered the office, and especially in the wake of 9/11 attacks.
It is my greatest fear that in light of impending Iraqi war, there would be other hotspots that we are forced to watch from sidelines. We couldn't even seriously contend with Chinese army even if we wanted to protect Tawain from the aggressive Chinese army moves. For all technology we had, there's nothing to compare the raw human resources of China to America. Just as the ancient Roman army was the finest one in the world, it coudn't contend with raw numbers of vicious and savage people migrating from only God knows where to frontiers of Roman Empire.
What we are witnessing may be just the beginning of the demise of America as a superpower and a source of pride to the world.
Due to prosperity and peace, the Roman army was hard-pressed to recuit young people who wanted nothing to do with harsh life and hardships of a typical Roman soldier especially during the Empire period. Just like America, we are experiencing unpercedented prosperity and peace, now, for many young people, they no longer want to do anything with US Army due to its poor benefits, salary, and hardships of a typical American soldier.
I still insist that we must fight Iraqis to get rid of Saddam Hussein, because he is a danger to the democratic principles that America is sworn to uphold even in face of moral degradation of our society.
I fear that one day, that our army may become the "ghost" army akin to the long forgotten ancient Roman army whose testimony and legends still speaks of what it once did for the known world.
Dan
Tzar
Member
Cheetah,
I appreciated your comparison between the Roman Empire and the United States' current position in the world. I indeed believe that we are living in a time of "Pax Americana" instead of the old "Pax Romana". Washington is the modern Rome.
I do not share however your pessimistic conclusion on the current state of the United States Armed Forces. Let's consider these hard facts:
America's annual defense budget is:
I appreciated your comparison between the Roman Empire and the United States' current position in the world. I indeed believe that we are living in a time of "Pax Americana" instead of the old "Pax Romana". Washington is the modern Rome.
I do not share however your pessimistic conclusion on the current state of the United States Armed Forces. Let's consider these hard facts:
America's annual defense budget is:
- $15 billion per year more than the United States spent for defense in 1980, at the height of the Cold War (adjusted for inflation)
- Three times as much as any other single nation on Earth spends on defense.
- 37% of total global military expenditures. As a reference, the American population accounts for about 4.6% of total world population...
[/list=1]
Some defense budget comparisons:
- The six ''rogue'' nations of the world - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba - have a combined military budget of only $5 billion. In other words, the U.S. spends 66 times as much money on the military as all its enemies combined.
- America's allies - all the other 15 countries in NATO - spend a combined total of only $150 billion a year on defense. Washington spent around $ 330 billion this year for defense and plans to spend around $ 380 billion in 2003...
- Japan spends only $42 billion. By contrast, the U.S. spends an estimated $90 billion a year to subsidize the defense of Europe and Japan.[/list=1]
Notwithstanding the "downgrading" of some divisions of the U.S. army, it seems America has not downgraded as much as the rest of the Earth :cheeky:
If you were afraid about the potential decline of the U.S. military, I thought these numbers should make you sleep more comfortably :flag:
Deltapooh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Closer than is safe for my enemies
- Country
-
I understand what you are talking. The Union did induct Blacks into the Army to help meet manpower needs. However, I thought the overriding reason behind the decision was to send a message to slaves and the Confederate Army. "They are American's too and should be treated as such." It legitimized a critical cause for the war. (Although, slavery was not the only reason for the Civil War. Why don't they teach more of that in school?)
You didn't intend for it to be, but I do find the comment slightly offensive. My family has a long tradition of fighting for this country that dates back to my cousin in WWII. I was raced to dismiss the ideal that it's a "white man's Army" and defend my home. The Army gave members in my family a career. My uncle was an orphan after my great-grandparents died. My grandfather simply couldn't afford to raise him at the time. He chose to join the Army. My grandfather hated it, but signed for him at 17. In return for his committment, the Army gave him a college degree, and when he retired, help provide him with a job at the Pentagon.
So to say, we were only allowed to join to meet manpower needs is incorrect overall. Other races were allow to join the military because white's realized it was their country too.
I should also point out that the Romans employed foreigners partly to make up for their military inabilities.
Again, I want to point out that I do not believe you are racially bias or ignorant to that. I just thought it was necessary to point address the statement. I respect your analysis and conclusions.
I don't think downsizing has been the problem with the rank-and-file. The main issue is their feeling of lack of accomplishment. These Peacekeeping operations are open-ended. Soldiers deploy into a region where most view them with either suspicion or outright hatred. When they leave, each know it is very likely they will have to return.
Peacekeeping operations are a neccessity. However, there must be an endstate. These open-ended committments are a real problem for soldiers. Rather than have to go back, alot just choose to quit the military. And you know what? I don't really blame them.
This in part is very correct. We should not take away from what rapid downsizing did to our military personnel. Many were just cutout of the new military force. As you stated, the situation was made worst by the poor leadership of President Clinton.
While, I doubt China will move on Tiawan, the over-extension of our armed forces can be seen as a threat within itself to our national security. After the war with Iraq, our forces will need at least 12-18 months to re-train, re-arm and re-cooperate. I would like to see anywhere from 2-3 years for this to occur. Military time is shorter than normal time. Troops need to be able to spend time with their families and be apart of it during the training cycles. Alot can happen in this period. Troops might be forced into a crisis who are tired from the last war. That hurts morale, even if it's not combat. And as you stated, the US might be less than willing to intervene in a crisises because of the manpower issue.
While, I do believe there are similarities between the two Armies, our military force is better than the Romans. Throughout it's history, Rome was politically unstable. At times, war was seen as a mean to divert public attention away from internal issues. While, the United States' political situation is anything, but stable, it's instability alone does reflect on our military force.
The Roman people were in part responsible for their demise. We can go the same should we choose to. So far, that's not the case. Our nation must evolve with time, not focus on dominating it alone. Rome was so confident in their power they ignored the changes around them until it was too late. If the United States does the same, our last words should be, "we should've paid more attention in history class."
Cheetah772
Member
Tzar....
Hello,
Yes, it's true, during the last year in Clinton's presidency, he actually increased the military budget though his attitude to the military was horrible. Just look at Tomahawk missiles, they're so Clintonseque weapons!
However, I could argue that even in the time of declining power, the ancient Rome had spent considerable money on upgrading its defense, there were several periodic sweeping reforms that revived its army for a short time. It's like giving a cardic shock to the heart, just trying to prolong the life though it's dying at that very moment.
The ancient Rome did not fall because of its poor management policies, rather, it was different factors that brought too much pressure on the Roman army to cope with effectively. Even when Rome finally fell, its army was still a fine military machine, though, very much a shadow of its former self. Thus, I don't think money has anything to do with the reality of our declining power.
Fortunately for me, America is going to have a long life in spite of its declining power, it's just too hard to kill us off!
Just look at Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, all their armies were once the finest military machines in the world, now, they're shadows of their former selves. Even so, the nations I mentioned are still very much alive.
Oh, I forget to mention that at the peak of Rome's power, she had made numerous allies in her conquered provinces, outside powers, and other groups of people who want to develop good economic ties. At the peak of Cold War, America had many allies, some of them had no choice, but nonetheless, allies that wanted to promote economic ties with America. Though, America had Russia to think about, even ancient Rome had a lot to think despite the absence of a major world power. The ancient Rome was very much concerned about Parthia Empire, North Africa's wild frontier, Germania with its many brutal tribes, Dacia where it was making a lot trouble, Scots were giving Romans fits in northern Great Britain, various minority groups stirring up trouble (including the Jews).
There is still a lot to be concerned.
Dan
Hello,
Yes, it's true, during the last year in Clinton's presidency, he actually increased the military budget though his attitude to the military was horrible. Just look at Tomahawk missiles, they're so Clintonseque weapons!
However, I could argue that even in the time of declining power, the ancient Rome had spent considerable money on upgrading its defense, there were several periodic sweeping reforms that revived its army for a short time. It's like giving a cardic shock to the heart, just trying to prolong the life though it's dying at that very moment.
The ancient Rome did not fall because of its poor management policies, rather, it was different factors that brought too much pressure on the Roman army to cope with effectively. Even when Rome finally fell, its army was still a fine military machine, though, very much a shadow of its former self. Thus, I don't think money has anything to do with the reality of our declining power.
Fortunately for me, America is going to have a long life in spite of its declining power, it's just too hard to kill us off!
Just look at Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, all their armies were once the finest military machines in the world, now, they're shadows of their former selves. Even so, the nations I mentioned are still very much alive.
Oh, I forget to mention that at the peak of Rome's power, she had made numerous allies in her conquered provinces, outside powers, and other groups of people who want to develop good economic ties. At the peak of Cold War, America had many allies, some of them had no choice, but nonetheless, allies that wanted to promote economic ties with America. Though, America had Russia to think about, even ancient Rome had a lot to think despite the absence of a major world power. The ancient Rome was very much concerned about Parthia Empire, North Africa's wild frontier, Germania with its many brutal tribes, Dacia where it was making a lot trouble, Scots were giving Romans fits in northern Great Britain, various minority groups stirring up trouble (including the Jews).
There is still a lot to be concerned.
Dan
Deltapooh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Closer than is safe for my enemies
- Country
-
I don't think our power is declining Cheetah772. It's our expanding responsibilities abroad that is causing problems. The United States still command with authority, but has evolved. We can't dominate the world, but realize we are just a part of it. That doesn't specifically mean we are in a decline.
Great Britain still has an excellent Army. In fact, their FIBUA program is somewhat more advanced than the United States Army's MOUT program. It's adopted to reflect the United Kingdom's foreign policy which does not require global influence.
Germany's Army is also very well trained and equipped. In a war, they would give us hell. Again, like the United Kingdom, they have adopted, to a major degree forcibly, to the mission of defense.
Russia's Army is indeed a shadow of it's former self, but I would not say it's lost it place as one of the better Armies. I know I would not advise invading that country. Their force has always focused more on attrition. It might be sloppy, but the Russians get the job done when needed.
Yes, all these Armies had their greatness. However, military might is often associated with global influence. No none of the coutries you listed are great war machines. However, they have adopted missions, which, if you chose to challenge them there, would illustrate that size and stature doesn't always matter.
I remind you the US Army was considered great. However, it was defeated by a bunch of men in pajamas. Then we once again proved our greatness in 1991. And again, in 1993, we are apparently defeated by Somali rebels. Greatness is not measured in size and strength, but what do with the resources provided.
True, but many of these people never forgot how Rome treated their people. The Germans were a great example. Their handshake still carried the blood of their forefathers. Thus, there was no real alliance, but just cooperation. It cost them. Again, Rome treated those it conquered as conquered.
The United States had a similar history, but on a much smaller scale. Native Americans resisted bitterely. However, our expansion largely incorporated a high degree of oppression. We damn near wiped out a civiliation in our quest for freedom and democracy. Fortunately, we've apparently learned from our mistakes. I think.
Yes, there is alot to be concerned with, only if the United States choose to ignore social problems and treat the world as lesser people. While our foriegn policies might appear to do this at times, overall we are far more respective of the world's concerns than Romans. If you disagreed with Rome, you could expect an Army to put their foot in your ass. Diplomacy was always an exercise in terrorism for the Romans. I hope the world doesn't view our policies as equal.