4 ms·

I often criticize US army, but this article is just b * t. And not single word about what is actually wrong with US army (F35 and similar projects) > More than

by jkot 12y ago

I often criticize US army, but this article is just b * t. And not single word about what is actually wrong with US army (F35 and similar projects) > More than three-quarters of Americans in Iraq didn’t fight. A ridiculously large number 75% of servants in army (support roles) is pretty stable number since Roman Legions times. > the American military is too big and bulky. Special Forces are lean and mean and Fighting street by street, block by block takes large number of men. > Egyptian interpreter hired by the US military. Knowing that Cairene Arabic is vastly different from that of Southern Iraq, I asked him if he had any trouble understanding the local dialect. He shook his head. “I have no idea what they are saying. > If more American soldiers understood Arabic, their insight and awareness of Iraqi culture could have made a huge difference. Army should not do police work. There should be para-military units (gendarme) composed from locals, but from different regions. US did great job at Philippines with this strategy. > Fear of Casualties > It is impossible to imagine William the Conqueror, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, or Patton focusing above all else on not losing soldiers.... . Historically, officers are happy to use their men as cannon fodder if it will help them achieve their objectives. I will take any US 'war hawk' over this guy anytime. BTW Russians captured Crimea with 2 casualties, so much about 'not enough deaths'. > Only go to war if it is worth sacrificing your children. When Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin’s son went to the front, was captured and eventually died in a POW camp Paragraph about Yakov Dzhugashvili is nice, perhaps just add what happened to his family after he was captured. Also UK prince served in Iraq as far as I know > Fifty thousand Americans died in Vietnam. So did more than 2 million Vietnamese. If war were a numbers game, America would have been victorious. But war is ultimately a matter of will. The North Vietnamese were willing to suffer more than the Americans were, because victory was more important to them. And how many of those Vietnamese were killed by other Vietnamese, French, Koreans...? Americans lost because they could not go near Chinese border. Please read some facts about that conflicts. > War, What is it good For? Absolutely Nothing. ... When William conquered Britain, when Cortez conquered Mexico, their soldiers made fortunes. War traditionally was mostly an excuse for plunder. So nobody, not a single person, made any sort of profit on any war in last two decades?

Guvante 12y ago
> And not single word about what is actually wrong with US army (F35 and similar projects) This is a silly mindset. Your preconceived notion about the worst problem shouldn't stop someone else from talking about a different one. If you looked you will notice that other than quoting complaints at the beginning, the vast majority of the article ignores costs. They speak only of effects. It is easier to question military spending by first pointing out why throwing money at problems isn't working, since you can't easily quantify the benefit of the military you can't just apply cost benefit analysis and have a convincing argument. > 75% of servants in army (support roles) is pretty stable number since Roman Legions times. And that number works great in Roman style conflicts. When you have a force power huge logistic lines make a great target, refocusing your logistics is a way to minimize that weakness. > Fighting street by street, block by block takes large number of men. You assume that is the ideal method of fighting the conflict. > Army should not do police work. There should be para-military units (gendarme) composed from locals, but from different regions. US did great job at Philippines with this strategy. You didn't actually disagree with him here but frame it as if you did. He said they sucked at understanding local needs but acted on what information they had. You said that they shouldn't act on local things. > I will take any US 'war hawk' over this guy anytime. BTW Russians captured Crimea with 2 casualties, so much about 'not enough deaths'. Was the goal of Crimea to minimize casualties? Because it isn't the results he is criticizing but the mind set. "#1 don't let anyone die. #2 win" isn't the best strategy if you want to win. > Americans lost because they could not go near Chinese border. Please read some facts about that conflicts. You aren't actually disputing his point, but simply pointing to a different one. There are lots of things that cause Vietnam to go bad, their ability to sustain casualties certainly helped.
HillRat 12y ago
You make some solid points, but let me take issue with a few: Army should not do police work. There should be para-military units (gendarme) composed from locals, but from different regions. US did great job at Philippines with this strategy. Not sure I would hold up the Philippine War as a paragon of US military involvement; Otis' war strategy essentially consisted of concentration camps, wholesale slaughter (e.g., the Moro Crater Massacre), the deliberate blockading and starvation of urban populations, and commonplace torture and summary execution of enemy soldiers and innocent civilians alike, all waged in the name of "liberty," "democracy" and freedom from a warlike religion -- though the religion in that case was Catholicism, not Islam. Fluency in Tagalog wasn't necessary when your primary method of communication was the sharp end of a bayonet. An average day in the Philippines made My Lai look like a Amnesty International convention. 75% of servants in army (support roles) is pretty stable number since Roman Legions times. Actually, the "tooth-to-tail" ratio has steadily increased in favor of logistical support; US combat brigades in World War One consisted of about 78% fighting soldiers, versus about 43% of a current combined arms brigade (for theatre-level forces, the numbers were 53% to 25%, respectively. The fighting strength of theatre-level forces in Iraq is actually below the Jackson-Nunn threshold mandated for Western European forces.) But, as you point out, this isn't the entire story; what the author fails to understand is that it takes a lot of logistical footprint to support every one of those special forces teams. Furthermore, once you start adding in Abrams armor, SBCTs, Navy ships, Marine and Air Force aviation, and all the rest of the panoply of modern war, plus the need to provide "blankets, beans and bullets," it's remarkable the military has a 1:3 warfighter ratio. (To put it another way, the author would be well-advised to recall the old military maxim, "Amateurs talk about strategy; professionals worry about logistics.") BTW Russians captured Crimea with 2 casualties, so much about 'not enough deaths'. But hundreds of Russian soldiers have died in Eastern Ukraine since then, though the Kremlin has been burying (so to speak) the actual extent of casualties (cynically, Putin doesn't mind getting his soldiers killed, it's the gravedigging he hates). The US isn't the most protective of its soldiers -- that honor probably goes to Israel, the "Hannibal Protocol" notwithstanding -- but for a country engaged in a decade and a half of open warfare, it's remarkably loathe to endanger its warfighters.

by jkot 12y ago

Guvante 12y ago

> And not single word about what is actually wrong with US army (F35 and similar projects) This is a silly mindset. Your preconceived notion about the worst problem shouldn't stop someone else from talking about a different one. If you looked you will notice that other than quoting complaints at the beginning, the vast majority of the article ignores costs. They speak only of effects. It is easier to question military spending by first pointing out why throwing money at problems isn't working, since you can't easily quantify the benefit of the military you can't just apply cost benefit analysis and have a convincing argument. > 75% of servants in army (support roles) is pretty stable number since Roman Legions times. And that number works great in Roman style conflicts. When you have a force power huge logistic lines make a great target, refocusing your logistics is a way to minimize that weakness. > Fighting street by street, block by block takes large number of men. You assume that is the ideal method of fighting the conflict. > Army should not do police work. There should be para-military units (gendarme) composed from locals, but from different regions. US did great job at Philippines with this strategy. You didn't actually disagree with him here but frame it as if you did. He said they sucked at understanding local needs but acted on what information they had. You said that they shouldn't act on local things. > I will take any US 'war hawk' over this guy anytime. BTW Russians captured Crimea with 2 casualties, so much about 'not enough deaths'. Was the goal of Crimea to minimize casualties? Because it isn't the results he is criticizing but the mind set. "#1 don't let anyone die. #2 win" isn't the best strategy if you want to win. > Americans lost because they could not go near Chinese border. Please read some facts about that conflicts. You aren't actually disputing his point, but simply pointing to a different one. There are lots of things that cause Vietnam to go bad, their ability to sustain casualties certainly helped.

HillRat 12y ago

You make some solid points, but let me take issue with a few: Army should not do police work. There should be para-military units (gendarme) composed from locals, but from different regions. US did great job at Philippines with this strategy. Not sure I would hold up the Philippine War as a paragon of US military involvement; Otis' war strategy essentially consisted of concentration camps, wholesale slaughter (e.g., the Moro Crater Massacre), the deliberate blockading and starvation of urban populations, and commonplace torture and summary execution of enemy soldiers and innocent civilians alike, all waged in the name of "liberty," "democracy" and freedom from a warlike religion -- though the religion in that case was Catholicism, not Islam. Fluency in Tagalog wasn't necessary when your primary method of communication was the sharp end of a bayonet. An average day in the Philippines made My Lai look like a Amnesty International convention. 75% of servants in army (support roles) is pretty stable number since Roman Legions times. Actually, the "tooth-to-tail" ratio has steadily increased in favor of logistical support; US combat brigades in World War One consisted of about 78% fighting soldiers, versus about 43% of a current combined arms brigade (for theatre-level forces, the numbers were 53% to 25%, respectively. The fighting strength of theatre-level forces in Iraq is actually below the Jackson-Nunn threshold mandated for Western European forces.) But, as you point out, this isn't the entire story; what the author fails to understand is that it takes a lot of logistical footprint to support every one of those special forces teams. Furthermore, once you start adding in Abrams armor, SBCTs, Navy ships, Marine and Air Force aviation, and all the rest of the panoply of modern war, plus the need to provide "blankets, beans and bullets," it's remarkable the military has a 1:3 warfighter ratio. (To put it another way, the author would be well-advised to recall the old military maxim, "Amateurs talk about strategy; professionals worry about logistics.") BTW Russians captured Crimea with 2 casualties, so much about 'not enough deaths'. But hundreds of Russian soldiers have died in Eastern Ukraine since then, though the Kremlin has been burying (so to speak) the actual extent of casualties (cynically, Putin doesn't mind getting his soldiers killed, it's the gravedigging he hates). The US isn't the most protective of its soldiers -- that honor probably goes to Israel, the "Hannibal Protocol" notwithstanding -- but for a country engaged in a decade and a half of open warfare, it's remarkably loathe to endanger its warfighters.