US Navy
Mackenzie Eaglen, RCD: Time for the U.S. Military to Get Its Swagger Back
While the Pentagon’s new strategy is being released in 2018, it is more like the year 2000 on Capitol Hill with members itching for the maverick spirit of then-presidential candidate John McCain’s campaign bus, the Straight Talk Express.
The substance of the document is classified at the request of Capitol Hill, but there is a growing consensus about how to grade its success or failure. It is past time for a new National Defense Strategy that seeks to break the mold in honesty, clarity, conciseness, and fresh thinking. As an official articulation of Pentagon doctrine, this is an opportunity to mend the broken dialogue between the military and the government and people they serve.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Too many commitments and missions. Not enough manpower and resources. No debate (at least publicly) on what should be America's priorities when it comes to national security. All of these factors result in this .... Mattis says US competitive warfighting edge has eroded (AP). Will the current administration put the U.S. military back on track is something that I do not know. But what I do know is that with the U.S. government now shut-down over the issue of immigration, chain migration, and what should be the status of people who entered the country illegally .... these discussions and decisions are not going to happen.
3 comments:
To many missions and commitments. This pretty much says it all and it isn't possible to get the manpower to meet all of this and even if we could we can't afford it.
The raw amounts a nation spends on it's armed forces actually tells us very little about actual military capabilities. Even if the funds were properly allocated it would still be unaffordable relative to the commitments.
When trying to determine how to allocate precious funds and other precious resources we must define the major threats. They are as follows in terms of the most danger. 1.) An all out nuclear attack by Russia. 2.) An Islamic terrorist attack involving the use of suitcase nuclear weapons and other "dirty bombs" detonated accross multiple metropolitan areas simultaneously. 3.) An invasion of US mainland by Russia, China, Russia and China, or Russia, China, and some combination of their allies.
Something else that needs to be considered is the invention of fracking has the potential to give us leverage when dealing with foreign powers that would've been unthinkable just a few years ago. This also makes us a prime target for any foreign power wishing to invade and conquer us in order to steal our resources. With anti-Americanism that has run rampant and unchecked for many decades it wouldn't be hard for the foreign power to find an excuse for the invasion of America with the actual goal being to steal our resources. Furthermore this rampant anti-Americanism means motivating their population to undertake such an enterprise would be quite easy.
It is within this framework that a proper defense strategy can be formulated. In my considered opinion, threats 1 and 3 can be easily eliminated or at least reduced by about 85% relatively quickly. As any corporate or private sector employee can attest to, picking fights with CEO/boss is not a good strategy for career advancement. Threat 2 may not be as easy to eliminate.
In any event, the proper deployment of our military assets will go a long to ensure that an invasion of America would be so costly that a foreign power or multiple foreign powers would not dare consider it. Within this framework our nuclear arsenal needs to be upgraded and expanded and we need to resist any and all pressure applied to us to eliminate our nuclear deterrent.
Furthermore the multitude of foreign military deployments make no sense based upon the threats and our abilities. Conservatively 99% of these foreign deployments should be eliminated. A date certain for the ending of these foreign military commitments needs to be set with the constructive participation of each foregin government and we need to firmly insist that America and Ameticans are treated with dignity.
As far as illrgal entry and chain migration go this is easy to solve. Treat them as invaders and deal with them accordingly. Some have forced a government shutdown over the desire to grant special rights to invaders. If this actually turns out to be a winning issue politically, then America truly is finished. As an American, if I were illegally emigrate to Mexico or pretty much any Central or South American country and try to settle, I shutter to think what would happen to me. At best, extensive time in a very harsh prison would be expected and/or a very forceful eviction from the country.
You want the US army to be inside the country. To "prevent invasion" lol dude
Best way to prevent invasion is to not have your army at home but to project power outside with allies. That's what the US will keep doing and they won't fulfil your Russian phantasy of retreating. No matter how much you want it, bposter
Invasion. To get oil. Lol
Anon,
"You want the US army to be inside the country." Not necessarily. Some forces will be patrolling US territorial waters. Also, some joint operations with other countries may be needed at times where needs and interests converge.
To "prevent invasion" lol dude. Nothing funny about this at all. I take the security of my country very seriously. When we wish to secure something, we generally put the security system on the property we wish to secure and we position the security personnel on or around the property where they are best able to secure the property. We would not position them accross town where they can neither monitor the property nor respond to threats to it in a timely fashion.
As for what the US is currently doing, it isn't workkng and many of our "allies" aren't adding the neccessary value to justify continuing the relationships as they are. Furthetmore continuing to do the same thing expecting a different result is commonly referred to as insanity. The current policies are only furthrt depleting our military and further inflaming anti-Americanism neither of which are good for national security or our economic advancement..
It's the editor's postion that there are to many missions and to many commitments. I concur with his analysis and we need a fair debate on which missions and commitments need to be continued and which ones need to be discontinued. Many Americans hold this position. By your analysis you must think Americans eho do not agree with substantial elements of our foreign policies are "Russian."
I would add the current policies are sapping our strength and eroding our alliances. If Russia is a strategic competitor or an enemy, they would like our current policies. You refer to such changes in our foreign policy as "retreating." When in a hole, the best thing to do is STOP DIGGING. By changing course we maximize the ability to defend our country, grow our economy, and improve relations with other nations.
"Invasion to get oil lol." Actually invasions to claim natural resources have been common throughout history. In fact, the US is routinely accused of such things. I'm sure you recall "no blood for oil." Oil and oil related products are vital to the functioning of even a semi-modern economy let alone a modern one. As such, one would expect a nation state to do what is required to ensure they have access to a reasonably priced and stable supply of oil. Some especially where there is wealth will be tempted to take it by force. As such, prudence demands we prepare properly.
Post a Comment