Obama announces changes to the military

[Scheavo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-announces-new-military-approach/2012/01/05/gIQAFWcmcP_print.html

The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled a new military strategy that shifts the Pentagon’s focus towards Asia and says the country’s dire budget problems necessitate a more restrained use of military force and more modest foreign policy goals.

The strategy will almost certainly mean a smaller Army and Marine Corps as well as new investments in long-range stealth bombers and anti-missile systems that are designed primarily to counter China’s military buildup. It explicitly states that America can make due with a smaller nuclear force.

Over the course of the last decade, the Army has grown to about 570,000 troops, up from 482,000 prior to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Current plans call for the Army to shrink to about 520,000 troops, though senior Army leaders said they expect that the number will be cut further. The defense strategy states pretty clearly that U.S. Army forces in Europe will bear the brunt of those cuts, compared to troops based in the U.S. and elsewhere.

A couple of things:

I'm not sure if this goes far enough, but it's certainly a move in the right direction. He hit's upon a lot of area's of concern, even the fact that we don't need the military presence we do have in Europe anymore. It's centrist, but at least it's it's on the left side of the spectrum.

Secondly, the timing is obviously political - a lot of talk about Iowa and the Republican candidates, so here, he's what I'm actually doing - but I think this does really signify the change in Obama. Liberals gripe with Obama is that he hasn't done enough, been too distant, etc; but, if the theory that he was just learning the job is true, then we're seeing the end of that. And even if the timing is purely political, it's still a move in the right direction, and this'll still impact us.

Thoughts?

I'm sorta curious to see how the Republican candidates respond. I imagine Paul will have the only few kind words, but only a few, to say about it in the entire field. Romney will blast him, Santorum will blast him.

[El Barto]

I know that the military brass is concerned that they'll no longer be able to maintain 2 front ability.  I don't know if that's them speculating,  or rather a specific aspect of Obama's strategy.

I do know that the GOP will bitch about it regardless. 

As for the impact of our defensive capabilities,  I'd say nil.  We've always relied on superior equipment rather than sheer numbers.  As long as we're building better aircraft, tanks,  ships, boats, etc,  we'll do fine. 

[Scheavo]

Ya, our problem never has been the technology, but the fact that we're fighting a disgruntled segment of society, and not an actual government, culture, etc. But it seems like that kind of tactic is one Obama is completely abandoning - a very important foreign policy shift.

I mean, predator drones and tomahawk missiles basically change the game. It's not only mutually assured destruction now, it's, you better fucking hide because we'll find you and put a bomb on your nose. Cyberwar is becoming important simply becuase if you try to fight conventionally, you're going to get your ass handed to you.
 

[ResultsMayVary]

True. But a full-scale war with China (if it ever happened) would put some serious strain of the U.S. Military to begin with. The U.S. does have superior technology, but the Chinese Army is fucking massive. I think this change is fine, however, and if we go to war, they'll always be enough able-bodied men to fight the war, and that includes myself if the situation does happen.

Hopefully we stay above 500,000 standing. You don't want to reduce the army by over 20% in a few years. It should be a gradual slow-down over time.

EDIT: My personal stance is that we should keep the military the size it is, but reduce of foreign military presence where it's not needed. South Korea, Afghanistan (currently), and a few other select locations should still have U.S. Troops stationed there for the next few years, at least.

[bosk1]

Wow, our government is stupid.

[orcus116]

I love the fact that people are freaking out over this. We're miles ahead of other nations technologically speaking to the point where we don't need a lot of actual manpower and just the pure numbers of China are causing heads to shake? Get real. A much needed reduction.

[rumborak]

I have to agree that even the calculation, "well, what if we go to war with China?" shows how wrong things have become.

rumborak

[bosk1]

How so?

[orcus116]

Because why would any logical thinking person even think we'd get involved in a war with China?

[bosk1]

I was asking rumborak.

But in answer to your question, why would any logical thinking person not think we'd get involved in a war with China?

[Scheavo]

Why would any logical thinking person think of getting involved in War?

[bosk1]

Because, unfortunately, wars happen, and if one wants his or her country to survive, it is best to plan before war happens than during.  Anyone in charge of a country's military who does not think about the possibility of being in a war is incompetent to be in charge of the country's military.

But, as I said to orcus, I wasn't talking to you.

[rumborak]

Because, to a good degree, arming yourself for a scenario is implicit acknowledgment of already considering it. And it invites counter-armament from all sides too, with results like Iran desiring to get nuclear weapons.
In my humble opinion, preparing yourself for a situation also invites it, because at the very least you no longer put your utmost effort into avoiding it. Iraq was a good example.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Because, unfortunately, wars happen, and if one wants his or her country to survive, it is best to plan before war happens than during.  Anyone in charge of a country's military who does not think about the possibility of being in a war is incompetent to be in charge of the country's military.

But, as I said to orcus, I wasn't talking to you.

I was talking to orcus as much as you.

To answer you actual question, becuase we owe China too much money, and China's economy is dependent upon us. That's a logical basis for thinking why there'd be no where. Until we see our trade and economic relationship just completely flounder, talk of war is extremely premature.

[El Barto]

If we're talking about war with China,  which would be a damn fool thing to get involved with,  what difference does anybody think 50k troops would make?  Trying to play the numbers game with those guys is insane. 

Aside from the lunacy of trying to match boots with China,  the more important thing is to maintain the technological edge,  and that includes the defensive aspect.  It's that aspect that I think we're severely lacking in right now,  and that's where the concern should be.  Honestly,  I think it's conceivable that the Chinese could hold their own quite well via the cyber side of things,  and locking up that door is a helluva lot more important than an added two divisions. 

[GuineaPig]

The US would destroy China in any war.

But regardless, a conflict happening is completely unthinkable.  There would be no way to rationalize it from other side.  The economic considerations are much too large.

[Dark Castle]

The US would destroy China in any war.

But regardless, a conflict happening is completely unthinkable.  There would be no way to rationalize it from other side.  The economic considerations are much too large.

That and China is not the "monster" they were in past years.  Relationships are pretty stable if I remember correctly..

[GuineaPig]

The US would destroy China in any war.

But regardless, a conflict happening is completely unthinkable.  There would be no way to rationalize it from other side.  The economic considerations are much too large.

That and China is not the "monster" they were in past years.  Relationships are pretty stable if I remember correctly..

Relations are rock solid.  Free trade makes economies too co-dependent for there to be any incentive for conflict.

[Scheavo]

Aside from the lunacy of trying to match boots with China,  the more important thing is to maintain the technological edge,  and that includes the defensive aspect.  It's that aspect that I think we're severely lacking in right now,  and that's where the concern should be.  Honestly,  I think it's conceivable that the Chinese could hold their own quite well via the cyber side of things,  and locking up that door is a helluva lot more important than an added two divisions.

Well, these changes address cyber warfare, evidently.

[Vivace]

You do NOT want to remove our troops from the DMZ. They are pretty much the only reason why North Korea doesn't just invade South Korea. When it comes to the mines in the DMZ I have a feeling North Korea couldn't care less. I have a feeling that the US might be thinking more along the lines of North Korea than China but afraid that China might takes sides with North Korea. I guess it's a good idea to be prepared for the worse. However my guess is that China will remain neutral in many ways kinda want NK to get taken over. I have no idea how much trade happens between them but if NK becomes US occupied odds are this is just more money in China's pocket. It's kinda like Walmart fighting for land in a small town. Sure, it means turning the small town upside down, but Walmart will bring lot of money and opportunity.

[AndyDT]

Because, unfortunately, wars happen, and if one wants his or her country to survive, it is best to plan before war happens than during.  Anyone in charge of a country's military who does not think about the possibility of being in a war is incompetent to be in charge of the country's military.

But, as I said to orcus, I wasn't talking to you.

I was talking to orcus as much as you.

To answer you actual question, becuase we owe China too much money, and China's economy is dependent upon us. That's a logical basis for thinking why there'd be no where. Until we see our trade and economic relationship just completely flounder, talk of war is extremely premature.

I think that's what they said about Pax Britannica in the first era of globalisation. What was logical about WW1?

[El Barto]

The US would destroy China in any war.

China's demonstrated functional ASAT capability,  and the ability to use viruses to disrupt logic controllers.  The only real usefulness for spending time and money on ASAT is to take out US GPS satellites.  Lastly,  throw in the EMP wildcard,  and they have the potential to really waylay a helluva lot of our technological assets.  It's easy to get caught up in how well the f-35 will match up against their IDF's outdated Mirage 2000's,  but if we're figting such a war strictly on their terms,  without GPS,  realtime C&C,  and hampered logistics,  it could get really ugly, really fast.

For the record,  I find that all unlikely.  It'd take an absolutely brilliant coordinated attack, and this sort of thing doesn't often happen exactly as it's planned.  Still,  to say that we'd kick their asses without considering that a war might be fought completely different than what we'd like,  is foolish. 

[kári]

Umm, if the US goes to war with China I will dig a hole into the ground and stay in there for 50 years.

[Jamariquay]

Because, unfortunately, wars happen, and if one wants his or her country to survive, it is best to plan before war happens than during.  Anyone in charge of a country's military who does not think about the possibility of being in a war is incompetent to be in charge of the country's military.

"You cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time."  -Albert Einstein

On the surface of it, I do largely agree with the bulk of your post though.

[bosk1]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure you can "prevent" it at all. 

[Jamariquay]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure you can "prevent" it at all.

I take it on a case-by-case basis. World War II? No. And really, we needed to have that war. Iraq 2? Fuck yes, we could have prevented that.

[GuineaPig]

You do NOT want to remove our troops from the DMZ. They are pretty much the only reason why North Korea doesn't just invade South Korea. When it comes to the mines in the DMZ I have a feeling North Korea couldn't care less. I have a feeling that the US might be thinking more along the lines of North Korea than China but afraid that China might takes sides with North Korea. I guess it's a good idea to be prepared for the worse. However my guess is that China will remain neutral in many ways kinda want NK to get taken over. I have no idea how much trade happens between them but if NK becomes US occupied odds are this is just more money in China's pocket. It's kinda like Walmart fighting for land in a small town. Sure, it means turning the small town upside down, but Walmart will bring lot of money and opportunity.

  South Korea would smoke North Korea in the event of a war.  The DMZ is mostly for show.

[bosk1]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure you can "prevent" it at all.

I take it on a case-by-case basis. World War II? No. And really, we needed to have that war. Iraq 2? Fuck yes, we could have prevented that.

Well, sure.  That's perfectly sane.  But I think as a country, from the proactive standpoint, you have to approach thins from the standpoint of, certain specific wars may be perfectly avoidable, but war as a whole is not because you never can tell for certain who may attack you, when, or why.  Thus, while it may be desireable for a country not to prepare specifically for a war, that does not mean a country should not prepare for war.

[El Barto]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure you can "prevent" it at all.

I take it on a case-by-case basis. World War II? No. And really, we needed to have that war. Iraq 2? Fuck yes, we could have prevented that.

Well, sure.  That's perfectly sane.  But I think as a country, from the proactive standpoint, you have to approach thins from the standpoint of, certain specific wars may be perfectly avoidable, but war as a whole is not because you never can tell for certain who may attack you, when, or why.  Thus, while it may be desireable for a country not to prepare specifically for a war, that does not mean a country should not prepare for war.

I agree with that.  However,  there are two wars that require quite a bit of resources,  possibly more than we could ever amass,  and a gazillion unknown wars which we're already quite capable of handling.  I think we can safely plan to not get involved in the first two. 

[Jamariquay]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure you can "prevent" it at all.

I take it on a case-by-case basis. World War II? No. And really, we needed to have that war. Iraq 2? Fuck yes, we could have prevented that.

Well, sure.  That's perfectly sane.  But I think as a country, from the proactive standpoint, you have to approach thins from the standpoint of, certain specific wars may be perfectly avoidable, but war as a whole is not because you never can tell for certain who may attack you, when, or why. Thus, while it may be desireable for a country not to prepare specifically for a war, that does not mean a country should not prepare for war.

Pragmatically, I agree with you. I'm quite happy with our military being one of the largest on the planet.

The bolded part is what I specifically take issue with. I think that our intelligence community is actually pretty darn good at figuring out who specifically we should be worried about.

And no, they weren't too good about preventing that whole 9/11 thing. I don't have an answer for that, beyond pointing to the fact that they've (hopefully) stepped up their game since then. I just don't think that in general, building up a massive military force far exceeding any other on the planet is really necessary, nor a wise idea. Plus, it's expensive to maintain, and I think you'll agree that borrowing money from China to do so isn't a good idea, particularly since you've already singled them out as a country to be worried about.

Finally, I'll note that things in Iraq 2 started looking better once we put more effort into diplomacy. I'd have to look up specifics, but I distinctly remember reading about concerted efforts to work with various Iraqi militia groups and so forth, coinciding with the surge around 2007-ish. This doesn't really contradict anything you've said, but I think it worth mentioning to illustrate the value of a nuanced approach.

Again, I agree with much of what you've said.

[bosk1]

...and I think you'll agree that borrowing money from China to do so isn't a good idea, particularly since you've already singled them out as a country to be worried about.

Actually, I didn't.  That was rumborak.  My point has always been about "war in general" versus specifically worrying about one country in particular.  How likely is war with China specifically?  I have no clue.  They just somehow ended up being the particular example thrown around in the thread.

And I don't disagree with the concepts of diplomacy to avoid, mitigate, or help resolve armed conflict, and I don't disagree with any other sort of nuanced approach.  But those things are not mutually exclusive with having a large, well-equipped, technologically advanced military.  I honestly believe you have the best chance of resolving issues and sometimes potentially avoiding them altogether if both sides of the coin are well developed.

[Jamariquay]

...and I think you'll agree that borrowing money from China to do so isn't a good idea, particularly since you've already singled them out as a country to be worried about.

Actually, I didn't.  That was rumborak.  My point has always been about "war in general" versus specifically worrying about one country in particular.  How likely is war with China specifically?  I have no clue.  They just somehow ended up being the particular example thrown around in the thread.

Aha. That's what I get for skimming. My apologies.

Regarding your second paragraph, I think while we largely agree, my concern here is one of scale. I'll leave it at that, since that goes more into the economic side of things which I unfortunately have less familiarity with.

[rumborak]

BTW, there's also a big difference between arming for defense and arming for offense. The US mostly arms for offense.

rumborak

[El Barto]

BTW, there's also a big difference between arming for defense and arming for offense. The US mostly arms for offense.

rumborak

I think that's the whole point of the former two-front strategy.  That allows you to stick your armed forces into other people's business as you feel so inclined,  while leaving a sufficient deterrent force. 

[King Postwhore]

In all honesty I'm all for it.  What else can we cut besides the military?  The machine is too big right now.