Board Republicans are quickly eclipsing Nbadan and Galileo as the resident conspiracy loons.
Actually, the army will stay strong, due to the fact that there's no way we leave Iraq until 2011 or so, and Obama wants to push for bin Laden in Pakistan.
The Army is going to transition from the 'standard' army to a mix of army tactics and police functions. I don't know about the Navy and Marines, but the Air Force keeps getting smaller. We're the 'techiest' branch of the military, I think, and many airmen are getting sourced out due to better technology and unmanned aircraft.
Tell me how many divisions we needed to combat the threat of the USSR and warsaw pact in 1995.
Read the "Pentagon's New Map" by PM Barnett.
He pretty much describes the future of the US Military. The military is already taking the first few steps in the direction he has outlined.
We didn't have cause to go to war in Iraq.
I would compare Reagan with the early Hitler. The people loved Reagan too.
But did he build roads? That appears to be the litmus test.
We need a tin foil hat icon.
I'll take a look for it. All I know is that the proposed AF 'cybercommand' may get squashed. Which would piss me off. I want to be in that, damnit! lol
If you guys really want to read about how the planning for the invasion of Iraq went completely off the rails of conventional Powell Doctrine priniciples, read Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward or Fiasco by Tom Ricks. Lack of equipment was far from the only problem with the invasion.
As for the Army staying "strong", the Army will continue to disintegrate, slowly but surely.
The loss of captains and middle-level NCO's to simple non-re-enlistment has really started to hurt.
The stress on families from endless deployments are causing the next generation of military leaders to simply not be there. The Army and probably Marines are losing a lot of talent.
Perhaps that will change with the drawdown of the Iraq occupation, but givent he likelihood of an Afghan build-up, I don't see the recruiting and retention problems easing.
It will not, would be my guess.
The Chinese have gone full bore into cyberwar, as have the Russians.
Russian cyberattackers overwhelmed Georgian government websites and did other nasty things.
I also remember reading a report that Chinese hackers broke into both US presidential candidate's websites and downloaded as much information on policy as they could.
Given this and other events, I would say the US military and intelligence community will continue to build capacity in the "cyberwar" regard.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/publi...gonsnewmap.htm
Mr. Barnett was a USSR analyst that "wandered in the wilderness" for a few years afte the collapse of the USSR, and examined the ways in which the US military has been utilized over the last few decades.
He has been giving a LOT of briefings to up and coming Lt. cols and Majors who will be generals in a few years, and seems to be very influential in shaping the thinking of the next generation of military leadership.
He is also right, in my opinion.
RandomGuy, I'm not sure of the retention levels. You may be correct; I just meant that I will be surprised if there's a top-down directed effort to reduce Army numbers.
Yes, but I think the AF one in specific will be squashed, in favor of a "DoD" cybercommand. Which would be a horrible idea, in my mind. I'm a network tech for the Air Force, and I can't tell you how horrible DISA (Defense Information Services Agency) is. They have a million different depts and none talk to each other.
But the Air Force has been smacked down hard recenty. The nuke incident, the tanker contract, drawdowns in the force... we're the red-headed stepchild of the services. (Not counting the Coast Guard that is... they're like, a stepson or something.)
I disagree with the premise of his article, personally. There are two ways to look at the way America must defend itself.
A) Go on the offensive. This is the 'world police' option that Barnett seems to endorse. Bringing democracy and connectedness to the world.
B) Stay on the defensive. Always go as small as necessary, and use intelligence and security to defuse would-be terrorists and other similar situations.
Of course, that does not mean there one has to be 100% for one option and 0% for the other. But most plans can be placed into one of the two categories.
My problems with the first are: 1) What moral right do we have to change the nature of a country? 2) Our very presence in these countries has a great chance of further accelerating antagonistic parties. 3) What is an acceptable cost for offensive maneuvers?
There are problems with choice B as well, the greatest being a 'reactionary' force. But I think the pros and cons favor B. I can accept valid arguments in favor of the other option.
I think another consequence of Iraq will be the reluctance of youth to enlist in part-time military ranks like national guard, etc. It's not just the full-time military numbers that will continue to suffer recruitment problems. Today's kids have witnessed how badly the national guard has treated by politicians, how their over-deployment has abused those who really signed on as back-ups in case of necessary emergency. It will take a long time for that trust to be re-established.
Sorry for the expletives earlier.
Yes, I do think that the military will stay strong until about the end of Obama's first term (which I said the first time I mentioned military spending cuts), but hopefully once we start to draw down in Afghanistan we can transition to your (speaking to LnGrrrr) plan B.
Technological warfare is obviously going to be focused more on mechanization and intelligence rather than sheer-numbers manpower.
We just need to stop fighting these wars that rely on guerilla tactics. It is a waste of manpower and the civilian death toll is just mind-boggling. I am hopeful that we have finally learned.
Einsenhower = Hitler. Clearly.
"Heil Hitler" has all the same letters as "I like Ike", except for the 2 k's. Add a 3rd K and what do you get? KKK! HOLY ! WILD COBRA IS RIGHT!
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 11-12-2008 at 10:24 PM.
It has to do with the specific types of promises. Especially the redistribution of wealth.
Make mine out of Hastalloy. I need one that highly chemical resistant so some of the vile posts people make.
Please. Just. Stop. You had one goal in comparing Obama to Hitler. It had nothing to do with specific types of promises.
OK, I'll admit. I have nothing nice to say about that pompus piece of . I have no respect for someone who want to take my hard earned money and give it to others. My money, my decisions who to give to as charity.
When you penalize sometning, you get less of it. Liberals hate rich people. Guess what, raise their taxes, and more will move their capitol elsewhere. Out of our tax system.
When you reward something, you get more of it. Give the impoverished money, and you get mnore people who are content to live in poverty.
Not the America I grew up knowing. He's a ing Marxist.
Thank you. Obviously, I violently oppose everything you just said, but at least it's honest.
You might want to note that some Liberals are rich people. Obama didn't raise all that money from $10 donations from everyday folk.
You make $250,000 a year?
He is in the 99.293820938203823 percentile of intelligence so wouldn't he be in the 99.398304938 percentile of salary as well?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
