| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Analyst: U.S. military advantages disappearing |
| 2009-07-13 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #10 The author completely ignores the issue of power projection, and the associated logistics challenge. All the crap that America (Walmart) buys from China is delivered to the USA by what is fundamentally a non-Chinese logistics system. Very few countries on earth have the ability to unilaterally project significant power much beyond their borders. The UK struggled to support its Falklands operation. France has occasionally projected perhaps Brigade-sized units to other continents. I thought it pretty significant that Cuba managed to project and sustain a small fighting force in Angola for several years. But - looking at the big picture, only the US can project whatever military force it chooses to any spot on earth. Case in point: Middle of nowhere Afghanistan. I think it is absurd folly for us to be fighting there - just wall it up, and call it prison hell on earth - and let the Talibunnies have their own good (8th Century) time therein. But - he fact that we CAN sustain a force there - virtually as far away as is possible from the USA - speaks volumes. The civilian contractor system that the moonbats so enthusiastically savage is itself unique resource. It employs experts from possibly every nation on earth - but it is generally conceived and managed by Americans. When I watched a documentary about the US wellhead firefighting teams putting out the oil well fires in Kuwait (Red Adair, Boots & Coots and the ilk), my minds eye was drawing the parallel to US military capability. Only the attitude of the US "system" could drop into Kuwait and put out 700 raging inferno fires within a couple of years. In my respects, America is swirling around the drain - bled white by the Donks, now grievously mismanaged by an utterly incapable senior executive team. The US military has to draw its recruits from an obese, soft, ridilin-saturated population of overindulged flakes. And yet - the system of military indoctrination - and I do not use that word in its perjorative sense - manages to unfailingly produce a strong, dedicated, and professional military. Worn out equipment, worn out career soldiers on their sixth, eighth, or (soon) tenth combat tours, and all the other stresses and strains - and yet - because of the wealth of recent small-unit combat experience - our military - or at least our ground combat force component - is arguably the best it has ever been. Our military R&D is second to none. We have (at least until the Obamination erodes them) the best network of trustworthy international allies that the world has ever seen. From my perspective, the US military is likely to be the last significant institution still standing once the full force of Congressional and Presidential malfeasance has run its course. China can defend its territory - no question about that. But - even Taiwan is a hard nut for Chin to think about swallowing. Taiwan is several orders of magnitude weaker than the US. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2009-07-13 21:41 |
| #9 Compare wid CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > LEV NAVROSOV - FIRST TAIWAN, THEN THE "PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF THE WORLD". RUSS newspaper "Independent" claims that CHINA is preparing/planning to "fight a big war" agz the USA. TAIWAN ISSUE = ONLY A SYMPTIOM [amongst other] OF A LARGER IDEO-GEOPOL CONFLICT + AGENDUM??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-07-13 21:35 |
| #8 "Could they handle the swirling sort of multi-theatre naval war that their "string of pearls" Indian Ocean strategy is going to require of them?" Nope - but they'll get a lot of people killed trying. :-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-07-13 21:01 |
| #7 While you could make an argument for a relative decline in American military dominance, the 2002 Persian Gulf wargame doesn't really have a starring role in a compelling version of that argument. It was a *WAR GAME*, and furthermore, its lessons were fundamentally grand-tactical, not truly strategic. It was useful in getting planners to stop making assumptions about the indestructibility of overwhelmingly superior assets in the tight quarters of the Gulf. I'm pretty certain that those lessons have been thoroughly digested by the relevant chains-of-command, because they've been repeatedly humiliated with the very public nature of that wargame, and beaten over the head with the idiocy of the "do-over" in the press. While the Iranians and Chinese may be wargaming their own grand tactics, they are keeping it pretty close to the vest, which probably means that their own over-grown hall monitors are playing their own mirroring games without benefit of the searing scorn of public exposure of self-serving rules-mongering and handwaving. Hrm. Now I'm wondering about the capacity & capability of the Chinese general staff. They've never really run a naval war of any complexity, and haven't had a large-scale ground war to run since the border scuffle with Vietnam in the late Seventies. Just how professional, and separately, how flexible are the Chinese likely to be in a set-piece like an invasion of Taiwan? Could they handle the swirling sort of multi-theatre naval war that their "string of pearls" Indian Ocean strategy is going to require of them? |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2009-07-13 20:55 |
| #6 Lawyers are also what are strangling out economy. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-07-13 20:25 |
| #5 Lawfare is what is killing our armed forces. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-07-13 20:24 |
| #4 Too bad. Those of you on the periphery of the civilized world who love to spit on Uncle Sam get ready to enjoy licking Ivan's, Panda or Mohamed's ass. It was fun while it lasted, but let's not do it again. AMF. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-07-13 20:16 |
| #3 Don't forget a political class that is afraid to unleash full warfare on anyone. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2009-07-13 20:10 |
| #2 We also have an eagerness to bring in lawyers that might tend to erase said advantage. |
| Posted by: James 2009-07-13 19:15 |
| #1 No other 'major' power has either the NCO corps of the Americans or the willingness to push authority as low as possible as the Americans. That requires a social change that is incomparable with those in authority in other 'major' powers. That is an advantage that can not be measured in spreadsheets or equipment brochures. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-07-13 17:41 |