U.S. military decimated under Obama, only ‘marginally able’ to defend nation

scoutpilot said:
cb, thanks for an interesting discussion btw. May I ask what took you to Poland? My aunt lived in West Germany in the early 80s.
Click to expand...
Scout,

I agree. The subject is very interesting, given what is happening in Russia and the former Soviet republics today. Those of us who lived through the demise of the USSR as sentient beings are wondering if Putin’s mafia state will crash and burn as did the USSR. That’s a topic for another time.

I graduated from George Washington U in 1978 with a degree in Int’l Affairs with a concentration in the USSR and Eastern Europe. At the time, it was one of the coldest of cold war institutions. I was determined to find a situation in a fully integrated Warsaw Pact country where I would have something like a decent cultural life and freedom of movement. I wanted to see for myself exactly what these countries were like, having only visited one Eastern European country, Yugoslavia in 1976, and it was hardly “communist”.

Poland fit the bill. There wasn’t a huge Soviet military presence, but it was hemmed in by the DDR, the USSR and Czechoslovakia. It also had a Soviet modeled economy. They weren’t going anywhere. On the other hand, Poland had a number of strong ties/connections to the West. Between the Catholic Church and the huge Polish diaspora in the West, there was no innate suspicion towards Westerners, which was present throughout the rest of the communist world. I was there when John Paul II was elected pope and also when he visited in the spring of 1979.

Most important, the Polish teacher at GW told me there existed a program in Poland through which foreigners learn Polish with the goal and entering the University system. She gave me the direct telephone number to Polish Consul General who invited me in for a visit. I remember we met at about 11 AM in the reception room of the Consulate. He started off by offering me a beer!?!?!? At 11AM!?!?! Not wanting to be ungrateful, I accepted. A very pretty assistant brought in a couple of beers and a can of Pringles potato chips. He told me it would cost $750 for the academic year, including room and board, and a 1500 zloty/month stipend. Needless to say the decision was made. This was very atypical of communist countries, but just another day at the office for Poland.

I was there from Sept 1978 to June 1979, in Krakow. I had four years of Russian under my belt, a Polish roommate who spoke no English, and starting in December a girlfriend who spoke no English. Therefore, learning the language was no sweat. I toyed with staying and enrolling in the Institute of Sea Transport and Trade in Sopot up on the Baltic. I loved the ocean and sailing, so I spent quite a bit of time in Gdansk, since plane tickets cost me about $8 and trains about $5. It was very enticing, but I decided to come back to the US and get a real job. It ended up being a job with Continental Grain Co., which was one of the largest grain trading firms, by volume, selling to the USSR and Eastern Europe.

Thirty five years later, I'm still married to that girlfriend who became my wife. She and her late mother are walking talking examples as to why communism would never work in Poland and it has become, maybe next to the UK, our closest ally. She has no tolerance for BS and will not back down from any fight. If the US is to mount a stand against Putin, Poland will be integral to that effort, much as West Germany was the linch pin of our stand against the USSR.
 
Last edited:
osdad said:
While the fall of the Soviet Union is interesting, my story was, of course, allegorical. The point is that lying about the enemy's strength relative to ours is what gets the money. And least we forget it was written by the Heritage Foundation - a group not known for their unbiased positions.

And I too lived in W. Germany during the time the Wall was crumbling. I like to say that the W. German government got word that my wife was returning to the states and they were forced to open the borders to balance the loss of spending.
Click to expand...

I have a few copies of an old Pentagon annual publication called "Soviet Military Power 198x." I have the 80, 82, and 83 editions I believe. They were an exercise in exactly what you say: massive overestimation of our adversaries. You can probably find them on eBay.

Sounds like the Mrs. liked the Kudamm!
 
I may be off here but I think those smaller numbers aren't really a situation at all as the nature of us military has changed a lot. With so much better technology (carriers, etc.) nowadays it's not a game of RISK in terms of strength of military. Also going of what memberLG said, even if that were the case, it doesnt mean for national security it would be the smartest decision to beef up military. Recently though democrats and republicans alike have been trying to beefen up the Homeland Security. Democrats and Senate Republicans are in but Boehner is against it as he wants to focus on the immigration issues.
 
future_navy said:
I may be off here but I think those smaller numbers aren't really a situation at all as the nature of us military has changed a lot. With so much better technology (carriers, etc.) nowadays it's not a game of RISK in terms of strength of military. Also going of what memberLG said, even if that were the case, it doesnt mean for national security it would be the smartest decision to beef up military.
Click to expand...
Strategic position and commitment are the larger issues, in my opinion. The DoD is one of the largest, best trained, best equipped, best funded militaries in the world. It is still capable of winning pretty much any conflict (maybe not at the desired speed or casualty rate, but winning overall). The issue becomes where, when, and how we commit to using military force. It is the sledgehammer of national policy. Not every solution can be solved with a sledgehammer.

Looking at military history, dominant military powers generally fail when they overreach their capabilities (no matter how substantial), rot away through institutional neglect and foolish bureaucracy, or are stymied through enemy coalitions or creativity. These are the things to guard against.
 
^^^

In my humble opinion, the question regarding "Vietnam and the last two" was never about whether or not we could win the war--it was about whether we were willing to win it. There's a huge, inevitable paradigm shift between tactical units and Congress (and the American people, for that matter).

Just my $0.02 on a highly controversial issue...
 
wildblueyonder said:
^^^

In my humble opinion, the question regarding "Vietnam and the last two" was never about whether or not we could win the war--it was about whether we were willing to win it. There's a huge, inevitable paradigm shift between tactical units and Congress (and the American people, for that matter).

Just my $0.02 on a highly controversial issue...
Click to expand...

That line of thinking succumbs to the trap that says all we needed was to exert more power to win. There is a reason the history of mankind is littered with successful insurgencies.
 
You make a fair point, which I agree with. Certainly, raw military might is no guarantee of victory, or else our great country would not exist. I was referring more to the political climate surrounding these three wars. Retreat and attack can both be sound strategies, but indecisiveness and partial commitment are never effective on the battlefield.
 
wildblueyonder said:
You make a fair point, which I agree with. Certainly, raw military might is no guarantee of victory, or else our great country would not exist. I was referring more to the political climate surrounding these three wars. Retreat and attack can both be sound strategies, but indecisiveness and partial commitment are never effective on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

While I applaud your willingness to think about these things, I have to question your assumption. How do you think the political climate hindered us? Where were we lacking for support?
 
future_navy said:
I may be off here but I think those smaller numbers aren't really a situation at all as the nature of us military has changed a lot. With so much better technology (carriers, etc.) nowadays it's not a game of RISK in terms of strength of military. Also going of what memberLG said, even if that were the case, it doesnt mean for national security it would be the smartest decision to beef up military. Recently though democrats and republicans alike have been trying to beefen up the Homeland Security. Democrats and Senate Republicans are in but Boehner is against it as he wants to focus on the immigration issues.
Click to expand...

Though looking at the past is telling, I think future-navy's post point addressing the OP question of "The question I have is how is our ability to fight two wars and being a superpower align with our national security interest?" is an interesting one. We keep looking at conventional forces as our gauge of readiness: more troops, bigger and better bombers, fighters, armored vehicles, and warships. http://warontherocks.com/2015/01/the-irrelevance-of-traditional-warfare/ (BTW I am in no way indicating they are irrelevant ----right in our face w/ Isis right now and as a future deterrent of course. ...I hate the title of this article! but it has some interesting points)

While those are extremely important though, now our biggest threat is a cyber attack from Russia http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...igger-threat-than-isis-says-u-s-spy-chief.htm

Just one army mom, navy mom, and cyber mom's opinion-worth less than a nickle ;)
 
Last edited:
scoutpilot said:
While I applaud your willingness to think about these things, I have to question your assumption. How do you think the political climate hindered us? Where were we lacking for support?
Click to expand...

I believe that America was/is somewhat reluctant to completely commit to a full-scale war, at least under the circumstances surrounding the three you have referred to. In the 60's and 70's, especially after WWII and the Korean War, the country was divided between those who believed another war was necessary, and those who opposed continuing to send troops into a third major war in a period of less than 20 years' time. Today, there are many who believe diplomacy is the best way to solve problems in the Middle East, rather than armed conflict.

My point isn't about which one is the "better" method. I am simply claiming that if a war is in progress, the war effort (or peace effort, for that matter) will be orders of magnitude more successful if supported by a united Congress and American populace. If there is a steeply divided electorate, it seems more likely that decisions regarding the war may seesaw back and forth between the two vying factions, thus hampering both war and peace.

(Also, take my opinion for what it is worth about the Korean War and Vietnam...I wasn't alive at the time, so I am just relying on what I have learned about those wars. :cool:)
 
wildblueyonder said:
Today, there are many who believe diplomacy is the best way to solve problems in the Middle East, rather than armed conflict.
Click to expand...

There are also some who believe that both diplomacy and armed conflict are necessary.

There also some who believe that if our men, women, and treasure are being sent to an armed conflict thousands of miles from home, that the folks with the most at stake make the same commitment that is expected of us. Hence the need for diplomacy.

Middle Easterners themselves--Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Assyrians, Turks, Sunni, Shia, Christian, Jewish, Yazidi--are infinitely more threatened than are we. With so few Americans left in the region to ambush, capture, and murder, the local populations are feeling the full brunt of ISIS/Al Qaeda/Hizbollah. It is a bad metaphor, but they are now finally having their "come to Jesus moment". No more excuses. No more scapegoats.

Until the Sunni father in Fallujah understands that the enslavement of a Christian girl in Mosul is the same as the enslavement of his own daughter (apply any example to the ethnic/religious mix of the region) then our efforts in any armed conflict there is pounding sand.

If one takes the time to listen to the President's 2009 speech to the Egyptian parliament in its entirety--instead of the 10 second Fox News version--he clearly told the Muslim world that there is nothing the US can do to reform the region until individuals in the region resolve to reform it themselves.
 
Last edited:
cb7893 said:
There are also some who believe that both diplomacy and armed conflict are necessary.

There also some who believe that if our men, women, and treasure are being sent to an armed conflict thousands of miles from home, that the folks with the most at stake make the same commitment that is expected of us. Hence the need for diplomacy.

Middle Easterners themselves--Arabs, Persians, Kurds, Assyrians, Turks, Sunni, Shia, Christian, Jewish, Yazidi--are infinitely more threatened than are we. With so few Americans left in the region to ambush, capture, and murder, the local populations are feeling the full brunt of ISIS/Al Qaeda/Hizbollah. It is a bad metaphor, but they are now finally having their "come to Jesus moment". No more excuses. No more scapegoats.

Until the Sunni father in Fallujah understands that the enslavement of a Christian girl in Mosul is the same as the enslavement of his own daughter (apply any example to the ethnic/religious mix of the region) then our efforts in any armed conflict there is pounding sand.

If one takes the time to listen to the President's 2009 speech to the Egyptian parliament in its entirety--instead of the 10 second Fox News version--he clearly told the Muslim world that there is nothing the US can do to reform the region until individuals in the region resolve to reform it themselves.
Click to expand...


Scoutpilot, if this ideological conflict is what you were referring to previously, then I believe I misunderstood your point. I interpreted your post as saying that the US might be unable to defeat these three adversaries militarily. I took objection to this because I think the results of these conflicts may have had more to do with the US level of commitment than the brute strength of our military. In other words (using Afghanistan as an example), our country's armed forces are theoretically capable of shelling/bombing most Taliban strongholds into dust, albeit with a great number of civilian casualties. Obviously, this is a seriously flawed strategy for a whole host of reasons, but under the current circumstances, I believe it would be possible if not ethical or effective. A regime so formed would likely not be permanent, either--most empires created this way eventually crumble because they overreach, lose their fervor for war and battle, or collapse economically. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that we are militarily strong enough to re-oust the Taliban and reestablish a total US dictatorship in the region, if we so desired.

However, it's obviously not that easy, as you pointed out. If you were referring to our nation's (in)ability to win the ideological war raging in the region, then I agree with you and cb7893. It's impossible to rewire the minds of extremists who have been steeped in an ideological and religious culture of violence and fundamentalism since birth. That is to say (barring a significant cultural change), our military by itself, no matter how strong, would likely never be able to quell Taliban resistance and uprisings in the region any more than the Soviet Union was able to silence the voices of dissenters.

Ultimately, I believe the failures experienced in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan can be viewed in (at least) two ways: 1. failures to achieve military objectives due to a lack of total commitment, or 2. a failure to recognize the magnitude of the cultural and religious underpinnings of the situation at hand. Either way, this has more to do with strategical mistakes and social misunderstandings than it does to do with a lack of military strength.

Again, please take my opinion for what it is worth. I am not, nor do I claim to be, an expert on foreign policy; this is simply my personal viewpoint on the issue.
 
scoutpilot said:
While I applaud your willingness to think about these things, I have to question your assumption. How do you think the political climate hindered us? Where were we lacking for support?
Click to expand...

Clausewitz talked about absolute war vs real war - something like we can just fight a war on military terms, but not being able to do so due to other factors. Suppose the outcomes Korean War and Vietnam War could have been very different, if the US military attacked milityar targets in Manchuria and North Vietnam.
 
Yes, I was referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Clausewitz...often quoted, rarely read.
 
cb7893 said:
The subject is very interesting, given what is happening in Russia and the former Soviet republics today. Those of us who lived through the demise of the USSR as sentient beings are wondering if Putin’s mafia state will crash and burn as did the USSR. That’s a topic for another time.

I graduated from George Washington U in 1978 with a degree in Int’l Affairs with a concentration in the USSR and Eastern Europe. At the time, it was one of the coldest of cold war institutions. I was determined to find a situation in a fully integrated Warsaw Pact country where I would have something like a decent cultural life and freedom of movement. I wanted to see for myself exactly what these countries were like, having only visited one Eastern European country, Yugoslavia in 1976, and it was hardly “communist”.

Poland fit the bill. There wasn’t a huge Soviet military presence, but it was hemmed in by the DDR, the USSR and Czechoslovakia. It also had a Soviet modeled economy. They weren’t going anywhere. On the other hand, Poland had a number of strong ties/connections to the West. Between the Catholic Church and the huge Polish diaspora in the West, there was no innate suspicion towards Westerners, which was present throughout the rest of the communist world. I was there when John Paul II was elected pope and also when he visited in the spring of 1979.

Most important, the Polish teacher at GW told me there existed a program in Poland through which foreigners learn Polish with the goal and entering the University system. She gave me the direct telephone number to Polish Consul General who invited me in for a visit. I remember we met at about 11 AM in the reception room of the Consulate. He started off by offering me a beer!?!?!? At 11AM!?!?! Not wanting to be ungrateful, I accepted. A very pretty assistant brought in a couple of beers and a can of Pringles potato chips. He told me it would cost $750 for the academic year, including room and board, and a 1500 zloty/month stipend. Needless to say the decision was made. This was very atypical of communist countries, but just another day at the office for Poland.

I was there from Sept 1978 to June 1979, in Krakow. I had four years of Russian under my belt, a Polish roommate who spoke no English, and starting in December a girlfriend who spoke no English. Therefore, learning the language was no sweat. I toyed with staying and enrolling in the Institute of Sea Transport and Trade in Sopot up on the Baltic. I loved the ocean and sailing, so I spent quite a bit of time in Gdansk, since plane tickets cost me about $8 and trains about $5. It was very enticing, but I decided to come back to the US and get a real job. It ended up being a job with Continental Grain Co., which was one of the largest grain trading firms, by volume, selling to the USSR and Eastern Europe.

Thirty five years later, I'm still married to that girlfriend who became my wife. She and her late mother are walking talking examples as to why communism would never work in Poland and it has become, maybe next to the UK, our closest ally. She has no tolerance for BS and will not back down from any fight. If the US is to mount a stand against Putin, Poland will be integral to that effort, much as West Germany was the linch pin of our stand against the USSR.
Click to expand...

cb7893- Interesting view of your experience in Poland. I am of Polish decent and my father had all seven kids read "DEATH IN THE FOREST: THE KATYN FOREST". I would recommend it as a read if you have not yet done so. It defines the "Resiliency" of the Polish people as you already know!
 
cga82 said:
cb7893- Interesting view of your experience in Poland. I am of Polish decent and my father had all seven kids read "DEATH IN THE FOREST: THE KATYN FOREST". I would recommend it as a read if you have not yet done so. It defines the "Resiliency" of the Polish people as you already know!
Click to expand...

cga,

I haven't read the book, but I have read all about the event. I had never even heard of it until I was in Poland. Over 20,000 Polish POW's, mostly officers and reservists, shot one by one and dumped in a forrest. Everyone spoke of it and knew the truth although in 1978 the Polish history books still followed the Soviet line, blaming the massacre on the Germans. The lie was so blatant and the Soviets were so insistent as to simply be mocked and laughed at. Claiming no Russian soldiers entered Crimea or that Russian soldiers have been "vacationing" in Eastern Ukraine is old hat for Putin's crew.

The Soviets/Russians denied their culpability in the massacre until about 1990, much as they denied the existence of the Secret Protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. To this day they refer to these events in terms of the "fog of war".

Several Years back, there was a film "Katyn", directed by Andrzej Wajda, probably the most celebrated Polish filmmaker. When I was there, his films were considered the most daring in pushing the limits of censorship. There was no better choice for the filmmaker, given the fact that his own father was among the 20,000 murdered and he was just a small boy. Prior to 1990 the making of that film was impossible. Movies like that are always especially disturbing when we know the outcome. I would recommend to you, your father and anyone else interested in the WWII history on the Eastern side of the continent.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1207748-katyn/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top