The real question then becomes: is the plan necessarily bad? To get the obvious out of the way, there will be no impact on funding for the war, if anything we'll be sinking more into the abyss that most call Afghanistan and there are no signs of a 14 month withdrawal in Iraq. So in the short term no one can say that Gates/Obama (Gaoma) plan will hurt our current operational committments. What I'm worried about are long term implications.
What's important to note about Gaoma's plan is that it shifts the operational focus of the military to COIN ops and low scale conflict operations. The programs that might get axed are not only those that Gates says are bloated or inefficient but those that are centered around large scale conventional war. Gaoma have staked their bets that the age of nation-state wars passed with last century and that the low intensity conflict is going to be the problem of the future.
A lesser analyst would focus on raising a political battle cry that this is the problem, "we're losing against China/Russia, China is the lurking enemy." These concerns are certainly true and valid, but what I'm more worried about is what this President and future Presidents will do with a military that becomes increasingly built on low scale conflicts/operations. If they think they have a military that is built to handle these problems than I feel like they'll be more willing to use it and deploy us into more conflicts. The real concern than becomes whether or not the Military will be used for our security, or the moral maxims of whatever teleprompter chained dupe the short sighted masses elect next (even worse....whatever problems the UN drags us into).
In addition, we've already seen the costs of COIN focused militaries in their confrontation with large well armed conventional forces; they get obliterated (see the latest Georgian conflict). If the conventional force has the political will to disregard concern for civilian safety than no low-intensity military can stand up to it. Sure, the age of Western Nation States using their militaries in such a fashion is over, but we've seen no sign this is true from Russia or China (thinking of the brutal repression over the last year of Tibet). With a long term change in direction we are subordinating our military initiative to them while simultaneously potentially dragging ourselves into numerous humanitarian messes across the globe.
This will be the eclipse of the American Epoch.
I guess I don't have the same worry you do altogether. I think our conventional forces are so far ahead of either Russia or China, and more importantly, our ability to project those forces anywhere in the world is still far in advance of those nations, or anyone else. I think Obama will have to do a lot of damage to our conventional forces before we are affected to the extent that they can threaten us. The question is Will, which you do discuss. Russia has shown it has the Will to use its military in its traditional sphere of influence, but I don't think it can or will use it anywhere else, at least for the duration of the Obama administration. I don't think China has the will or capability either. I think a nation of single-child families which China, and to a lesser extent Russia, is, is loathe to spend lives. If not for George Bush's own willpower, Will would have cost us in Iraq too, in spite of our magnificent military capabilities, where the Islamic fundamentalists, of whatever stripe, had every bit as much will as We (We being the Nation, not our military) did if not more.
ReplyDeleteI think it's correct to regard unconventional warfare as the most likely threat we face, though we need to be fully prepared to fight a conventional war. We'll see what happens I guess. Keep a wary eye on Obama!
And then of course there is the BIG question of Will when it comes to Obama. What use is a big military if everyone knows you won't use it (cf. N. Korea/Missile Launch) which could be its own Post Topic.
Nice link! We've got to be all about linking so that we can develop good arguments backed up by facts, or something.
ReplyDeleteLets get real here. The only part of cutting the defense budget that we have to worry about is the Marine Corps. As long as there are Devil Dogs, we'll win.
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe in a unconventional war, we'll need 'em. If we don't care about casualties, the Air Force is all we need to win a conventional war.
ReplyDeleteBut, getting to one of Sean's points that I didn't address: I agree that the odds are high we'll have troops put into useless shitholes to do do-gooder things that don't benefit us at all. And we won't be thanked for it. See Bosnia, but messier.
Marines like casualties too...Anyway, I don't think cutting down on conventional forces would be too much of a mistake.
ReplyDeleteLike father Robinson said, our conventional forces are far more advanced than Russia and China. You could say its just a gut feeling, but I don't think the superpowers would go to a full out war. It hasn't really happened since WWII. Korea was a little, but from there it has become more micro sized with each passing decade. If it did come to a full scale war, the world would be dessimated and 100 years of modernization could be wiped out. I'm pretty sure both sides would want to win and in that case the fire power would have to be escalated to full strength(nukes). It would come to a point where neither side would play by the friendly rules. Killing and winning with the most efficientcy would be paramount. Nothing but death and chaos. Cats and dogs living together! I just don't see anyone allowing that. There would have to be some type of diplomacy.
Our government officials need to treat our budget like a business(so far they get an F grade). But if they are going to cut DOD expenses, then we need to look at the clear and PRESENT danger. We should probably look at fighting these Afghanistan and Iraq wars for our spending. Our nukes are still going to be chillin. They aren't going no where.
The purpose of the currently developing militaries by Russian and China is not meant to be in all out world war, they don't seek to force project beyond their self defined spheres of influence but to deny us the ability to intervene within them. The farther we lag behind and the more sophisticated they become relative to our forces, the less likely that successive US governments will be able assert themselves against them.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_topline/
Keep in mind that the PLA budget has increased by leaps and bounds (even by released figures) to around 140 billion (ours is 540 billion). This budget has showed no signs of plateauing. When the sole focus of their budget is to interdict US forces entering its AOR while ours is being dispersed to focus on insurgents and terrorists our margin of "military superiority" decreases. I don't argue that right now they have a chance (although I more pessimistic than some), China is no longer the big ungainly human wave military of the past. It total numbers are decreasing as its spending is increasing. They're seeking to be a fully modern and equipped force for the future. At the point we wreck our Future Combat Systems and diminish key conventional programs in the midst of a rising giant.
Write more later, have to finish this stupid paper on the EU....Can you hyperlink in comments?