Heh. Off thread but I can tilt at windmills...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
An aggressor can prepare for war in few years and be ready for just a short period - this is much more efficient and affordable than to be ready all the time.
Depends on how well you want your people trained. Your solution may be more efficient but is highly unlikely to provide a particularly effective force.
Quote:
I prefer another approach to keep such aggressors at bay. I'd prefer if we kept the know-how, developed equipment that can quickly be produced in great quantity, were alert with a moderate force and budget and ready to expand quickly. Meanwhile, arms control treaties can keep costs down for everyone at conventional war crisis hot spots and alliance frontiers.This is to some degree what some European countries do, albeit they fail at preparing seriously for the expansion phase.
Among other things...
How's that keeping frontiers calm working out in the Balkans...
Quote:
The typical response to such a strategy proposal is the assertion that the world would run amok without the almighty U.S. military as policeman in the background.
Typical response from whom? Not likely to be the response of anyone on this board and certainly not from me. Need to watch those standing broad jumps at erroneous conclusions, they can lead to sprains. I would, however, note that my favorite cartoon from The Economist was the one about ten or so years ago where the little European was standing outside his house obviously on his way to work and talking to his wife as the house next door labeled Bosnia was burning and filled with carnage. He said to his wife "Ask the Americans what they intend doing about this."
Quote:
Well, that's a very questionable assumption.
I agree, yours was a questionable assumption.
Quote:
We've seen most ground combat power of the U.S. committed to a war and its other ground forces being quite occupied with other than conventional war preparations. I don't remember any country being invaded in the meantime (except Somalia by Ethiopia - which was obviously ENCOURAGED by the supposed policeman).
Okay, I agree -- what's your point?
Quote:
This suggests that almost the entire ground forces of the U.S. were not necessary to deter any aggressions at the very least during the past years.
Or it could suggest the the total Armed forces of the US were highly successful in deterring aggression worldwide. Other than in Africa; we tend to leave Africa to all you former colony owners. How you folks doing down there?
Quote:
Instead, they were used for the only major aggression in the past years.
Yep. Two 'aggressions,' Afghanistan in response to an attack on US soil and Iraq in response to many provocations over the years from the ME. Iraq wasn't totally innocent but they really just happened to be geographically central in the ME. That in response to 22 years of probes and attacks on US interests around the world from various state and non-state actors in the ME; we virtually ignored most of those to little avail, they just kept coming -- so our aggression was simply notification that we would accept no more and a belated response to extended provocations. I blame four previous Presidents for not properly responding but they did that in an effort to be nice guys. Futile effort. Little we do will ever satisfy most in the world. So yes, we got aggressive -- probably would not have had some student pilots not failed in getting to near stalls and run into buildings with their aluminum birds...
Nope, little we do will ever satisfy a good many in the world. Until they want something...
Quote:
I guess this should be debated somewhere else
True. Nothing really to debate. We can differ.
Quote:
as the French don't really seem to follow such a "prepared for everything" approach as their ground forces are not well-prepared for a major conventional war.
Not just the French, that's essentially true of all nations -- because that is the hardest and most expensive thing to prepare for ergo, it gets lip service or the minimum necessary to maintain the capacity to expand -- which is essentially what I suggested before you got all political. It's also what you suggested but you don't want to do anything else. Not sure you'll have that luxury. Apparently, the Bundeswehr isn't at all sure on that score either...
Fuel Price increase drives French navy to port
The rapid rise in fuel prices has resulted in the French navy cancelling 3 summer missions. Sacre Bleu!
Read all about it here, as well as other places, I'm sure.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...-Navy-Fuel.php
Fuchs may have a point about the cost of war (or at least as Western nations are set up to fight) becoming so excessive as to make it almost prohibitive for some to attempt it. At least unless it is an existential conflict.
France to slash military manpower by 15 percent
PARIS (AP) — France's military will slash its ranks by 54,000 personnel and close dozens of air, army and other bases in an overhaul meant to slim forces at home while making it easier and faster to deploy troops abroad, the prime minister announced Thursday.
Prime Minister Francois Fillon said the 15 percent cut in manpower and base closings will save billions of dollars but still permit an agile military suited to the country's security needs.
Like other European countries, France is grappling with aging military equipment and budget constraints while facing new threats such as terrorism.
Fillon said the military units and bases slated for closure are "ones that are no longer adapted to today's threats."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...XwUvQD924EOUG1
Maybe they either know something
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
...I really don't know why European powers degrade their forces to expedition forces voluntarily.
A collective defense based on assumptions and memories of a past time doesn't seem to be very solid.
you don't -- or they could just have opinions that differ from yours. Either way, everyone from the Albanians to even the normally and nominally neutral Swedes and Swiss and to include your own country are doing just that. So they're all wrong and you're correct?
Same thing holds true for the collective defense based on the past; while the EU bureaucracy and a couple of nations seem to agree with you on the surface, most of the rest of Europe does not...
Leadership is rarely popular will personified...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
The political dynamics even of a parliamentary democracy don't necessarily yield the correct actions. They even don't necessarily follow the people's will.
True of course, though I'd suggest the latter is probably generally a good thing; people can be unduly selfish -- and fickle.
Quote:
The German government's stance to Afghanistan is consistently against a majority of the Germans population, for example.
Which may be a case of good leadership overcoming a little selfishness...
Quote:
Back to the dynamics; the German military ops "out-of-area" (outside of NATO territory) have not benefited the nation visibly.
I don't think benefit to Germany is why you have troops in Afghanistan. It certainly is of little to no benefit to the US to have troops there or in Iraq. Maybe there's another reason? Maybe they think it's necessary for the good of Afghanistan...
Quote:
The appearance (and the speak) of our responsible politicians hints very much into the direction that they PLAY with the Bundeswehr, as an asset to use in foreign policy games just like we used money in earlier times.
I think that's why most nations have forces larger than necessary for a mobilization base in times of apparent peace.
Quote:
Inf act, our military missions overseas have degraded our national security by adding foes and have cost a lot of money and military readiness.
Isn't that a shame -- try to do good and suffer for it. We know the feeling, we hate it when that happens -- but we've gotten used to it. You probably will also. Don't lose too much sleep over the foes; we've got tons of 'em.
Quote:
And then there's the small detail that I assume to have a better general and military history knowledge than most if not all the top 20 politicians who define that policy (some of which were never in armed forces, none of them has officially studied history afaik - so they have no professional background superiority concerning this, just briefings).
Does your alleged superiority in this regard extend to all their advisers? Do those briefings tell them things you aren't privy to? Do they make decisions based on different criteria than you would use?
Quote:
France has a history of small expeditions and many befriended African nations that depend on this kind of assistance to keep their defense expenditure bearable. They have the expeditionary capability and there's no real need to expand that imho.
True, and the British have a colonial legacy to worry about and deploy for. OTOH, you'd think the Danes and the Swedes have been out of the colonial business long enough not to bother but they're into it also. And the Dutch -- the Poles; the list goes on... :D