Agree with the thrust of this:
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_7_03_07.htm
Printable View
Agree with the thrust of this:
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_7_03_07.htm
I agree, too.
But he scratches on the surface. The IDF could have done more if it just had pressed for it. My infos on that war are not comprehensive, but it's quite obvious that more ruthless orders would have yielded more success at higher costs.
The same lessons learned as Lind mentions for the Second Lebanon War were already learned in the aftermath of the Kosovo Air War, albeit limited ti air warfare.
RMA will probably work well in open terrain (like the Russian plains and Arabian deserts) and such an approach might help to control the open terrain between closed terrains, but overall technology is just a tool and not war itself.
The technology-centric approach would have ran into other serious and predictable problems anyway in the near future imho: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=3331
edit: I'll remember this one
This will surely be a nice quote on many occasions.Quote:
Army's Future Contract System
Seems to me that the biggest result of transformation is the shortage of boots on the ground. Even the revised plans of this administration to grow the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by 27,000 will not be enough for future needs in the Long War.
What you do with them and what they are trained for are just as important.Quote:
Seems to me that the biggest result of transformation is the shortage of boots on the ground.
Having talked to some people who were in the 1st US wave I think there was a huge gulf between what they were trained to do and what they were asked to do.
See Gunner Palace for more examples of what I mean........
Well, to date are about 160,000 official U.S. troops in Iraq afaik.
About the same quantity up to twice as much is occupied with preparing for redeployment to Iraq and not training much for conventional warfare.
So most of the army can be deployed into an unnecessary conflict. Meanwhile, the world does not fall apart. China did not invade Taiwan, Russia not Eastern European nations and North Korea did not attack South Korea.
Most important: No nation invaded the USA (just immigrants that slip by the still tiny border patrol).
Imagine the Iraq was not invaded in 2003 ... all those troops occupied by the Iraq confllict would have been unnecessary int hat scenario.
Well, I consider this situation as proof that the U.S. Army/USMC are rather too large and have too much funds.
Sorry for deviation from the topic, someone regretting lack of boots on the ground triggered this reflex of mine...
I quite agree that the utilization of troops is also a critical factor. The lack of planning for the post combat phase in Iraq was inexcusable. Certainly there have been many lessons learned since 2003. Plus the change in SecDef and top DoD leadership and specifically putting Gen. Petraeus in charge gives me hope of having a real chance in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by FascistLibertarian
Lastdingo:
You might find this article interesting.
The Right-Sized Army
I regret, the article claims some things but does not argue why it would be like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Jefferson
In fact, the ground forces may lack the numbers (among other factors) to succeed in Iraq, but as long as someone can agree with me that Iraq was a bad decision anyway (and the capability to repeat such a bad decision in the next years is not wanted), it should be clear that the present force is at least as much as (likely much more than) durrently necessary for the other purposes. That's proven by the present situation in the world.
Now it's of course possible to argue whether it's desirable to dimension the U.S. forces to be able to invade other countries at will - but I don't believe that such an aim would withstand a democratic choice.
Furthermore it's possible that future challenges - different to present ones - would require additional troops. But I doubt that 100,000 or 200,000 troops would make much of a difference in a land-centric conflict with the PR China.
Taiwan's able to defend itself - and it would be rather cheap and simple to power its army up for self-defense.
I simply fail to see any possible conflict with non-nuclear powers that could require more troops than presently available.
Maybe if China would invade South Korea. But in that case, it would be much more simple to just embargo China and sustain three years of economic crisis while China collapses instead of spending hundreds of billions US-$ more on the military (not on "defense") each year.
Did you ever put the budget of the DoD in perspective to the U.S. budget deficit or the U.S. trade deficit (services & goods balance)?
Current account balance: -$862.3 billion (2006 est.)
(that account balance deficit is much larger than DoD budget)
Budget:
revenues: $2.409 trillion
expenditures: $2.66 trillion; including capital expenditures of $NA (2006 est.)
(that's a budget deficit about half as large as the DoD budget IIRC).
source: CIA World Factbook (online)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html
The costs are terrible, but it's rare that economists write on desirable military sizes - that's more often done by hard-core right-wing falcons and people who center their attention on what happens long after the money was taken away from the taxpayer.
An economist would point out that the economy is unsustainable and crisis predictable. He'd point out that the predictable huge crisis will hurt the allies/friends and result in the inability to sustain the military capabilities. He would point out that national interest is primarily domestic in nature and that the factors that drive the USA into the crisis are still influenceable.
Back to RMA ... RMA-like warfare as hoped by some for 2015 is not affordable with the present procurement system and military-industrial complex - even if feasible in other than flat and unrestricted desert terrain.