What we support and defend

[wm]

Terrain can be a multiplier, it is true. [1] [2]

Terrain is not the only item worth considering. Plataea and Marathon were won by better tactics and command. Nothwithstanding that, generally, a force using interior lines (like the Modocs in the lava beds, the Texicans in the Alamo, or any other force undergoing a seige) may be much smaller than its opponent and still be quite effective. And interior lines need not be on a small scale. The Germans had a similar advantage when they went on the defensive during the later parts of the European portions of both world wars. (As did they in Tunisia during the last of the WWII North African campaign.)

Interior lines can also provide an offensive advantage. Much as the Germans were able to shift forces back and forth between the Eastern and Western fronts during WWI to mount successive offensives, the US is naturally disposed to be able to use interior lines to shift between Atlantic-facing and Pacific-facing operations. This potential geographical advantage might be the basis for an argument for withdrawal from forward basing and downsizing, provided, of course, that US policy makers choose to eschew the Truman doctrine and return to something more like the Monroe Doctrine. But, as noted in Entropy's post, such a move would require revisiting/rewriting many currrent treaty obligations.

[Bob's World]

A futurist advised:

"Look back twice as far as you intend to look forward": So to prepare for the next 50 years we'd be wise to look back at the past 100; for the next 100 the past 200. Most don't look into the past any deeper than the middle of the Cold War. I went to a RAND presentation of their recommendations for the future force and they stopped in the paper at the end of WWII and advised we build a force IAW what Ike faced as President in the mid-50s, at something like 3.5 % GDP. When I observed that that was a Cold War force for the threat that no longer exists, and that the emerging world looks much more like the one that existed pre-WWI than the one that existed post WWII it turns out they had run those numbers, 1.5% GDP, but apparently didn't think the customers they were courting at DoD would like them.

Lesson: Being too short sighted or ignoring inconvenient truths are both dangerous.

"Kill your own products and flee into the future" This is the advice on how Apple stays in front of technology pirates and legal rivals. They are unafraid of killing successful products and making a leap to the next thing. We too have many "successful products" such as these alliances and treaties and aircraft carriers and large standing armies, and bombers, and GCCs and rangers that now look like JSOC-lite rather than like amped up infantry, etc.

Here is our query: What must we "kill" of these dated products that served well in their time in order to "flee into the future"?

This is a scary concept, that is why there is only one Apple. Apple also always remembers their roots as they make those bold leaps forward.

We do the worst of both. We forget our roots and cling to obsolete products and concepts built for a world that no longer exists. We are no Apple when it comes to our national security.
.