What we support and defend

[carl]

Bob:

Remember when Reagan said "There you go again."? Well there you go again. I am not only un-American (still-though patriotically un-American), I am also a "Chicken hawk" and an uninformed one to boot. I will get back to you on some things but right now I have to go cry in the corner. Tell me though, when evaluating the term "Chicken hawk", should I put more emphasis on "Chicken", "hawk" or should they be given equal weight?

Done crying now and can get back to something. In your first post you said "We were forced to carry an army into the peace following WWII because we decided to implement a Containment strategy of the Soviet union (yes, decided, there were other options on the table that were far less onerous to implement)."

In your last post you said this "Name a single situation, other than the deterrence of the Soviet Union in Western Europe during the Cold War, that has demanded our possession of a large standing peacetime Army in the history of the US."

So in your first post, you said there were other, better options to the Containment strategy that required a large Army to implement. Then in your last post you say a large Army was demanded in order to deter the Soviet Union in western Europe. My chicken, no, Chicken (I forgot to capitalize Chicken) heart is gratified to see that you have come around to opening your apertures and seeing that those old guys weren't so dumb after all when figuring what to do.

Stay tuned folks, more to come.

[Bob's World]

Once the containment strategy was embarked upon, the force was necessary.

I served under President Reagan and spent '86-'88 backing his hand and prepared to defend my small section of the Fulda Gap.

I don't recall seeing you there.

Nor did I see you when I took my ODA out into the Saudi Desert to link up with the Egyptian Ranger BDE to begin creating a "Arab Coalition" to stand up to the play of Saddam to take Kuwait, nor in the subsequent land operation supporting the lead BDE of that same Arab Coalition in operations in Western Kuwait.

Nor in the Philippines or Afghanistan in support of OEF operations.

I'm staying tuned, but it appears we are on different channels.

Cheers.

[carl]

I served under President Reagan and spent '86-'88 backing his hand and prepared to defend my small section of the Fulda Gap.

I don't recall seeing you there.

Nor did I see you when I took my ODA out into the Saudi Desert to link up with the Egyptian Ranger BDE to begin creating a "Arab Coalition" to stand up to the play of Saddam to take Kuwait, nor in the subsequent land operation supporting the lead BDE of that same Arab Coalition in operations in Western Kuwait.

Nor in the Philippines or Afghanistan in support of OEF operations.

Now these are very interesting comments. They bring to mind a question that I will ask you. Here is the setup to the question. You have two American citizens. One has an outstanding military service record. The other American citizen has no military service record at all. When it comes time to vote for representatives, should the vote of the citizen with the outstanding service record count more than the vote of the citizen with no military service record at all? I think they should count equally. What do you think?

Also we have the same two citizens and they have differing ideas. Should the ideas of citizens be weighed upon the merits of the ideas, or should the ideas be weighed upon what the citizens have done in the past? I think the variant ideas should be weighed upon the merits of the ideas themselves, not the rep of those who hold them.

In Desert Storm we moved a very large force very quickly half way around the world because the civilian leaders thought that is what we should do. That was made easier because we had a large standing army already in being, I think anyway. Now that didn't demand the possession of a large standing army, but it was easier because one was around. Or maybe it did demand a large standing army if you use the word demand to mean that it could not have been done without one. I do remember reading that it was a good thing the big army from the cold war was still around.

I almost made it to Germany in 86-88. I was going to go to Octoberfest but I couldn't find anybody to go with me so I didn't go. Does that count?

[Ken White]

...we have the same two citizens and they have differing ideas. Should the ideas of citizens be weighed upon the merits of the ideas, or should the ideas be weighed upon what the citizens have done in the past? I think the variant ideas should be weighed upon the merits of the ideas themselves, not the rep of those who hold them.

I'd opt for basing the decision on the merit of the ideas. Thus, you lose. Bob's idea is to return in large measure to a formula that worked well for the US for the bulk of our 225 years. Yours, as nearly as I can ascertain, is to maintain the status quo -- a status you continually denigrate -- and / or expanding the Navy.

Personally, I think both your ideas have merit but I also think neither is in accord with political reality...

The likely outcome is a melding of both ideas with a slight tilt towards the Bob solution.

That's all an aside, I intruded due to this misperception:

In Desert Storm we moved a very large force very quickly half way around the world because the civilian leaders thought that is what we should do....I do remember reading that it was a good thing the big army from the cold war was still around.

Your recall of part of what you read is, as always, correct but your summation as occurs frequently is not. That BTW is not an insult nor is it an indication of lack of sophistication or even of ignorance, it is an indicator IMO of nothing more than a lack of experience in the mechanical aspects of fighting wars.

The bulk of the troops in DS/DS came from Europe as the to be disbanded VII Corps was moved from Germany to Saudi Arabia. It bears mentioning that the Corps was inactivated immediately after DS/DS and the large Cold War Army largely disappeared very quickly. That Army continued to disappear in smaller increments for the next nine years plus, the decline in numbers being halted only by the attacks of 9/11/01

However, your major error is "quickly" though I acknowledge that word is relative -- in the context of DS/DS, it was 'quick' only because Saddam Hussein was not very smart. Had he attacked early on and in force, even with the Iraqi Army in the sad state that it was, the outcome might have been very different. It was nice of him to allow us over six months to get deployed, train and organize for the limited objective attack . To any military guy, that six months is not quick. Picture, for example, the difference in actions during the six months from December 1941 until June 1942...

[carl]

I'd opt for basing the decision on the merit of the ideas. Thus, you lose.

Yes I do, in Ken's opinion. But "as usual, others will make up their own minds. Fortunately."

That's all an aside, I intruded due to this misperception:Your recall of part of what you read is, as always, correct but your summation as occurs frequently is not. That BTW is not an insult nor is it an indication of lack of sophistication or even of ignorance, it is an indicator IMO of nothing more than a lack of experience in the mechanical aspects of fighting wars.

The bulk of the troops in DS/DS came from Europe as the to be disbanded VII Corps was moved from Germany to Saudi Arabia. It bears mentioning that the Corps was inactivated immediately after DS/DS and the large Cold War Army largely disappeared very quickly. That Army continued to disappear in smaller increments for the next nine years plus, the decline in numbers being halted only by the attacks of 9/11/01

However, your major error is "quickly" though I acknowledge that word is relative -- in the context of DS/DS, it was 'quick' only because Saddam Hussein was not very smart. Had he attacked early on and in force, even with the Iraqi Army in the sad state that it was, the outcome might have been very different. It was nice of him to allow us over six months to get deployed, train and organize for the limited objective attack . To any military guy, that six months is not quick. Picture, for example, the difference in actions during the six months from December 1941 until June 1942...

Like you say, quickly is relative. It took a lot longer to move sufficient forces to invade Normandy to England, and that is a shorter distance. A large part of that time was taken in up in creating the forces that didn't exist. VII Corps existed. And also that big pre-existing cold war army used to practice moving as fast as it could (fast of course being reletive) from one continent to another as best it could. So having that big about to be reduced army in existence was a bit of an advantage I think.

Six months was a long time in 1942. So it was lucky we had started to build up forces well before then. Existing forces helped us a lot then just as they helped us a lot in 1991.

Saddam was kind of dopey.

I you are having trouble ascertaining my position, you should ask me.

[Ken White]

I (sic) you are having trouble ascertaining my position, you should ask me.

However, your penchant for making analogies from history that bear only a superficial resemblance to each other and then drawing conclusions for the future from those analogies sure muddies a lot of water...

Comparing Normandy to DS/DS other than that both involved the US and others and each entailed an invasion is not particularly advantageous to your position -- whatever it is.

[carl]

However, your penchant for making analogies from history that bear only a superficial resemblance to each other and then drawing conclusions for the future from those analogies sure muddies a lot of water...

Comparing Normandy to DS/DS other than that both involved the US and others and each entailed an invasion is not particularly advantageous to your position -- whatever it is.

Is there a question in there somewhere or don't you want to ask me what my position is?

Superficial resemblance to each other only if you take a superficial gander at it. Allow me to guide your gaze. See in 1942 there wasn't a well equipped fairly well trained military force available to send to England. We had started working on it but basically it didn't exist. We had to create it and equip it before we could send it to England. That took time. If there had been a big, well equipped, fairly well trained force available in 1942 we could have sent it to England a lot sooner where it might have done some good, sooner. In 1991 there was a big well equipped, fairly well trained military force available courtesy of the cold war. So we could send it to the area in only a few months and it was able to do good a lot sooner than if we had to train up and equip almost from scratch, thereby illustrating an advantage of having a large, well equipped, fairly well trained force hanging around.