Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[Stan]

This may have very little to do with this thread, but then, the current posts have little to do with much either

Not conjecture. Military capacity does not equal military capability - so while absolute US military capability increases with the introduction of every new weapon system (at least that's the assumption and I'll stick to that for now), it does not necessarily mean US military capacity is improving or even sustaining. By capacity, I mean the culminative capability to wage war effectively. The F-35 and F-22 programs are perfect examples. I discussed in this thread how US purchasing power for military capabilities is actually degrading US military capacity. From that thread in 2012:

Yes, I recall the posts and follow on comments. I contend that it's 80% driver and 20% vehicle and all those fancy USAF toys do not increase capacity nor capability. Even if we have some fly boys that know how to use them. I agree with you... those defense contractor toys have little to do with our effectiveness, capacity and capability. That said, I don't see the decline in our capacity and capability save the fancy aircraft.

The sequester has only intensified this problem because the cost per unit for weapon systems is increasing faster than the anticipated DoD budget, which means the absolute number of dollars (and therefore the purchaseable (sic) combat capacity) is decreasing. This has been partially offset by trimming personnel benefits but since operations and maintenance already consumes approximately 50% of the DoD budget and I think personnel takes about 10% in comparison (I'll have to double check), there's only so much that can be cut. And there's the added problem of increasing, not decreasing, security commitments.

All that tells me is Obama finally got rid of those defense contractors and flying tub toys. Here's the link and text similar to ....

The other problem is that in recent history the US has not been able to effectively tie together political aims with military means - so while it's awesome to have a handful of high powered combat systems, we don't know how to employ them in a way to achieve our political ends. We can debate if this is a political problem or military one but since some weapon systems now take upwards of 40 years to develop and field, I lean towards our inability to properly forecast threats and to synchronize long-term strategy with military development.

I love this part having served 23 years in Sierra holes.

Give me one example of when the military was effectively used to meet political aims.

You seem keen on military systems. I seem stuck on corrupt defense contractors with politicians feeding the frenzy. I guess we call it even !

Are the Russians better? Depends on the metrics. If we compare conflict outcomes between 1991 - 2014, the Russians have won 7 of 11 conflicts (63.6%) with 2 on-going, and only one defeat (First Chechen War). In the same time period, the US fought in 8 conflicts with 5 clear victories (62.5%), one on-going and at least won I would argue is a defeat (Iraq). The on-going conflicts for Russia are Caucaus insurgency and eastern Ukraine insurgency, while the US conflict is Afghanistan. We know how Afghanistan is going to end, so it appears that in the near future, Russia will keep the better track record in conflict outcomes.

Between you and outlaw, the Russkies won the war already. Metrics ? That's how we measure success these days