SWJ Small Wars Survey 2012

[Dayuhan]

That is the origin of the problem. Despite increased military spending, the output has sharply declined. Estimates of the War on Terrorism range from three trillion dollars up to eight trillion (if we are to include annual defense budgets, homeland security expenditures, etc). In comparison, the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan cost the United States 3.5 trillion dollars (when adjusted for inflation). The inability to produce favorable outcomes in so-called "small" wars (the costs and consequences are anything but) is a clear indicator of institutional failure. The usual obsession with training quality and high-tech weapons systems dismisses the failure to properly identify threats and trends, leverage the appropriate resources, and implement an effective strategy. The military is being "stretched to capacity" because it is declining in strategic effectiveness despite the nearly asymmetric advantage in tactical capabilities. America is disarming itself because the defense economy is consuming the country's fiscal health.

Disagree on most points.

Defense is a burden on the economy, but that's not why the economy is shaky: there are much more important economic issues at hand.

The institutional failure I see is not on the part of the military, but on the part of those who repeatedly send military forces to accomplish that military force can't reasonably expected to accomplish (e.g. "nation building") and bite off commitments that we haven't the political will to complete. The military has been effective at the tasks it's trained and equipped to accomplish. It's been ineffective at tasks it's not trained and equipped to accomplish. This should not be a surprise. Using a hammer as a screwdriver is likely to be ineffective and messy, but that's not the hammer's fault.

The military can potentially train people in valuable skills in trades or services, promote education, provide widespread employment, and coalesce increasingly fractured elements of society.

True to some extent, but is it the most cost-effective way to accomplish these goals?

The current trends are not sustainable and the poor outcomes and high costs during the War on Terrorism are severely negative indicators of our declining military capabilities.

The poor outcomes and high costs in the "War on Terrorism" are to me indicators of bad policy decisions, rather than of declining military capabilities. Start with the whole ridiculous idea of a "War on Terrorism"...

I do not think it is because Americans can't "do" counter-insurgency, but that the structure in place is incapable of adapting to meet pressing national security requirements.

Is counterinsurgency necessarily a pressing national security requirement? I see no reason why it must or should be.