Deficit, Budget, and War

[Abu Suleyman]

Both Afghanistan and the Middle East needed military attention, that was IMO a strategic necessity. Neither mission as actually performed was IMO strategically desirable in virtually any respect.

I agree. It seems like not only the US but most countries have a real problem assessing their ideal outcome and the best tools to accomplish that, beforehand. Hindsight is nice, but not useful.

In the first place we didn't have 10K SF. In the second, why would you want to do that? Foment a rebellion and you have no idea how that might end.

I understand, knew that. This example was chosen as one of many possible COA's if we did have 10k elites, which admittedly was not the ideal one either.

We should have in Afghanistan have known the location of all AQ assets and simply have gone in an destroyed them and left.

And there is the rub. If we at any point had that good of intelligence, I highly doubt there would have been a 9/11. Even if there were, we would surely have had no need to dislodge the Taliban, we could've just sent in the Rangers to gather up OBL. Even better we could've just parked an AC-130 over the area and fired up everything that moved. But the catch is not only did we never have intel like that about UBL and AQ, but we have never had it about anyone, anywhere, ever. I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that we don't even know where every single one of our own forces are.

The more salient fact that four Presidents over the period 1979-2001 failed to properly respond to a series of provocations and probes from the Middle East which almost certainly led us to 2001 and later should not be forgotten...I totally agree. Very much so. I'd also suggest that employing a sledgehammer in building is not a common thing for a good reason.

{SNIP}

Building things take time and preparation, it helps to use the right tools -- and those are intelligence, diplomacy and properly applied foreign aid plus a little very low key police and / or military assistance -- with emphasis on the low key. Once you expand the military presence, you're creating targets (everyone loves to snipe at the 800 pound Gorilla); you're usually creating a need for further commitment and you are undertaking an effort that will almost certainly be time consuming, expensive in many terms and with an uncertain end state almost guaranteed.

So I again ask -- why would you do that mindlessly without even investigating other options?

I agree as well, and perhaps poverty will suit us well. We seemed to make much better choices as a nation in our direst circumstances. And while the military is a sledgehammer, there is no better tool for establishing security. Security is, after all the first priority of work, and without it, as we have learned in Iraq, all efforts are fruitless.

I would like to steer away from IZ/AF for a moment, because I hope that if we are bankrupted, it happens well after our departure from both of those countries, and the instability, at least as it stands, was an avoidable mess of our own making. However, messes have a way of making themselves, and they too will require sledgehammers to clean up. Our only national security problems, and our only future small wars are by no means guaranteed to result from mistakes in our foreign policy.

Imagine a collapsed Mexico, or Venezuela, or Haiti, which shouldn't be too hard, and all would be too close to ignore. A small and elite force would not be able to do anything to stabilize those countries, no matter how good they are. Moreover, unless Brazil steps up, which I believe is quite unlikely, the only people who currently have a hope of responding in any meaningful way is the US. We could find ourselves stuck in a position where we cannot afford to do nothing, and we cannot afford to do anything.

Believe me, I am all for more elite forces, especially as a percentage of total troop structure. I just do not believe that we could effectively defend the nation from many potential and legitimate threats with fewer troops than we have now. To list just a few: a Chinese incursion into certain islands in the Pacific, a collapsed Latin American country, a militarily viable state in Central Asia (more of an indirect threat I suppose), a hostile state at critical Seaways (e.g. Panama Canal, Suez, Straights of Magellan, Straights of Malacca). All of these areas would require as many troops as we have or at least enough troops that we would be hard pressed to carry out other critical missions.

Again, I am willing to be convinced, but I would have to see hard evidence that an elite soldier can secure the same battle space as a greater number of not so elite soldiers.