Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
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.
That wasn't hindsight on my part or that of others. I and others have been railing against this kind of stupidity for over 40 years. The problem is that it requires political testicular fortitude and military eschewal of parochialism -- both items in short supply in the US. Thus my comment that your generation could change it; mine got swamped by the Baby Boomers who knew everything...
...if we did have 10k elites...
Don't need elites, just very competent forces -- easily attained by cutting force structure, moving most heavy stuff into the RC and increasing the training budget by some reprogramming.
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.
I'm not at all sure we didn't have it -- I do know we did not act on what we did have due to lack of political will.
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.
That's why a bunch of us in the 70s and 80s got gray hair. The heirarchy wanted nothing more than to do business as usual -- as apparently do you. The object is to NOT have to establish security...
Our only national security problems, and our only future small wars are by no means guaranteed to result from mistakes in our foreign policy.
No, only 90% or so...
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.
No it would not. Nor can you show me a reason for us to stabilize them other than we've always done it that way. Our neglect of South America in spite of the Good Neighbor policy and half a dozen later clones has aided in the creation of all the problems you mention. Crass stupidity on our part. I understand what's done cannot be undone but I'm not all sure we would need to interfere. In fact, I'm sure that we should not. Why not just aid them in solving their problems without sticking our over sized nose into it and trying to tell them how WE thing they should run THEIR country...
Moreover, unless Brazil steps up, which I believe is quite unlikely...
Probably unlikely for Mexico but not so for Venezuala -- they don't want stupid on their northern flank.
...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.
Define response. I agree with the word but suspect we'd disagree on the merits and execution. Putting a slew of Gringos in Mexico would be the best way in the world to get them to stop squabbling, unite and turn en masse on Los Nortenos (not the Nuestra Familia kind, the Yanqui Blanco variant).
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.
You keep using the word elite. I have not. Better selected and trained forces than current structure with specific equipment that we have known we've needed since the mid 70s but have not developed to the point of public acknowledgment of existence purposely to preclude the use, certainly; elite? No. The Army was purposely dumbed down in doctrine, training and skills in the 70s and 80s in an attempt to influence national policy; it was fairly successful in some respects but as Afghanistan and Iraq show, not completely successful. Blowback is a beach... [quote]To list just a few: a Chinese incursion into certain islands in the Pacific...[quote]Surely you aren't suggesting fighting China (or India) on a man to man basis. That's not a ground force effort. Never has been and is unlikely to be one in your lifetime. Or certainly should be.
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.
Having been to through or near all those, I don't see the problems you see. I'd also suggest that introduction of US forces into most of those area would almost certainly create more problems than it solved...

Why not put as much effort into preempting problems in all those places as it would take to execute your proposed solution in any one?
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.
I don't think you are willing to be convinced, you want to do things the same way we've been doing it. I suppose you'll get your way because it is easier than doing the hard stuff -- until you actually have to do it, then it costs you, big time -- and is highly unlikely to produce the result you desire (see Afghanistan and Iraq as well as half dozen other places I could name). There's that elite thing again -- not my word; yours. You do not have to be 'elite' to be competent.

The object should be to preclude it being battle space but if it must be that, not to secure it but to control and dominate it.