A Battle Over 'the Next War'

[Hacksaw]

and organizational culture (which might be the one that hurts the most).

[John T. Fishel]

The US has fought only 5 declared interstate wars in its entire history. If you include the American Revolution, the Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm that makes a total of 10 major wars against peer competitors. Every other military action falls into the Small Wars category beginning with the Indian Wars and the Whiskey Rebellion.

One could reduce the number of BIG wars by considering the Revolution our insurgency, Vietnam as COIN, and DS as a simple police action. But even if you don't, small wars are the most likely fights and have been throughout our history. Dunlap (and Gian) are correct that we should not let a peer threat grow to the point where we will have difficulty meeting it but, historically, that has not been the problem at least since 1945. Our problem has always been one of forgetting, ignoring, refusing to recognize the small wars threat and having to learn old lessons all over again - as in deja vu!

Cheers

JohnT

[Fuchs]

The US has fought only 5 declared interstate wars in its entire history. If you include the American Revolution, the Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm that makes a total of 10 major wars against peer competitors. Every other military action falls into the Small Wars category beginning with the Indian Wars and the Whiskey Rebellion.

One could reduce the number of BIG wars by considering the Revolution our insurgency, Vietnam as COIN, and DS as a simple police action. But even if you don't, small wars are the most likely fights and have been throughout our history. Dunlap (and Gian) are correct that we should not let a peer threat grow to the point where we will have difficulty meeting it but, historically, that has not been the problem at least since 1945. Our problem has always been one of forgetting, ignoring, refusing to recognize the small wars threat and having to learn old lessons all over again - as in deja vu!

Cheers

JohnT

That's likely all true, but here's another statistic:
How many of these wars were really vital for the nation's well-being and the shaping of the international environment?
- The involvement in WW2 and possibly Vietnam.

The other wars were unnecessary.

COIN proficiency is really only necessary if you ally with weak states or intend to invade & occupy foreign nations. Both doesn't seem to be advantageous for your nation's well-being.

It's furthermore a strange assumption that no peer should be allowed to rise. Why not? That sounds more like a world domination adventure plan than reasonable policy.
The economic structure and development of the USA doesn't allow for such grandiose expectations anymore. The U.S. military expenditures aren't sustainable (real expenditures including some DHS budget and such is quite as big as the trade balance deficit and a bit larger than the federal budget deficit) and the industrial base is simply absent.

Did you look at the shipbuilding industry of the U.S. recently?
It's less than a per cent of world-wide production capacity.
Even Polish, Croatian and Danish shipbuilding industries are bigger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipbuilding

The real U.S. industrial value added is inferior to PR China's.
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....ial-power.html

It's reasonable if a power doesn't want to be inferior militarily, but that needs to be seen in context of alliances, possible arms control and conflict prevention/solution.

[Entropy]

It's furthermore a strange assumption that no peer should be allowed to rise. Why not? That sounds more like a world domination adventure plan than reasonable policy.

It's not a question of not allowing a peer to rise - it's a question of having a military force capable of defending the interests of the US and its allies.

The economic structure and development of the USA doesn't allow for such grandiose expectations anymore. The U.S. military expenditures aren't sustainable (real expenditures including some DHS budget and such is quite as big as the trade balance deficit and a bit larger than the federal budget deficit) and the industrial base is simply absent.

Not true at all. Defense expenditures are less than 4% of GDP. That's quite sustainable and the low figure is all the more impressive considering the significant military commitments the US has to defend allies around the world.

It's reasonable if a power doesn't want to be inferior militarily, but that needs to be seen in context of alliances, possible arms control and conflict prevention/solution.

Alliances are a major reason why we have a comparatively large military. The US taxpayer is essentially subsidizing the defense of several countries around the world, including some of the world's biggest economies. If the US didn't have all these commitments to defend allies, then the US could have a much smaller military.

[Fuchs]

Not true at all. Defense expenditures are less than 4% of GDP. That's quite sustainable and the low figure is all the more impressive considering the significant military commitments the US has to defend allies around the world.

It's close to 6% if not only the most obvious costs, but also Coast Guard and some other costs are counted.
The trade balance deficit and federal budget deficit are clear indicators that the current U.S. economy and state are not sustainable. There's nothing to argue about it, both is evidence - defining indicators.
The high military-related expenditures (of which only a small part can be considered as investment into economic development - all else is state consumption) can easily be identified as a probable cause.

Alliances are a major reason why we have a comparatively large military. The US taxpayer is essentially subsidizing the defense of several countries around the world, including some of the world's biggest economies. If the US didn't have all these commitments to defend allies, then the US could have a much smaller military.

Not really. It's still a free choice. Many allies have saved a lot of their military expenditures after 1990. The NATO is not a one-way alliance. The alliance members have the same obligations - but some governments/parliaments chose to keep expenditures high.

Alliances are usually understood as lowering the need for defense expenditures. To believe that the opposite is true seems to require somee kind of political brainwashing in my opinion.
I've herd this subsidizing idea before (and it is somehow true), but it's still a free choice, and nothing that could be blamed on partners. I doubt that Taiwan could force the U.S. to have more than three CVBGs, for example.
Most of the U.S. military power is in fact excess power - European forces are strong enough to protect Europe, South Korea is superior to North Korea, Australia, Taiwan and Japan can take care of themselves with their strong economies and island geography as well.
In fact I cannot think of any alliance conflict that would require any U.S. forces at this time.

[Entropy]

The trade balance deficit and federal budget deficit are clear indicators that the current U.S. economy and state are not sustainable. There's nothing to argue about it, both is evidence - defining indicators.
The high military-related expenditures (of which only a small part can be considered as investment into economic development - all else is state consumption) can easily be identified as a probable cause.

Saying that military expenditures are unsustainable is not the same thing as saying a budget deficit is unsustainable. Besides, defense spending as a percentage of total US government spending has steadily decreased since the 1950's. One might therefore argue that other federal spending/taxation is more easily identified as a "probable cause" of US deficits.

Not really. It's still a free choice. Many allies have saved a lot of their military expenditures after 1990. The NATO is not a one-way alliance. The alliance members have the same obligations - but some governments/parliaments chose to keep expenditures high.

And the US has saved a lot on military expenditures too since 1990. Look at the data yourself. (And you can find graphs of US defense spending using a variety of measures here).

Furthermore I never said NATO or any other alliance was one-way, but the relative differences in capability are pretty stark regardless. NATO has very little capability to project any kind of force beyond its borders - just look at Yugoslavia in the 1990's and that was in Europe.

Alliances are usually understood as lowering the need for defense expenditures. To believe that the opposite is true seems to require somee kind of political brainwashing in my opinion.

Alliances are not formed for the purpose of saving defense money in national budgets - at least that's how I believe alliances are usually understood. I would like to see some data or analysis that show any kind of linkage between forming an alliance and a corresponding decrease in defense expenditure to back up your assertion - I suspect the opposite is actually true in most cases.

[Entropy]

The discussion quickly drifted into by comparison pretty irrelevant details, I'm sorry for that. My attempt to point out the inferior importance of small wars wasn't understood.

There's a lot in there I agree with.

[Tom Odom]

That's likely all true, but here's another statistic:
How many of these wars were really vital for the nation's well-being and the shaping of the international environment?

The involvement in WW2 and possibly Vietnam.

That is hardly a statistic. It is very much a slanted opinion and an inaccurate one at that.

American Revolution:I would hazard that the American Revolution was vital for the nation's creation.

Civil War: The Civil War resolved a near unresolvable problem and cleared US entry into global relations

Korea: Maybe it was unnecessary to the NKs who invaded but the SKs and the US troops beside them found it necessary to fight. It is still shaping the international environment as it is still technically not over.

Vietnam: for all its tragedy and the lingering controversy surrounding it, Vietnam was very much an offshoot of the Cold War as was Korea. Europe would be a very different place had the US as part of NATO and a golbal effort fought the Cold War

Desert Storm: Again last I checked Saddam invaded Kuwait and we responded to the threat. Certainly that effort shaped the regional context and we are dealing with that shaping today.

other wars:

WWI--late entry rendered inevitable by actions at sea. Necessary? Hard to say other than in a larger "Guns of August" theme, no participant really chose to get into WWI as it turned out versus how they thought it would be. As for shaping the international environment, you have to take the bad with the good. Probably would have been no WWII if there had been no WWI.

Spanish-American: Here you might have one. The serendipidity of the USS Maine blowing up with a jingoistic press gave the US that glorious little war the US seemed to need at the time.

Tom

[John T. Fishel]

I'll join Entropy in his remarks.

I'd rather return to your initial point, that all wars of the US - save for WWII and Vietnam (possibly) - were unnecessary because they "were not vital for the nation's well being or shaping the international environment." The Revolution established the country; the Civil War ensured that it would not be half slave; th e War of 1812 protected independence from the UK, the Mexican War established the southern US boundaries and American pre-eminence in N. America - something that protected Mexico from France in 1865, the Spanish American War made the US a World power; WWI redrew the maps of the world and set the stage for WWII as well as the Cold War. The Indian Wars both subjugated indigenous peoples and protected settlers from terrorism. BTW have you been to an Indian casino recently? I call them revenge takers on the "pale faces" The Banana Wars protected a number of states in the Caribbean from the predation of such European powers as the UK and Germany (albeit at a price but America never annexed these independent states). El Salvador was, I submit, a quite necessary war and the US intervention served to not only reduce the barbarity but helped the Salvadorans on both sides to achieve a much better and healthier society. Panama, in 1989, was a Just Cause and we left the place better than we found it. So, too was Desert Storm which was a classic resistance to armed aggression.

Even if you disagree with some, most, or all of the outcomes, the results of these wars did change the structure of international society (if not the rules of the game).

Cheers

JohnT

[Fuchs]

I'll join Entropy in his remarks.

I'd rather return to your initial point, that all wars of the US - save for WWII and Vietnam (possibly) - were unnecessary because they "were not vital for the nation's well being or shaping the international environment." The Revolution established the country; the Civil War ensured that it would not be half slave; th e War of 1812 protected independence from the UK, the Mexican War established the southern US boundaries and American pre-eminence in N. America - something that protected Mexico from France in 1865, the Spanish American War made the US a World power; WWI redrew the maps of the world and set the stage for WWII as well as the Cold War. The Indian Wars both subjugated indigenous peoples and protected settlers from terrorism. BTW have you been to an Indian casino recently? I call them revenge takers on the "pale faces" The Banana Wars protected a number of states in the Caribbean from the predation of such European powers as the UK and Germany (albeit at a price but America never annexed these independent states). El Salvador was, I submit, a quite necessary war and the US intervention served to not only reduce the barbarity but helped the Salvadorans on both sides to achieve a much better and healthier society. Panama, in 1989, was a Just Cause and we left the place better than we found it. So, too was Desert Storm which was a classic resistance to armed aggression.

Even if you disagree with some, most, or all of the outcomes, the results of these wars did change the structure of international society (if not the rules of the game).

Cheers

JohnT

I usually don't consider wars of independence as wars of the nation state, so I disregarded that one.

The Civil War was probably avoidable and even if the secession had succeeded, the slavery would most likely have ended few decades later.

The 1812 war was not decisive and avoidable.

The Mexican War was not necessary unless you consider expansion necessary. The Texan settlers had serious interests, but IIRC they were not fully U.S. citizens at that time?

The Spanish American war was the definition of useless and unnecessary. The USA got some colonies that it neither wanted nor needed and defeated an empire that was already in steep decline for a century. Furthermore, the reasons for the war were rather fabrications of the U.S. press than anything else.

WWI saw no decisive influence of the U.S. and was certainly not in the interest of the U.S. - the voters wanted peace, British propagandists/lobbyists wanted an additional ally.

The Indian wars were unnecessary as wars of expansion usually are, although it's obvious that they allowed an increase in power (ask Luxembourg citizens whether national power is really that relevant for well-being).

The Banana wars not really about deflecting European influence, but about raping defenseless Latin American states for the sake of some U.S. businesses like UF.
Btw, I don't understand the reference to Germany in context of Banana Wars. There's no relation at all.

Panama was an illegal invasion that didn't really serve U.S. interests simply because it was irrelevant. The people of Panama are slightly better off now; that doesn't mean that the war was necessary or good for the well-being of the U.S. Americans.

The 1991 Gulf War prevented that the U.S. economy got off the oil drug in time, caused a huge backlash with hundreds of billions economic damage so far, several thousand U.S. deaths and will continue to trouble the USA for decades. Hussein was about to invade Saudi-Arabia in 1991 as much as he was about to build nukes in 2003.

The USA wouldn't be as large or as powerful without these wars, but its people would not be less happy or rich.

[John T. Fishel]

can certainly disagree about their being "vital to the naion's well being" but the thrust of my critique of your assertion was that these wars all changed the international order (which was the second part of your argument).

I suggest you check out the history of German expansion during the period after the Kaiser dismissed Bismarck and before August 1914. I would also suggest that you look at the Zimmerman Telegram that was broken in Room 40 and given to the US in what has to be a major coup by British intel. Note, that the authenticity of the telegram is not in doubt.

[Ken White]

No sweat, go snipe at the Amis...

I usually don't consider wars of independence as wars of the nation state, so I disregarded that one.

You don't, hundreds if not thousands of others do. Everyone's wrong but...

The Civil War was probably avoidable and even if the secession had succeeded, the slavery would most likely have ended few decades later.

Most wars could be avoided, most that occurred were not so that's sort of an unnecessary statement.

The 1812 war was not decisive and avoidable.

Decisive enough to get a Treaty establishing borders.

The Mexican War was not necessary unless you consider expansion necessary...

We apparently did.

The Spanish American war was the definition of useless and unnecessary. The USA got some colonies that it neither wanted nor needed and defeated an empire that was already in steep decline for a century. Furthermore, the reasons for the war were rather fabrications of the U.S. press than anything else.

Totally true. Shades of WW II...

WWI saw no decisive influence of the U.S. and was certainly not in the interest of the U.S. - the voters wanted peace, British propagandists/lobbyists wanted an additional ally.

True but we went anyway. We do that a lot.

The Indian wars were unnecessary as wars of expansion usually are, although it's obvious that they allowed an increase in power (ask Luxembourg citizens whether national power is really that relevant for well-being).

Do you want us to ask all 480,000 of them or will a sample work? Well being is nice -- when you let someone else do the not so nice jobs for you...

The Banana wars not really about deflecting European influence, but about raping defenseless Latin American states for the sake of some U.S. businesses like UF.

Grace, too

Btw, I don't understand the reference to Germany in context of Banana Wars. There's no relation at all.

Dig around a bit. Here's a starter for you LINK; LINK.

Panama was an illegal invasion that didn't really serve U.S. interests simply because it was irrelevant. The people of Panama are slightly better off now; that doesn't mean that the war was necessary or good for the well-being of the U.S. Americans.

More to it than that but it's irrelevant, really -- it happened; you disagree with it *. Okay. Now what?

The 1991 Gulf War prevented that the U.S. economy got off the oil drug in time, caused a huge backlash with hundreds of billions economic damage so far, several thousand U.S. deaths and will continue to trouble the USA for decades. Hussein was about to invade Saudi-Arabia in 1991 as much as he was about to build nukes in 2003.

I'd say some of that falls in the "to be determined" category but, for sure, the remark above ( * ) applies.

The USA wouldn't be as large or as powerful without these wars, but its people would not be less happy or rich.

Can you prove that supposition?

[marct]

the War of 1812 protected independence from the UK

So, John, tell me... how did a naked war of aggression against us protect your independence ? If I remember correctly, your first invasion got he snot kicked out of it in under 40 days, and the final end result was pretty much in the "loss" column.

On the other ones, I'll pretty much agree with you .

Marc

[jkm_101_fso]

and organizational culture (which might be the one that hurts the most).

The Army was the worst about this...but the AF has us beat.

[Old Eagle]

It doesn't help that the author reports on relationships he really doesn't understand. There is no absolute dichotomy between preparing for future wars and fighting the currnet one. Like it or not, we have to do both, and like commanders at every level, our senior leadership needs to decide where to accept risk.