August 1st, 2012 09:45 PM
Tell that to the families of those who have sacrificed their lives in the service of the UNITED STATES.
Last edited by Secret Spuk; August 2nd, 2012 at 06:43 AM.
August 2nd, 2012 12:57 AM
The author of that article fails to see the big picture. Does he seriously think that a military display in Cleveland, a city barely in the top 50 largest in the US, represents what our military is capable of? Then proceeding to declare "we lost" in Somalia and Lebanon, when we were never there to "win" in the first place, shows a sophomoric understanding of how and why our Marines have been deployed.
In spite of party politics, overall our military is smarter then it has ever been about adapting to the current and emerging threats in the world. We were slow to shift from Cold War thinking to "asymmetric" warfare, but in the decade-plus since 9/11/01 we've made huge adjustments and continue to adjust. We are currently preparing to deal with the increasing threats in the Pacific region (think North Korea and China), simultaneous insurgencies in Africa and the Middle East, and political unrest (= unsteady NATO partners) in Europe. One need not be plugged into the deepest recesses of the Pentagon to find this information, either... we are pretty open about our strategies for strategic reasons.
NRA Endowment Member
August 2nd, 2012 07:11 AM
That is pretty much an understatement... I have been amazed at what comes out of the mouths of the so called "military experts" on TV over the past 20+ years. Sometimes I wonder what they teach in our military war colleges.
Originally Posted by suntzu
EOD - Initial success or total failure
August 2nd, 2012 07:36 AM
I totally agree our military is very well prepared...my question is what for? Why do we need a miitary this large? To deal with threats from insurgencies in Africa and Middle East? What African Nation is a a threat to the US? We should not be involved in insurgencies. If we were and we are ready to deal with them why are we not in Syria. Or why were we not in Libya? Because we should not be involved. Political unrest with NATO partners? What does that mean? They form an alliance to attack the US?
Originally Posted by gasmitty
How is N. Korea a threat to the US? Because they have a nuclear weapon? Big doo doo. Are we suppose to be the only ones with a bomb. Who has N. Korea attacked since the Korean War? How many people have we attacked? Who is a threat to who?
China? Do you honestly think we will go toe to toe with China?
And finally, the oath that folks take is:
Let us start with defending the Constitution. Somebody tell me what country out there is trashing our Constitution that we need to defend against. What country has the ability to affect our freedoms? What country has the ability to invade the US and actually take over our country?
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
As far as the argument that we need to protect our strategic interest (such as oil)..well, that oil is not ours.
The bottom line is our military is formidable. But we end up looking for fights, not ones that find us. And that IMO makes us wrong.
August 2nd, 2012 08:13 AM
Thank you for saying that. I had to walk away from my computer yesterday after reading this to avoid jeopardizing my membership here.
Originally Posted by glockman10mm
'Clinging to my guns and religion
August 2nd, 2012 08:56 AM
The author of that article is an idiot.
Originally Posted by suntzu
No flame from me. I say it is past time to clean up our own litter box and stop worrying about worrying about everyone else's. Our military needs to remain the formidable force that it is and should be allowed to do what it is designed to when necessary. We shouldn't be the world's police. It is not our responsibility.
August 2nd, 2012 08:58 AM
I thought McNamara was dead. Who the heck dug up his pencil-necked corpse?
The same technocrat kind of thinking brought us an F-4 without a gun (guns are obsolete now that we've got missiles), the M-16 before it was ready (big bullets are obsolete now that we've got hypervelocity), Aluminum armored Bradleys in urban combat against IEDs (heavy armor is obsolete now that we've got speed), and the idea that 180 F-22s could take on 2,000 MiGs (numbers are obsolete now that we've got stealth).
Tech and agility has its place. Old fashioned brute force (technologically enhanced) is still needed. We can have all the Zuckerman's in the world fighting off the hordes, but you'll still need a Marine to guard the door to their cubicle... I'll be making sure the bar stays commie-free so the Marine can have a place to drink.
August 2nd, 2012 09:22 AM
Yeah..? Say that to a member of the IDF Karakal Battalion. Say it to any female in our armed forces.
Another sign is the push to open all positions in the military to women. The Army recently decided to allow women to serve in some jobs in infantry battalions, though not the infantry itself—yet. The Marine Corps now lets women attend Infantry Officers School, even though there are no infantry billets for them when they graduate—yet. No state that took its military seriously as a fighting force, as opposed to an “equal opportunity” jobs program, would put women in combat units. Not only does their presence damage unit cohesion, which is vital for military effectiveness, but in combat the men will abandon the mission to protect the women. Of course, if the armed forces are really just for putting on displays, why not have women?
Aside from that, in many ways he's correct. Not right, but correct. We do have a very specialized military nowadays. We've got drones, we've got robots, and we've got special ops. And yes we got good ol' grunts, too.
But, if we went to war with China? A real in-the-mud ground war, with air and naval support.... And we did it alone with no help from say the French (a given, oui?), or the Germans, or the Brits... And if they (the Chinese) were joined by some middle eastern countries (just be good for 'em to fight against the great satan with the only chance to win, really WIN; being to join forces with the commies) how well do you think we would fare?
I do have the utmost respect and gratitude for our military. I don't think we have enough of them to really protect us. That concerns me.
I do know that the American people would, if our sovereign soil was attacked, join up en masse, and take it to 'em.... oh wait, we were attacked, on our sovereign soil, and yeah some good brave young men and some women signed on... and.... well... I guess it was Mission Accomplished somewhere in there... or was it?
And recently we talked here on DC about the book One Second After and in that book, it took about a year before the US armed forces got to some folks on the East coast to try to bring some order back... and we lost the West coast to the Chinese who came to "help" after the event.. and nobody knew who launched the attack.
And folks, that ain't the half of it... Just look how well we've fared in the real money WAR... we're losing...
and with the drought that is upon us... You think these are hard economic times... whooo boy, corn is $8.50 a bushel TODAY. Two years ago, I was burning corn for supplementary heat at $3.50 a Bu. Farmers right now are chopping down whole crops (THOUSANDS of acres at what should be 200+ Bu/acre corn) of failed corn to feed it as silage to their cattle (there ain't no pasture left either in this shriveling heat)... and they plan on feeding those choppings to their herds through summer of next year because the drought, if it ended today, would not restore the grasslands until next spring.
But I digress...
We are at risk.
It could be worse!
August 2nd, 2012 09:23 AM
Wouldn't it be great if this were true.
Our splendid military is all for show
That we had the rest of the world so out numbered and out gunned that they all would just do as we ask out of fear and admiration. Kind of like it used to be back in the '80s.
I know it wasn't perfecct then, but it was a LOT better than today.
LEARN something today so you can TEACH something tomorrow.
Dominus Vobiscum <))>( Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?" T.S. Elliot
August 2nd, 2012 10:28 AM
0-4? Really? Iraq, even though controversial, always seemed like a victory to me. I mean seriously, George Bush told Saddam and his sons to get out of the country or else. Now they're all dead. Then we left when we felt like it. It is obviously more complicated than that, but aren't people voting in elections over there now?
Or Afghanistan - even though soldiers and Marines have been fighting with one arm tied behind their backs for years, Al Qaeda was essentially dismantled (like someone previously mentioned, it took like six months) and there haven't been any major terrorist attacks since 9/11. I agree that it seems like time to go, but it just bothers me that some punk journalist is tallying up losses.
How are these military losses? Am I missing something here?
August 2nd, 2012 11:11 AM
Wow, some stupid things he just had to write. Did he think about our greatest threat which is China? If we were invaded right now at this very moment, it would be a long drawn out war, but we would win it, even with China lobbing it's outdated unstable nukes at us and swarming us like mice running from a flood (just like in Korea, where single squads were able to wipe out one platoon after the next and hold positions for weeks.) Now if we got rid of our armed forces and kept only the engineers required to operate the missile sites, then what's to stop China's 2 billion soldiers, even without enough guns for all of them (hahahahahaha!) from just walking into our homes and deciding to live here? It would just be a mass exodus. And then they'd have our nukes, our delivery systems, our homes, our resources and our women to abuse. Wow, bravo! That's what happens when you let Jack Daniels write for you.
August 2nd, 2012 11:29 AM
I don't look at Vietnam like a loss. If you look at the facts, you'll see what I do. We deforested almost the entire peninsula, destroyed almost all their natural resources, destroyed the fragile feudal economy they relied on, killed millions of Communists, destroyed god knows how many MiGs, cost the Chinese and Soviets BILLIONS since they had to train, supply and supervise the vietcong, vietminh, pol-pot...ulitmately, the Soviets had to invade Afghanistan, which they effectively lost, just to try and make up for some of what we cost them. Vietnam was a major factor in collapsing the Soviet Union. We left when we felt like leaving. Communist forces took advantage of that and decided to storm the capitol, KNOWING that they could rely on the liberals to say we were forced out of Vietnam. I'll chalk that as a win. So what if a few hippies cried and put flowers into the guardmens muzzles? If they don't like it, they're free to leave. AND THEY'RE STILL HERE. We won.
Originally Posted by suntzu
I have a brother in Afghanistan, he loves his job and will probably continue to do so. Let's not take away from what he and all our soldiers and Marines doing. Remember, if we don't fight them there, we have to fight them here. Clinton was too busy getting blown in the oval office and as a result we were attacked.
August 2nd, 2012 11:38 AM
What about the losses in lives after those 6 months in Afghanistans that were lost needlessly? (BTW:that was me that mentioned it). What about the losses of lives in Iraq from DAY ONE which were lost needlessly. What about the fact that Iraq was a stable country that was no threat to the US and now it has the possibility of turning into a breeding ground for terrorsits. What about the fact we did not have to be attacked again by Al Queda...they already did the damage they intended. They have us scared of our shadows, had us ruin our economy (granted there were other factors involved), had us pass idiotic legislation like the patriot Act. I would call that a loss.
Originally Posted by Cold Shot
Yes, you are missing something.
August 2nd, 2012 11:50 AM
National Command Authority losses. Not military losses.
Originally Posted by suntzu
To be sure, we screwed up Iraq by the numbers, but it was the pure drive of the "splended showboat" that turned that around (and a lot because of the creative efforts of the Marines he derides in creating the "awakening"). We pooched Afghanistan also, especially when we gave up the opportunity on 1 May to pull an Alexander, declare victory, and leave that hellhole to itself. And we definitely failed by our attempts to make both wars not true wars - no declaration of war which led to no buy-in by the populace - and then pay for the whole thing on credit instead of instituting a war tax. That war tax would've both helped pay for the endeavors and made them shorter, because there is only one thing that pasty-faced liberals and pasty-faced conservatives have in common: they don't like paying for anything.
BTW, I scoff the stability of prewar Iraq, but that's another argument.
August 2nd, 2012 12:21 PM
I'm not one to argue with Airborne, but I have to point out that a stable country doesn't systematically kidnap, torture and murder average citizens to instill fear in the public. And it also does not gas its own citizens to put down protest of the said kidnapping, torture and murder...a stable country also has no need to invade a neighbor for its resources so it can sell the oil and use the money to acquire stolen nuclear weapons. And those who lead these "stable" countries have no need to hide in mommy's back yard.
Originally Posted by suntzu
Search tags for this page
guns rid of our armed forces
military just for show
why let women in the infantry
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors