"America Unprepared for Cold War 2" Topic

The "we invaded Libya for the oil" theory is silly, after you realise that the major U.S. and European oil companies had just signed profitable contracts to exploit Libyan oil two months before the Revolution started. The oil companies would have much prefered doing business with the Colonel than dealing with the post-revolution uncertainty.

Are you trying to be ironic Altius? My first biblical passage is very apposite, or is your exegetical knowledge as scripted as your politics?

Mako, don't remember there was much oil in Kosovo or Afghanistan either.

Or, Iraq for that matter (at least that we ended up with).

SP, true, liberal Western civilisations seem to be at a turning point, just what do they stand for? More importantly, will they fight for it against countries who fight for more 'traditional' values. Will we go to the barricades for gay marriage? Because the other side will sure as hell fight for their ideals.

Crucial to the Crimean 'invasion' is the concept of nationhood, the fist-bumping denizens of the White House seem to be shocked at Putin's unilateral actions, to further Russia's national interests, a concept that seems alien to them.

Bible code, snort!

Matthew 7:3

'And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.'

As I said quite apposite, given Altius's disingenuous attempt to further his knowledge about knuckle dragging Conservatives.

ThomasHobbes -

"Currently USN, USAR, USAF and CIA all have their own special forces which duplicate and even triplicate functions." Do you mean US ARMY ? As USAR is US ARMY RESERVE ? And Yes, there are USAR Spec Op units, and they train and at times operate along side US ARMY Spec Ops units … They essentially have all the same training, missions, etc. … You left out US ARMY Special Forces and DELTA Force. When I was going thru the US ARMY INFANTRY OFFICER BASIC COURSE. Reserve and National Guard Officers went thru all the same training as we did along with us Regular Army types. The only way you could tell the difference is by the unit patch on the shoulder of our uniforms. And All US Spec Ops unit come under US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) … All US Spec Op types train and operate together. The needs of each Branches' Spec Ops units are a bit different. So hence why each have their own units. Albeit, many can do similar missions at times. The US ARMY SF has Scuba Qualified members too just like the NAVY SEALs. As some USAF Spec Op types are scuba qualified and some USMC. All go thru the same Parachute School at Ft. Benning, GA including the CIA at times … As well as US ARMY RANGER School … No I think, your comments,

"Another thing that needs to be consolidated is special forces."

"Currently USN, USAR, USAF and CIA all have their own special forces which duplicate and even triplicate functions." … are invalid … You can never have too many Spec Ops type, especially in today's current conflicts … And they operate together regardless, under SOCOM …

Intervention in eastern Europe bothers me in that I don't see any Ukrainians rushing to the Crimea to defend it or take it back. How many Ukrainians died in the take over? a dozen? Less? I don't have a problem helping someone, but what have they done to help themselves? Frankly, do they deserve our service people dying for them?

I guess they don't want to be Georgia II, they have admirably shown restraint, but that's all they can do. The West is not riding to their aid, their neighbours are fearfully looking eastward and they gave up their nuclear deterrent.

This last point is one of the most dangerous outcomes, in my mind. Once again it seems to suggest that security can only be guaranteed with nuclear weapons, a lesson not being missed in the ME. The old alliances are crumbling, lets face it, if Russian made a play for another chunk of her former territories, would the West really intervene and risk the dislocation to the standard of living, the majority of her citizens have enjoyed for 40+ years?

Fantasies about unlimited military might is well and good, but the proles aren't that keen to have their countries sold away from under them to fund it.

When my buddy left the airforce, he was the only person in his database/programming office who actually wore a uniform. He was also the only one being paid anything resembling a working class wage.

The military in the United States is a massive funnel of public money into private pockets and like any other racket, it cannot go on eternally.
The money runs out and you have to make realistic decisions.

Democracy, you know?

The contractor system that we were sold denigrated the entire military and led to an overall less capable force (Saw it in Iraq in 2011)
It lined a lot of pockets but whose?
The money is running out – maybe take the budget authority away from the Generals?

You can never have too many Spec Ops type, especially in today's current conflicts … And they operate together regardless, under SOCOM …

All hunky dorry when the money fountain is flowing.

When the money fountain dries up, things have got to give.

So what's better – removing duplication and triplication or slashing unique capabilities ala carriers or nuclear subs or hospitals or schools or roads?

The money is running out – maybe take the budget authority away from the Generals?

The politicians are just as bad.

They want to keep all their small little uneconomical bases and keep every bit of equipment in service so that local contractors keep their jobs.

I work in health and I see this here too.

Basically the democratic system fails at decision making when times are hard. Politicians don't want to be make hard decisions that affect their popularity.

Every one wants to eat their cake and keep it too.

"Every one wants to eat their cake and keep it too."

Someone left the cake out in the rain.
YouTube link

Thomas … the only thing that is increasing in the US Military is Spec Ops troops … so the $$$ will be there … one way or another … SOCOM is the Command that all Spec Operators come under when deployed on ops. NO duplication and triplication … just different tools in SOCOMs tool box. I heard today, US politicians will no longer fly 1st Class on Commercial flights. They will fly Coach like when the military has to fly commercial … So look at all the saving there !

Actually I think the move to more spec-ops troops is ultimately a money-saving measure. Keep a strong navy and air force, and cut down on overall land forces-cut it down to mostly special forces. For self defense, America has a massive geographic advantage that means this sort of force is fine. For the offensive, sure, we can't occupy as effectively, but we could still exert a lot of influence on any region.

I'm not saying cut spec ops. I'm saying cut the duplication and triplication.

Why have 3-4 different command and logistics chains when you can have 1?

Clears funding for more actual operational units that do stuff as opposed to support units and related military bureaucracy.

It would also probably improve standardisation of training and operational standards.

And there might be some savings left to fund other deficits or new programs.

Governments love duplication of command (management) structures as it provides career paths and power and prestige even if it means less actual service delivery (indeed latest Australian budget is partly about slashing duplication).

So Thomas you are saying make all the US Armed Forces under one command … It is … the Joint Chiefs and POTUS and Congress …

So Thomas you are saying make all the US Armed Forces under one command … It is … the Joint Chiefs and POTUS and Congress …

Huh? I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

I'm talking about at lower levels(batallion/brigade/group/command) and all the support structures that go into making that up.

And only for Special Operations which is increasingly becoming specialised and separate from standard military operations (a lot of it is paramilitary in nature – counter terrorism, covert intelligence etc).

E.g. does the US need the additional command layers provided by AFSOC, MARSOC, NAVSOC, USASOC?

Does the US military require different commands that are more and more often doing the same job (Delta, SEAL,STS, MSOR, SF ODA)?

Oh and then there's whatever paramilitaries the CIA is operating (National Clandestine Service, Special Activities Division and who knows what else).

If you combined them into one force, you've slashed a ton of support jobs including lots of "desk" jobs.

Means more money for other things, including more Special Forces "direct action" teams.

Also contrary to popular belief, not all people in the military are "front line" types. Most of them are in fact in support arms that includes logistics and command and the inevitable bureaucracy that seems a natural progression of large organisations.

I agree with Hobbes.

I realize the Navy has to have its own Army, but why does the Navy's Army have to have its own Air Force?

Yes, I know there are more support types than combat types … Tooth to Tail ratio we used to call it … So Thomas, how do you organize ground combat unit support, for the Army, which is separate then the USMC … We had USMC units attached to our Inf Bn. They were just like any solder in the unit, for combat or support. Their ammo, rations, etc. were issued like any other troops in the unit. I've held a number of Bn and Bde staff officer positions in my past career in Infantry Bns. Bn Air Ops Officer, Bn Log Officer, Bn and Bde Vehicle Maint Officer, Bde Asst Log Officer … in Army Infantry Bns and Bdes … No civilains there … The USMC has similar in their Bns … I think you don't understand how Bns, Bdes, Divs, Corps are organzied. There are NO civilains authorized in anything smaller then a Corps … And what would they do in combat ? We train the way we fight … Oh, and CIA, etc., types work with SOCOM at times …

Legion, enormous amount of civilian contactors in rear echelon…and sometimes forward
LEPS (Law enforcement professionals) went out with teams from FOBS.
Intel contractors – many just to keep some of the legacy contracted systems running, analysts who supposedly knew more than the soldier analysts (they didn't)
Supply lines – became almost all contractors.
Telecommunications….
Food services – only a military skeleton crew, the rest…contractors
Laundry services – contractors
Maintenance – some contractors
This was at division and some battalions

Yes, I know that, but those civilains are not MTO&E, but attached. I don't think Thomas understands how combat units are organized all the way up to Corps. You can't consolidate support for an Army Div. at Ft. Campbell, KY with support for a USMC Div at Cp. Pendalton, CA. At Bn, Bde, Div. you have a smaller percentage of command and support units. The majority of the rest are designated trigger pullers. An Infantry Bn (Armor and FA. etc. are similar) has/had 4 Inf Cos., 1 AT Co., 1 HHC(HQ & HQ Co.). Bn HQ has the staff S1-S4 & BMO, HQ Co has Bn Mortar Plt., Sct Plt. Maint Plt., Supply & Trans Plt, Medics and Cooks. And it generally follows that all the way up to Div. … How can you consolidate support with other branches at those levels ? You can't …

Legion – I never mentioned civilians.

Bureuacracy doesn't just imply civilians – it can also mean service staff employed in support functions and administrative roles.

Don't worry they do it in health and policing and other services as well – high ranking nurses and doctors who don't see patients but rather are involved in management, project and other clerical work. Same thing with police.

And if SOCOM became it's own branch, it could consolidate a lot of units and get rid of a lot of layers of bureaucracy (the other service SF branch commands for example).

Recruitment from other branches could be legislated.

Either that or give all SF to one branch.

Do both the AF and Army both have to have SF aviation assets?

Does the US need SEALS, Delta, ODA, MSOR etc all doing similar missions (many missions done by SEALs over last 20 years have been landbased in land locked countries).

And why have USAF, USN and USMC all operating tactical fighters and transports? Remember Britain has merged its FAA and RAF fighter assets.

Why do the US Army and USMC both need rotary wing transport, recce and attack forces? Again in Britain they've adopted a Joint Helicopter Force.

Why do the Marines and Army both need amphibious capability and heavy armour?

How can you consolidate support with other branches at those levels ? You can't …

You can. You can reorganise or adopt new structures.

It's been done in the past – we're no longer operating phalanxes, legions, or even divisions and single purpose regiments much any more.

In the last 20 years the emphasis has been changing to brigades as opposed to divisions.

With SF, merging them together could result in consolidation – reducing the commands, the groups and merging battalions.

The teeth remain but there are savings to be had.

The key is to save tax payer dollars and get the job done efficiently.

That may require doing things differently.

The alternative may be not doing it at all when the government effectively goes bankrupt. Remember the USSR?

Legion – I never mentioned civilians.

Bureuacracy doesn't just imply civilians – it can also mean service staff employed in support functions and administrative roles.

Don't worry they do it in health and policing and other services as well – high ranking nurses and doctors who don't see patients but rather are involved in management, project and other clerical work. Same thing with police.

And if SOCOM became it's own branch, it could consolidate a lot of units and get rid of a lot of layers of bureaucracy (the other service SF branch commands for example).

Recruitment from other branches could be legislated.

Either that or give all SF to one branch.

Do both the AF and Army both have to have SF aviation assets?

Does the US need SEALS, Delta, ODA, MSOR etc all doing similar missions (many missions done by SEALs over last 20 years have been landbased in land locked countries).

And why have USAF, USN and USMC all operating tactical fighters and transports? Remember Britain has merged its FAA and RAF fighter assets.

Why do the US Army and USMC both need rotary wing transport, recce and attack forces? Again in Britain they've adopted a Joint Helicopter Force.

Why do the Marines and Army both need amphibious capability and heavy armour?

How can you consolidate support with other branches at those levels ? You can't …

You can. You can reorganise or adopt new structures.

It's been done in the past – we're no longer operating phalanxes, legions, or even divisions and single purpose regiments much any more.

In the last 20 years the emphasis has been changing to brigades as opposed to divisions.

With SF, merging them together could result in consolidation – reducing the commands, the groups and merging battalions.

The teeth remain but there are savings to be had.

The key is to save tax payer dollars and get the job done efficiently.

That may require doing things differently.

The alternative may be not doing it at all when the government effectively goes bankrupt. Remember the USSR?

At Bn, Bde, I don't any extra soldiers … we were always short in many cases. The Bn Staff is pretty tiny compared to the Grunts … S-1 Admin – about a 10-12 soldiers, S-2 Intel – maybe 4-5, S-3 – Ops & Tng – about 10 -12, S-4 Log – 6-8, BMO – 1-2 … That' s pretty bare bones to me … A Bn has a small Supply & Trans Plt 30-40 … That is to support about 700-800 + troops. Maint. Plt – 63 … That is to maintain over 70 tracked vehicles and around 100 wheeled. The Medical Plt about 35, that gives each Infantry Plt 1 Medic … As a Plt Ldr and Co. Cdr, we were routinely short troops. And I was with RDF units in the US, the 101 Div. and 197th Mech Bde. Both 18th ABN Corps assets. In the 101 we were short a entire Plt in our Rifle Company ! And don't get me started on equipment shortages ! So again I think your takling like a "bean counter"(I don't mean that in a derisive way) … Not someone who was on the ground, who had been there, etc. … SF/Spec Ops types work together as I said. But each branch has it's own needs and requirements. There is no need to have a 5th branch ie.: Spec Ops … They work quite well under SOCOM. The USAF, ARMY and USMC (and USN) have requirements for each of their air assets. And can and do work together effectively. The US ARMY and USMC have both have needs to be amphibious because 2/3 of the planet is covered by water. Routinely ground units have to cross rivers, lakes, streams. I've done it, many times. The US ARMY has it's own landing craft as part on the ARMY Transportation Corps branch. And even a few boats. M113s could swin, I'm not so sure about how M2s swin with their additional armor. MBTs can't swim … But that's why we have CE bridging assets. And both need heavy armor, because we fight combined arms. Of course the USMC only have about 4 MBT Bns and a few LAV Bns. The US Army has more than that in an Armor/Mech Div. And yes, we have gone to more Bde level units of action. We used to call that Rgtl Combat Tms or Battle Groups. They work well … I was with Sep Mech Bde as part of the 18th ABN Corps. As I mentioned. With assets similar to a RCT or BG. These are tasked organized. With INF, ARM, FA, CE, CAV, CBT SPT, MPs, etc. … But most Bdes still operate under a Div structure, for support and cross-attaching/combined arms, etc. … Even at Co and Bn we task organize and cross attach. Regardless whether you call it a phalanx, cohort, maniple, legion, etc. it is still a means of organizing for combet. Which in many cases in the distant past showed that a "unit" organized force fights better than a mob … A Roman Centurion is about roughly equal to a Co. Cdr today … A Legion is roughly the size of a modern Bde. I believe you are talking about an entire restructure of the US Military. But each of the 4 branches have their ouw missions that require each branch to be separate. And function on their own or together based on the mission and situation. It's as much about money as it is about functionally and interoperability … Been there done that …

Not sure what this has to do with playing toy soldiers but an interesting debate never the less. There do seem to be a number of ideas that some people take for granted that at best seem very dubious though. So in the interests of debate I thought I would give an alternative view.

The first is that the US is unprepared for war. I mean really? Let's look at this.

Air forces

There are two powerful air forces in the world and then a bunch of also rans. The two powerful ones of course being the United States Air Force and its traditional enemy the United States Navy. Although there are ongoing budget battles between these two forces I think it is safe to assume that in the event of a proper shooty war they would patch up some sort of operating alliance. Together they are far more powerful than any possible combination they may face. The American power goodness does not stop there however, as looking at the also rans, most of the better air forces are in fact American Allies fully integrated into American command systems through decades old alliances. US and allies wold kick anyone's bottom air force wise.

Navy

Well let's see, if there was a conflict that involved the US Navy versus every other navy in the world, the US navy would win. However, most of the better other navies are in fact American Allies fully integrated into American command systems through decades old alliances. The problem for the US here is what exactly?

Army

Well, just look at the pattern for the airforce / navy and extrapolate, basically the same outcome. The US has military bases in what 150 countries? And people try and state they are not prepared for a war anywhere on the globe?

There is no conceivable shooty bang war that the US could get involved in that it would not shooty bang win. American weakness and problems are not military, they are political and that is where the US needs to exert itself.

Second piece of nonsense comes in two parts, one being that Russian foreign policy is a European Problem and therefore leading to the ‘fact' that Europeans should solve it.

Russia is not geographically a European state, it is mainly an Asian one. Georgia is not in Europe. The Ukraine is but if say Russia got interested in the resource rich areas on its borders that were in the Soviet Union in Central Asia – still a European problem? Oh and of course, Russia has a border far closer to the US than any European member of NATO. Russian is a neighbour of the US, not the EU so come on America man up! An aggressive Russian Foreign Policy is a problem for any nation that finds it might have a problem with it, this I feel probably includes the US.

As for the Europeans should deal with the problem. For decades European states have spent defence budgets and structured forces in the context of NATO. And within NATO the US provides the higher command and co-ordination functions. To be blunt, because of this European states are not actually able to go to war without the US. As a liberal European that is seemingly dispised by some on this board I may not like this, it is however a fact. This situation exists because the US demanded that it be so. The US sought, demanded and ensured that it had the sole leadership of NATOs military force. In this context any demands from the US that European states go to war outside the context of NATO are craven and any attempt by the US to abdicate the responsibilities it has for so long demanded and jealously guarded would be gross moral cowardice. On the plus side I do not see this happening as I don't think it is an idea that is approved of by that nice Mr Obama that the American people sought fit to re-elected by a massive margin.

Third is that the US should pull back from foreign commitments and become isolationist. Whilst there are some superficial attractions to this, US interests do not end at the coast, or the Rio Grande. It was tried in the thirties by the US and by Great Britain, and was called either Isolationism or appeasement, which meant the same thing -‘let's not get involved', how did that work out? Nope, can't run and hide from responsibility, if you do it will come after you, sneak up on you and kick you in the knackers* when you are not looking.

Finally want to look at the question that has been asked ‘will democracies armies fight for Western Liberal Values'. You mean like democratic plurality? Respect for the rights of the individual? Rule of law? Equality? Liberty? I would bloody well hope so. Is it suggested that they would not? The questioner seems to have a bee in his bonnet (wasp in his closet?) about gay marriage. Thing is, sometimes democracy throws up decisions that you might not agree with, sometimes that sucks, deal with it. Democracy is however, always worth defending, in elections, on the battlefield and on internet forums, do you not agree?

*'Kick you in the knackers' is an old anglo saxon term that roughly translates in modern English as 'bomb you in Pearl Harbour'.

No doubt, in it's current forms … The USN and USAF are the most powerful strategic forces on the planet. And have been for decades. And for that matter the US ground forces, ARMY and Marines, are pretty much unrivaled as well … And the US Military is the most deployable force in the world. The question is do they need or want to spend the "blood and treasure". If there is a next time … The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the US, 6700 KIA and > 50,000 WIA so far… And the monetary cost … well … is in the billions … And the war on terrorism is still going on, regardless of what politicos and the media says.

Well yes quite, that is indeed the question. As I say the problems for the US do not lie in the military sphere but in the political. Does the US want to carry on its present path or change? Problem being is that the US might not get the choice. Once committed to Empire it can be bally hard to pull back.

Once the Bush administration had set American Foreign Policy on the course of 'The New American Century' policy of the Neocons and the proactive interventionist policy of exporting American values it becomes very hard to just walk away. The world is effected by it and views / responds to America on that basis. Choices of how to use Americas post cold war hegemony were made and committed to, may not be possible to just uncommit and have the rest of the world change its views / policies how you would like them to in response.

America, defender of liberty and freedom has shown by example that a nation should follow its own council when deciding on issues of war and the liberation of peoples in other countries and sod what the UN or anyone else thinks. If this is a lesson that Russia (or anyone else) takes to heart and follows suit, who is going to stop them? Am afraid only the US can. So gather up that treasure and summon up that blood, as the US might not get very much of a choice anymore…….

Legion, I think you're forgetting one important element: the US federal government is in dire financial straits.

Defence is nearly $700 USD billion a year. Hence there is room for cuts.

So just cause it worked in the good times doesn't mean it's sustainable in the future.

The US could slash a third or its forces and still be the premier combat force by far.

And the question of "defence" needs to be raised. What is essential and what isn't.

Does the US need bases in Europe? Shouldn't the Europeans who have roughly the same number of people and standard of living provide for their own defence?

Or even subsidising UAE defence – a country that has massive overkill capability on all its neighbours including Iran but excluding Saudi Arabia.

Or maintaining a 2,500 rotational USMC deployment in Australia?

Or maintaining large units in Japan, who also has a large defence force and who is looking at expanding into offensive capabilities (e.g. new LHAs) and who has high standard of living.

The US needs to let go and let its supposed "allies" do some of the heavy lifting.

In reality the US subsidises the defence of other countries. This needs to stop. Even former Defence Secretary Robert Gates said this with regards to NATO.

Oh and I am Australian – I don't agree with Uncle Sam subsidising our defence and for the most part Australia does maintain a considerable defense capability compared to our neighbours.

But if Uncle Sam gets its finances on order (which should include defence cutbacks) whilst allies take on a little bit more, it's better for overall security of the "free world."

A bankrupt US propping up defences of other rich countries is a recipe for disaster.

Er, mind elaborating a bit as shrug does not give much information.

Are you shrugging at idea of Russia expanding its borders? of the US getting involved in a war because of it? The cost in casualties this would mean? Of the cost of the US armed forces to the tax payer? That you are disinterested in the subject under discussion? If so why post?

Just posting 'shrug' comes across as disrespectful to anyone else that may read this thread – which of course you did not mean?

Yes, the US gov't is in a bad financial situation. But trying to reorganized the US Military into one force would cost much more than it would be worth. They are combined under the Joint Chiefs and I have mentioned interoperability it at it's highest. And if you read my posts, to make support assets at Bn or Bde any smaller would effect combat readiness. Again, I've lead, commanded and held many positions in the Infantry in the actvice US ARMY, '79-'90. If you are going to to reorganize support assets, by cuting back even if you go to higher echelons, you'll still find it would effect combat readiness. When I was on active duty. Both Armor and Mech Platoons reorganized by going from 5 AFVs to 4 per Platoon. And getting rid of the Company 81mm Mortar Plt. And went from 3 Inf Cos to 4. Getting rid of the Cbt Spt Co. Making a full AT Co. And making the Sct and Hvy 4.2 inch Mortar Plts as part of HHC. That was a good idea and worked. But the service support assets generally stayed the same. If the US really wants to save $$$. It needs to reduce/cut sending $$$ & aid to many foreign countries that are not really "friends" … like Pakistan … Maybe send some of it to places like the Aussies, who almost always support the US. But much of the aid cut to overseas could go to the US economy … You know, I remember since I was just a child [40+ years ago ], seeing media, commercials, etc. ads and stories about sending aid to places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, the Middle East, etc., etc. … And guess what ?! We're still sending billions and many of them still can't feed or govern themselves effectively. We should just drop surplus MREs/CBT RATs … And in some cases they openly or covertly see the US as the enemy. How many times has the US tried to broker peace between the Palestinians and Isreal ? How much $$$ has the US given to the Palestinians ? And they don't seem any closer to peace. The Israelis at least generally are good allies to the US. And has an active and thriving economy. So, I think I know where the US can get a large amount of $$$. Without gutting our military any more ….

Recipients: Top 25 Recipient Countries of U.S. Foreign Aid FY 2012 Reported in $US millions …
Afghanistan 12,885.50
Israel 3,100.10
Iraq 1,940.10
Egypt 1,404.00
Pakistan 1,214.90
Jordan 1,135.30
Ethiopia 870.10
Kenya 749.20
Colombia 644.30
Haiti 510.40
West Bank/Gaza 457.40
South Sudan 444.30
Russia 440.90
Somalia 419.60
Tanzania 402.00
Congo (Kinshasa) 388.40
Uganda 352.40
Nigeria 335.90
Sudan 298.10
South Africa 274.70
Mozambique 274.00
Ukraine 273.30
Yemen 258.50
Bangladesh 256.80
Liberia 247.10

Notes:

Sources: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants, U.S. Bureau of Census (BUCEN) International Database

Legion, I agree,
Cut back on the State Department footprint as well.
Cut the aid and make it a fairness issue to get aid…be supportive of US policy maybe…
But you would need a real US government policy. And this government seems totally bereft in making any type of decision other than one that supports their own 'political' agenda, decisions and policies, not those of the people, and especially not anything that supports the blood, sweat, and tears that the current military and veterans have given throughout the world.

and here are some other ongoing deployments:
Bosnia
Djibouti
Philippines
Yemen

Yep … but you are using logic and being aware of history …

Oops – I forgot "this is not the logic we are looking for" and since the US education system has cut back on all types of history classes…
There we have it.

Indeed … most "Americans" have very little real knowledge of their own history, let alone the rest of the world … sad … but true …

To quote the article:

Despite it's show of force in Crimea,

Oh dear.

"And this government seems totally bereft in making any type of decision other than one that supports their own 'political' agenda, decisions and policies, not those of the people, and especially not anything that supports the blood, sweat, and tears that the current military and veterans have given throughout the world."

Let's not get carried away.

link

Looks like they kept most of their promises so far.

The US will not go to war in the Ukraine … save for some extreme circumstances, which for whatever reason I can't think of right now … That's the problem with having the vaunted/preceived BIGGEST STICK, using it will get very messy for all concerned …

Always interests me when people say 'Europe should pay for it's own defence' or similar, as if Europe does nothing.

OK, closed eyes/minds for those who don't like facts:

European defence expenditure:

'The combined military expenditure of the European Union Member States amounts to just over is €192.50 EUR billion.[2] This represents 1.55% of European Union GDP and is second only to the €503.00 EUR billion military expenditure of the United States'

link

Now, that figure is for the the European Union, and even though it's a Wiki article I see no reason to doubt it. 544 commissioned warships, 6500 tanks, 2,000 combat planes, 1,500,000 active military personnel.

So, yes, I think Europe does contribute to it's own defence.

Russia has a population of 140,000,000 and the EU about 500,000,000, so yes the EU is bigger. But then, the EU military budget is also a lot bigger:

'The data are from SIPRI (Stockholm) quoted in Wikipedia. The 2013 Russian military budget was $91 USD billion. The NATO countries total was $990 USD billion, a factor of 10 times larger. The main parts of NATO are the US at $682 USD billion, and the EU at $274 USD billion. China had the next largest budget at $166 USD billion.

The leading EU countries are the UK at $91 USD billion, France at $59 USD billion, Germany at $46 USD billion, and Italy at $34 USD billion.' from link

I accept that Russia is increasing it's budget, but spending more on the military than you can afford didn't work very well for the old Soviet Union, so…

Well … you can't please everybody …

why is Russia getting 440.90 in us foreign aid

So, yes, I think Europe does contribute to it's own defence

All very true.

But Europe does defence extremely badly.

Firstly many of the NATO partners are still tied into concept of national defence forces which means lots of duplication and also lots of lack of economies of scale.

This also includes duplication of command structures and often for very small militaries.

And bizarrely most of these forces are poor quality and lacking in key capabilities.

Secondly defence procurement is usually not coordinated – again lots of duplication as well as associated problems with logistics etc. A lot of the equipment is not-NATO compatible (e.g. most of the T-72s still in service with Eastern European forces and usually in pitiful token numbers).

And a lot of the equipment is obsolete and of no combat value – even in Western part of NATO e.g. Greek/Turkish M48 Pattons and Leopard 1s, most of the Portuguse navy).

Thirdly, some of the NATO partners ala most of the Eastern Europeans but also countries like Greece don't pump much into NATO in terms of overall capability.

Operational capability in some of these countries is non-existent (e.g. Croatian AF MiG-21 pilots get something like 60 hours a year flying if they're lucky, aren't trained in radar interception or night flying and only some have ground attack training).

Fourthly, the capabilities that are purely for home country use – e.g. the French still maintain some colonial outposts and units and then there's the British and French nuclear deterrents which aren't part of NATOs strategy (as far as I am aware).

Fifthly procurement strategies are usually linked to economics and maintaining jobs in home country.

But given extremely small quantities, this results in virtually no economies of scale and often results in equipment of limited military value and not really NATO compatible (e.g. Czech L-159 light combat jet, various T-72 upgrades utilised by Eastern block countries and even some warship programs).

For all of EU's economic integration, their military integration is pretty poor.

And thus Europe is left relying on Uncle Sam for true defence.

why is Russia getting 440.90 in us foreign aid

Well up until recently, they were our only ride to the ISS … and they charge us like it was very expensive bus fare, regardless … Now we have no ride …

And thus Europe is left relying on Uncle Sam for true defence.

From a strategic standpoint, with the USN's CVNs and SSBNs plus all the USAF's assets, as well as the US military being the most deployable/force projection capabilities … Much of the world could be relying on the US …

Weasel,
Interesting article you posted…
But if the one "broken" promise on claim backlogs, doesn't let you in the VA system – then the system doesn't work for you in any way, shape or form. Huge problem. Around a nine month or longer backlog and we won't discuss the 40+ vets that died in the VA system scandal down south.

In the 1970s when you retired from the service – all health care was paid for you and your dependents. There was no co-pay or fees – none, it was all paid for. The advent of Tricare eroded military benefits threefold, now you have to pay, there is always a co-pay, and DRs can refuse to take Tricare (many do), they look at it as Medicare.

The nontaxable BAQ allowance is now slated to be in the future to be taxed…
They are attempting to make a 30 year retirement and they cite NATO as an example (when was the last time any NATO countries deployed Army assets in a 10 year conflict and/or made them have 3 -4 combat deployments during that time-frame?) Lets look at an Italian Army guy, who volunteers and has to do 30 years, serves and "wants to deploy" – they make double pay in the combat zone (we don't). Their combat zones included Bosnia, Lebanon UN mission, and of course a stint in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they serve in combat once – they do not have to go back, though many volunteer for the double pay, a bonus, and tax free status. But the only applicable thing in the 30 year proposed military service with US forces is the continued tax free status in combat. You can be sent back as many times as 'they' want.

Comparison of a civilian job to military has always been about monetary figures. Lets look at the stress, physical wear and tear, and compare that to a military and civilian job.
Lets compare:
A civilian intelligence type gets a provided for amount of space around he/she, an ergonomic chair, nice computers(s), heating and air condition. Can only lift 30 pounds, does not do any physical labor. He can go home every day and has weekends and holidays off. He can have a beer any time off work and even at lunch, not to exceed being drunk. Can only do overtime in extreme circumstances and are 'mostly' non deployable during their 8 hour workdays and an hour lunch. Flies' first or business class overseas and in the US standard US carriers.

A military Army Intelligence type gets to live in the field, set up his own equipment (equipment gets the AC) not the SGT. He wears body armor and carries all his assorted gear. During equipment set-up some equipment weighs in well over 100 pounds. If lucky he can live in a shed (CHU – Combined Housing Unit) and sleep in some AC in the 130 degree Fahrenheit environment. If he's lucky he only works an eight hour day on Sunday and 12-14 hour days Mon-Saturday trying to provide intel that will save lives in the field. His days off are limited. (We got two cans of beer – ONLY once at super bowl, if you went in at 3 AM to the one authorized distribution point. Sometimes he gets to go to lunch, and sometimes there is a food facility (most COBS and FOBS). He flies overseas in a crowded contract aircraft (when deploying) and while overseas on any type of military helo or plane available (try a Sherpa).

There are other comparisons…

"when was the last time any NATO countries deployed Army assets in a 10 year conflict and/or made them have 3 -4 combat deployments during that time-frame?"

Er, the UK, old bean.

UK Armed Forces also get minimal financial benefits from serving abroad (what they do get barely covers the extortionate hike in insurance premiums).

Thank you Mr Davies! And I'm highly appreciative to know!

Weasel … when you are in a "hot zone", similar to as Maresciallo discribed, … sometime you may feel there is a lot of broken promises. But the good thing is without a draft, I and others voluteered "to go in harm's way" … As a young man sometimes I found it kind of exciting. We used to call it "more Testosterone than common sense" … But … Sometimes I just wish I could have got a shower … among some other things …

Legion, Yes the excitement was there! And promises…sometimes the promise of a shower is enough! Maybe we ought to start a new Military Life Discussion Poll.

Heh, not that I, as a 'Cold Warrior' have any direct experience. They once sent me to the Hebrides… and Lincoln on a Saturday night could be pretty dangerous (You wouldn't know man, you weren't there, etc)…

;)

From a strategic standpoint, with the USN's CVNs and SSBNs plus all the USAF's assets, as well as the US military being the most deployable/force projection capabilities … Much of the world could be relying on the US

Indeed most of it is – the US guarantees security for large chunks of Asia as well as various middle eastern states.

It's an unsustainable system though.

The Europeans could be completely self sufficient in defence if they got their act together.