Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Good, maybe its time to stop it with the bloated military budget and start using that money in things like welfare or foodstamps

Hopefully that's sarcasm. It's pretty disgusting that a welfare recipient in NJ can be paid better than an E3.

I dont' entirely disagree with your point, but a welfare recipient is "better paid." They may have total benefits in excess of the E3's base pay, but I'd wager that the total benefits an E3 gets would exceed any welfare recipient, particularly if both have children/spouses.

As someone who was a welfare recipient in the state of NJ, I can tell you that an E3 is better paid.

Basic E-3 is paid about 1800 a month, how does that compare with NJ? thats an honest question I don't know

A full welfare recipient in NJ makes about $20 an hour, which is about 40k a year.

Even with all the benefits, that E-3 doesn't make as much.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Have to remember the Army Reserves are logistical, Aviation, and assorted support units of various MOS's

National Guard have units same as the Reserves but the Reserves do not have Combat Arm Units.

As for crack divisions like who are rapid deployment
82nd (Have a Brigade on Red status that can slam a Brigade on ground in under 18 hours, wheels up in 6)
101st similar but they're intensive Aviation dependent.
10th Mountain similar

Basically every unit in 18th Airborne Corp is light divisions but we pack a lot of Javelins that make a Ork cry in jealously

Then the nature of the conflict, geography of the area, abilit.................TERRAIN DICTATES

The Air Force Active, AF Reserves, and Air National Guard was heavily relied upon to sustain combat operations, combat logistics...........everything dealing logistic For OIF/OEF
C17 fleet was run to the ground
A10's were a God send
C5's flew their last missions into Afghanistan
F15's were at Bagram and Kandahar for CAS
Navy had that freaking Prowlers running 24/7 running their electronic full spectrum bubble to set off any IED's that could be radio detonated

Lets not forget the Jingle trucks bringing in a vast assortment of UP-armor vehicles (none from MRAP family)

Ghaz mention all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk keeping an eye on the screen that was attach to the blimp floating above the FoB. What we call "Eye in the Sky" He hasn't been "blessed" with additional schooling, training, and exposure to the many facets of the military.

Reserves DO Have combat arms units, at least in the USMC they sure as hell do. As far as ALL reserves sucking. Maybe that was a little to broad, instead I will say EVERY SINGLE reserve unit I served near or on the same base as SUCKED terribly. Guards falling asleep on post, mechanics without the job skills to repair a vehicle they were assigned with.

"Ghaz Mentioned all he did on his deployment was sit behind a desk" thats completely true, besides the patrols and support operations I was on, PB Whitehouse, PB Faheem, FOB Inkerman FOB nolay. been to all of those and did my fair share. Furthermore, My job was never operating a VBOS. I was a 2621 Operator AND analyst.

SO please lets keep up all the abuse from people who didn't even deploy or serve along side reserve units. For the handful that did and found reserve/guard units to be good, well they were the exception not the rule.

Sorry about the mislabel I was going off this

For all the veterans and children/friends of veterans who were graced with the stories of some of the craziest times of their lives. Please leave a post with the craziest or weirdest war story you have.

While monitoring a GBOS feed (Big Camera on a stick) we saw a rather suspicious looking afghan walking into a crowded bazaar by a large bank. Quickly running up the steps the individual started screaming incoherently at people and then detonated a Suicide bomb that he had wrapped around his head and had hidden by wrapping an absurdly large turban around the bomb.

After the smoke from the detonation cleared we were shocked to see that nobody was seriously injured with only 2-3 minor injuries sustained by nearby civilians. The suicide bomber on the other hand......Apparently the Turban had acted as a kind of shield and had turned his Suicide bomb into a shaped charge that instead of exploding outwards, had instead exploded downwards and liquified the majority of his torso......

Anyway

Reserves DO Have combat arms units, at least in the USMC they sure as hell do. As far as ALL reserves sucking. Maybe that was a little to broad, instead I will say EVERY SINGLE reserve unit I served near or on the same base as SUCKED terribly. Guards falling asleep on post, mechanics without the job skills to repair a vehicle they were assigned with.

I'm a Movement Coordinator so I hopped all over theater in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've seen active duty soldiers, marines, and Airman do the same thing to. It's nothing new.
Saw it 2010-2011
2007-2008
2006-2007
2005-2006
2003-2004

Hell I've seen it during peace time 1989 to 2003
Try a new beat stick

I was collecting about $1250/mo while I was on unemployment (I was making 2-3 times that amount while I was working). I was also only given 26 weeks of unemployment, which was a bit of a problem considering that I'll have been unemployed a year this month.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, did I mention that that $1250/mo was taxed as income?

 djones520 wrote:
A full welfare recipient in NJ makes about $20 an hour, which is about 40k a year.

Even with all the benefits, that E-3 doesn't make as much.

There's more to that DJ.
Time in grade. Max at 2 years or less in service is $1823 before taxes

E3 with dependent receives $539 for BHA (Basic Housing Allowance)

There are additional pay allowance involved
Jump Pay
Diver Pay
Sea Pay
Flight Pay


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I was collecting about $1250/mo while I was on unemployment (I was making 2-3 times that amount while I was working). I was also only given 26 weeks of unemployment, which was a bit of a problem considering that I'll have been unemployed a year this month.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, did I mention that that $1250/mo was taxed as income?

Service Members receive 52 weeks unemployment and like you its taxed as income

Not sure why you're considering unemployment insurance as welfare.

@OP, I don't think that military cuts are a "sign of the USA in decline"

It's a fairly well established trend in our 225+ year history that, when actual fighting comes along, we can rapidly expand our military when we really want to.

In April 1917, just prior to our entrance to WW1, we had around 120,000 active soldiers (just talking army here), and around 80k "militia" as they were known (now known as National Guard).... Through the draft, we were able to expand the military to a bit over 2 million... Historians refer to the US putting 10,000 men into France each day.

After WW1, we again went back to that under 200k mark. In WW2, again through the Draft, the Army and Army Air corps had around 8.2 million men, which after the war, was eventually pared down to around 550k.

It is normal for us to expand and contract the military in times of conflict. In the most recent instances, with Iraq and Afghanistan, we haven't really expanded all that much, as I seem to recall that, at our peak during OIF/OEF, we had a little bit over 1 million soldiers in active duty, which is still less than half of our WW1 numbers, and quite a bit less than WW2 numbers. I haven't studied Vietnam, but I suspect that our numbers are closer to 'Nam, but probably still lower due to the organization and current fighting abilities of the soldier.

I’ve just got to say the question in the OP is incredible. From a single story about the US reducing it’s total manpower, we get a question about the US in decline. If this was a story about the US reducing its annual spending on any other federal budget category, would that question be asked? If health was reduced do you think anyone would ask if it was a sign of the US in decline?

The line of thinking from the OP is actually symptomatic of the problematic approach to defence spending in the US in general. Questions about cutbacks have been answered with generalised scare tactics about the US needing to maintain its supremacy, with too few specifics on whether individual units can actually justify their cost. In this case specifically, can anyone make a sensible case that the US will lose some part of its dominance with a reduction of 40,000 troops? Can someone point out something the US can do with 480k troops that it can’t do with 440k?

And for what it’s worth, in the rest of the developed world, specifically the NATO ANZUS countries, the problem has been the opposite – requests for increased capacity have been rejected with generalised statements that more or less reject the idea of military spending at all.

The result, in the end, has been vast US bloat in spending, and threadbare spending elsewhere. It’s an imbalance that produces a lot of strategic issues.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally I'm more worried about 57,000 people losing their jobs than any loss in out military might. We'll still be far and away, the worlds largest military force. Hope fully no dakkaites get booted.

Don't worry about me. My only involvement with the US military is a company of 101st which I collected for a FOW Market Garden campaign

And of course, my New Hampshire volunteers for American Civil War games. Damn rebels!!

Almost forgot my Native Americans and Redcoats for when I try to crush Washington and his lackeys


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
I’ve just got to say the question in the OP is incredible. From a single story about the US reducing it’s total manpower, we get a question about the US in decline. If this was a story about the US reducing its annual spending on any other federal budget category, would that question be asked? If health was reduced do you think anyone would ask if it was a sign of the US in decline?

The line of thinking from the OP is actually symptomatic of the problematic approach to defence spending in the US in general. Questions about cutbacks have been answered with generalised scare tactics about the US needing to maintain its supremacy, with too few specifics on whether individual units can actually justify their cost. In this case specifically, can anyone make a sensible case that the US will lose some part of its dominance with a reduction of 40,000 troops? Can someone point out something the US can do with 480k troops that it can’t do with 440k?

And for what it’s worth, in the rest of the developed world, specifically the NATO ANZUS countries, the problem has been the opposite – requests for increased capacity have been rejected with generalised statements that more or less reject the idea of military spending at all.

The result, in the end, has been vast US bloat in spending, and threadbare spending elsewhere. It’s an imbalance that produces a lot of strategic issues.

It's not an incredible question from me, the OP

As I've said before, any nation's authority ultimately rests on armed men and women keeping the peace, keeping control, in the form of police and armed forces. Most nations have this.

But America is an EXCEPTION. It is the most powerful nation on earth, able to exert that authority anywhere in the world, where it deems to be in its interests.

That is the true test of a great power: exerting your influence anywhere at any time.

I always use this historical example, because it illustrates it brilliantly, IMO.

In the year 1900, there was only one nation on earth that could move 100,000 soldiers from point A to anywhere in the world, in record time. That nation was Britain. They moved 100,000 men from England to South Africa, in record time, for the Boer war, and in doing so, made Germany nervous, because the Germans realised that Britain could shift troops from England to Germany, just as easy.

In 2015, only the USA can move 100,000 from A to B in record time.

Now, back to my point. When the USA starts cutting back on troops levels, I ask the question: are they still a great power? In all honestly, my answer is Yes and No




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
@OP, I don't think that military cuts are a "sign of the USA in decline"

It's a fairly well established trend in our 225+ year history that, when actual fighting comes along, we can rapidly expand our military when we really want to.

In April 1917, just prior to our entrance to WW1, we had around 120,000 active soldiers (just talking army here), and around 80k "militia" as they were known (now known as National Guard).... Through the draft, we were able to expand the military to a bit over 2 million... Historians refer to the US putting 10,000 men into France each day.

After WW1, we again went back to that under 200k mark. In WW2, again through the Draft, the Army and Army Air corps had around 8.2 million men, which after the war, was eventually pared down to around 550k.

It is normal for us to expand and contract the military in times of conflict. In the most recent instances, with Iraq and Afghanistan, we haven't really expanded all that much, as I seem to recall that, at our peak during OIF/OEF, we had a little bit over 1 million soldiers in active duty, which is still less than half of our WW1 numbers, and quite a bit less than WW2 numbers. I haven't studied Vietnam, but I suspect that our numbers are closer to 'Nam, but probably still lower due to the organization and current fighting abilities of the soldier.

I agree in peacetime, that the USA has reduced numbers, but this ain't peacetime! Joe Commie's on the march in China, Putin's up to his tricks, and the Middle East is going up in smoke...again!!! This ain't the time for troops reductions!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
From Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/army-cut-40000-soldiers-years-150708005037637.html

The reason given is too save money, but I'm not convinced.

40,000 troops - is that equal to 4 divisions?

Anyway, what do people think: genuine cost cutting, or the USA in decline?

I could see an argument for a leaner, meaner military, but I'm not getting that vibe.

Sign of the USA in decline? No.

I think it's just the simple reality of the fact that we aren't engaging in two simultaneous foreign occupations on the other side of the planet anymore that required hundreds of thousands of soldiers, mercenaries, and logistical contractors to carry out.

The Army is also the least important of the 3 main branches to the direct defense of the United States in terms of territorial defense simply by the very nature of the geographic realities of the United States and its potential rivals, much like the UK.

Currently, the US simply does not need the same volume of forces it needed a few years ago. For any conventional military threat, the military is as large as it needs to be, possibly bigger. Hell, we've got a couple thousand multimillion dollar battle tanks sitting around depots that haven't been touched in years and no plans to utilize them any time soon. The US military had to swell when it operated as an occupation force for more than a decade in two different nations on the other side of the world. The US is no longer involved in that and as such, it can, and should, be drawn down a bit.

If you have tanks sitting around doing nothing, while not sell them to NATO members in Eastern Europe? They might need them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Now, back to my point. When the USA starts cutting back on troops levels, I ask the question: are they still a great power? In all honestly, my answer is Yes and No

The problem is, the term "Great Power" has a reasonably specific definition, which the US more than meets. (Current great powers are US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Germany, Japan. The club has been more or less seven nations for about 400 years)

The US has been a great power since at least ~1900, when it defeated the remnants of the Spanish Empire and picked up its own empire. At that point, the US had a world class navy, the ports from which to extend their power, and global influence. One working definition of great power is "any nation state that can reasonably defend its soveriegnty from any other power." From ~1950-1990, the US was one of two superpowers: with only two nations really competing for global influence, the globe became unusually polarized. Of course, the USSR collapses, and the US emerges a the lone hyperpower, which is just a more euphamistic term for "hegemon."

A hegemon is a power of such influence and might that no realistic force can be assembled against it. The US is such a power, with four other great powers highly unwilling to step agains the US, the US can dictate a lot of policy through its actions. Other powers still control themselves and their spheres (see russia and Ukraine), but neither Russia no China can really change how the US conducts foreign policy in the Middle East.

Hegomony's aren't lost because a few division are understrength or a new jet isn't developed, they are lost when willing allies stop supporting it, and unwilling allies work against it.

 sebster wrote:
I’ve just got to say the question in the OP is incredible. From a single story about the US reducing it’s total manpower, we get a question about the US in decline. If this was a story about the US reducing its annual spending on any other federal budget category, would that question be asked? If health was reduced do you think anyone would ask if it was a sign of the US in decline?

The line of thinking from the OP is actually symptomatic of the problematic approach to defence spending in the US in general. Questions about cutbacks have been answered with generalised scare tactics about the US needing to maintain its supremacy, with too few specifics on whether individual units can actually justify their cost. In this case specifically, can anyone make a sensible case that the US will lose some part of its dominance with a reduction of 40,000 troops? Can someone point out something the US can do with 480k troops that it can’t do with 440k?

See, if I was a politician trying to sell military budget cuts, I'd come at it from the other direction. Flip the narrative and sell the strength.

"I promise you that under my watch, the United States will spend at least as much on military spending as the next 7 countries combined."

And there you have what, probably a $200 billion cut?

Of course the objections will come. "But that's a budget cut!" But you just keep brushing that aside and bringing it back to your message. "As a proud patriot, I am 100% committed to having the strongest military in the world, and can promise you that the U.S. will never spend less than the next 7 largest military budgets PUT TOGETHER as long as I have something to say about it." Call it the "7-country plan."

Plant the seed in people's heads. "Well, that does still seem like kind of a lot." The opposition would probably counter by getting granular and taking about military families, base closures, etc. But that's still a more complicated narrative than the "7-country plan." I think this kind of approach could get traction with the public. The lawmakers are the hard part, of course. Pork, pork, pork.

I personally think the 'best' way to approach it is to define a good defense policy tied very closely to an overarching foreign policy, then define what capabilities you need the military to have to ensure they can meet the policy goals, then set budgets to ensure getting and maintaining those capabilities is funded.

Starting with a budget without understanding of how that will effect capability and therefore policy/goal achievement is a bad idea.

So for example, defining what your "7-country plan" military is going to be required to do and making sure "7"is the appropriate funding level for that is what is important.

edit. Wrong thread

 Polonius wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Now, back to my point. When the USA starts cutting back on troops levels, I ask the question: are they still a great power? In all honestly, my answer is Yes and No

The problem is, the term "Great Power" has a reasonably specific definition, which the US more than meets. (Current great powers are US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Germany, Japan. The club has been more or less seven nations for about 400 years)

The US has been a great power since at least ~1900, when it defeated the remnants of the Spanish Empire and picked up its own empire. At that point, the US had a world class navy, the ports from which to extend their power, and global influence. One working definition of great power is "any nation state that can reasonably defend its soveriegnty from any other power." From ~1950-1990, the US was one of two superpowers: with only two nations really competing for global influence, the globe became unusually polarized. Of course, the USSR collapses, and the US emerges a the lone hyperpower, which is just a more euphamistic term for "hegemon."

A hegemon is a power of such influence and might that no realistic force can be assembled against it. The US is such a power, with four other great powers highly unwilling to step agains the US, the US can dictate a lot of policy through its actions. Other powers still control themselves and their spheres (see russia and Ukraine), but neither Russia no China can really change how the US conducts foreign policy in the Middle East.

Hegomony's aren't lost because a few division are understrength or a new jet isn't developed, they are lost when willing allies stop supporting it, and unwilling allies work against it.

It is also lost when the superpower loses the will to defend its interests and gets others to fight for it. See the Kurds fighting ISIL as a prime example of this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I personally think the 'best' way to approach it is to define a good defense policy tied very closely to an overarching foreign policy, then define what capabilities you need the military to have to ensure they can meet the policy goals, then set budgets to ensure getting and maintaining those capabilities is funded.

Starting with a budget without understanding of how that will effect capability and therefore policy/goal achievement is a bad idea.

So for example, defining what your "7-country plan" military is going to be required to do and making sure "7"is the appropriate funding level for that is what is important.

In the film, hot shots part 2, President Tug Benson's solution to American problems in the Middle East, was to invade Minnesota

In all honesty, I see a similar logic at work here. Nobody thinks long term in the USA. Obama's out the door in a few months, so what does he care. The Presidential candidates will probably try and out-do each other in the military and foreign policy stakes, next November., so expect a few daft statements.

I watched Hilary Clinton talk about China the other day. It was total hogwash.

It all adds up to a total lack of a coherent plan.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Now, back to my point. When the USA starts cutting back on troops levels, I ask the question: are they still a great power? In all honestly, my answer is Yes and No

The problem is, the term "Great Power" has a reasonably specific definition, which the US more than meets. (Current great powers are US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Germany, Japan. The club has been more or less seven nations for about 400 years)

The US has been a great power since at least ~1900, when it defeated the remnants of the Spanish Empire and picked up its own empire. At that point, the US had a world class navy, the ports from which to extend their power, and global influence. One working definition of great power is "any nation state that can reasonably defend its soveriegnty from any other power." From ~1950-1990, the US was one of two superpowers: with only two nations really competing for global influence, the globe became unusually polarized. Of course, the USSR collapses, and the US emerges a the lone hyperpower, which is just a more euphamistic term for "hegemon."

A hegemon is a power of such influence and might that no realistic force can be assembled against it. The US is such a power, with four other great powers highly unwilling to step agains the US, the US can dictate a lot of policy through its actions. Other powers still control themselves and their spheres (see russia and Ukraine), but neither Russia no China can really change how the US conducts foreign policy in the Middle East.

Hegomony's aren't lost because a few division are understrength or a new jet isn't developed, they are lost when willing allies stop supporting it, and unwilling allies work against it.

It is also lost when the superpower loses the will to defend its interests and gets others to fight for it. See the Kurds fighting ISIL as a prime example of this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I personally think the 'best' way to approach it is to define a good defense policy tied very closely to an overarching foreign policy, then define what capabilities you need the military to have to ensure they can meet the policy goals, then set budgets to ensure getting and maintaining those capabilities is funded.

Starting with a budget without understanding of how that will effect capability and therefore policy/goal achievement is a bad idea.

So for example, defining what your "7-country plan" military is going to be required to do and making sure "7"is the appropriate funding level for that is what is important.

In the film, hot shots part 2, President Tug Benson's solution to American problems in the Middle East, was to invade Minnesota

In all honesty, I see a similar logic at work here. Nobody thinks long term in the USA. Obama's out the door in a few months, so what does he care. The Presidential candidates will probably try and out-do each other in the military and foreign policy stakes, next November., so expect a few daft statements.

I watched Hilary Clinton talk about China the other day. It was total hogwash.

It all adds up to a total lack of a coherent plan.

I would argue that the ability to get another country or group to fight for you is actually an indication of hegemony, not a loss of it.

As far as many of our presidential candidates lacking a coherent foreign policy plan....well, I can't really argue with you on that one!

I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.

I'm not sure if you're replying to me or Do_I_Not_Like_That, but to be clear, I'm just referring to the current crop of presidential candidates.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.

I'm not sure if you're replying to me or Do_I_Not_Like_That, but to be clear, I'm just referring to the current crop of presidential candidates.

that I completely agree with, but it started with Obama and now its a total feth storm. Long time allies alienated, long time enemies attempting to be friends with. Its like were changing sides

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.

I'm not sure if you're replying to me or Do_I_Not_Like_That, but to be clear, I'm just referring to the current crop of presidential candidates.

that I completely agree with, but it started with Obama and now its a total feth storm. Long time allies alienated, long time enemies attempting to be friends with. Its like were changing sides

Yes, I'm sure the US spree of Middle Eastern conflicts and interventions, the drone assassination campaign, economic recessions with global impact, and our generally snobby attitude towards long standing allies all started in 2008. Yep. Totally...

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.

I'm not sure if you're replying to me or Do_I_Not_Like_That, but to be clear, I'm just referring to the current crop of presidential candidates.

that I completely agree with, but it started with Obama and now its a total feth storm. Long time allies alienated, long time enemies attempting to be friends with. Its like were changing sides

Yes, I'm sure the US spree of Middle Eastern conflicts and interventions, the drone assassination campaign, economic recessions with global impact, and our generally snobby attitude towards long standing allies all started in 2008. Yep. Totally...

Well middle eastern conflicts and interventions has kind of been the long standing norm since Iran/Contra and hell even before that, I would say as far back as the 50s. The drone strikes...yeah relatively new since the tech is new. Never once mentioned recession as that is economics and not foreign policy per say (related I know) Snobby attitudes...yeah that actually is new as of 08, we had a great relationship with Aussieland, UK, Israel and a few others before Obama.

 Hordini wrote:

I would argue that the ability to get another country or group to fight for you is actually an indication of hegemony, not a loss of it.

Quite.

An Empire would send in its legions to fight. But we don't control, or really want to control, the upper middle east. it's almost literally on the other side of the world. Yet we have allies there, willing to fight for us, the ability to sent them arms and supplies, and the influence to do so while another ally, Turkey, hates the idea of an autonomous Kurdish territory. We're doing okay.

 Polonius wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

I would argue that the ability to get another country or group to fight for you is actually an indication of hegemony, not a loss of it.

Quite.

An Empire would send in its legions to fight. But we don't control, or really want to control, the upper middle east. it's almost literally on the other side of the world. Yet we have allies there, willing to fight for us, the ability to sent them arms and supplies, and the influence to do so while another ally, Turkey, hates the idea of an autonomous Kurdish territory. We're doing okay.

Obviously, I disagree with you both. I had a huge argument about this with Jihadin and CptJake on another thread, so I don't really want to be going down this road...again...but...

In WW2, Britain could get other people to fight its battles e.g Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand (apologies if I left anybody out)

in 2015 the Kurds seem to be fighting America's battles for it in the ME

But there is one crucial difference: the empire countries believed in the empire dream, the empire vision. They fought out of loyalty. After all, what threat did Germany pose to Australia?

The Kurds are different. Their war with ISIL is sectarian, and they're looking for a homeland at the end of it. That some of their goals coincide with some of America's goals, is convenient, IMO.

In other words, the Kurds are not fighting for Uncle Sam because they believe in the American dream. You guys are allies of convenience, nothing more.

Your post brings up a question I had. Did Britain have any territories outside the Isles where the colony was citizens, with complete voting and representation in Parliament (like Hawaii is a full state of the USA)?

Wow, okay, so much confusion.

Indian and ANZAC forces in WWII actually were heavily focused on fighting Japan, and even to the extent that they fough in Europe, it was to preserve Britain (at the time their cheif ally against Japan). They did see the fight in terms of self interest.

They also were memebers of the British Empire, with de facto but not de jure independence. You seem to conflate the idea of Empire (nations controlled by a single power) and hegemony (A single power having unmatched influence).

As for the Kurds, and fighting ISIS "for us," I guess I ask the question: "Why is fighting ISIS our problem at all?" Aren't we only helping Iraq and the Kurds because they are our allies?

 CptJake wrote:
I personally think the 'best' way to approach it is to define a good defense policy tied very closely to an overarching foreign policy, then define what capabilities you need the military to have to ensure they can meet the policy goals, then set budgets to ensure getting and maintaining those capabilities is funded.

Starting with a budget without understanding of how that will effect capability and therefore policy/goal achievement is a bad idea.

So for example, defining what your "7-country plan" military is going to be required to do and making sure "7"is the appropriate funding level for that is what is important.

That's all fine, but I was really just referring to the political rhetoric involved. Even if you had the smartest, most well-considered and reality-grounded plan possible, it's probably going to be unpopular and go nowhere as long as it can easily be positioned as "cuts to the military."

Pork is reason #1 (and in fact look at how Congress sometimes decides what the military "needs" even when the military disagrees), but reason #2 is the "you're gonna hurt our troops" cry from the public, which inevitably must lead to "you hate 'Murica!" So yeah, totally agree that the country needs a more integrated, thoughtful approach to our military budget. But I think it'll also need a new rhetorical approach to sell it.

Much like how only Nixon could go to China, it'd probably take a Republican to pull it off.

 Frazzled wrote:
Your post brings up a question I had. Did Britain have any territories outside the Isles where the colony was citizens, with complete voting and representation in Parliament (like Hawaii is a full state of the USA)?

Countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc etc were independent in all but name. They didn't have representatives in Parliament for this reason.

When Japan entered the war and threatened Australia, the Australian government recalled most of its troops from North Africa to defend the homeland. That weakened the British 8th Army and made Rommel happy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
Wow, okay, so much confusion.

Indian and ANZAC forces in WWII actually were heavily focused on fighting Japan, and even to the extent that they fough in Europe, it was to preserve Britain (at the time their cheif ally against Japan). They did see the fight in terms of self interest.

They also were memebers of the British Empire, with de facto but not de jure independence. You seem to conflate the idea of Empire (nations controlled by a single power) and hegemony (A single power having unmatched influence).

As for the Kurds, and fighting ISIS "for us," I guess I ask the question: "Why is fighting ISIS our problem at all?" Aren't we only helping Iraq and the Kurds because they are our allies?

If Japan hadn't entered the war, those Australians would have been fighting the Germans in France, just like in World War One.

You'd have to ask your President why ISIL is an American problem. I've seen him a few times on TV saying that ISIL threatens American interests. They probably upset the Saudis

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If Japan hadn't entered the war, those Australians would have been fighting the Germans in France, just like in World War One.

Any argument based on Japan not launching the Pacifc war is going to struggle with the very real fact that everybody saw war coming with Japan. it's why the US had the fleet it did at Pearl Harbor and the army it did in the Phillipines. It's why the British kept a large force in Singapore despite everything going on in Europe. War was coming (and Japan was cutting through China the whole time anyway), and Australia saw the British Empire as the bulwark to Japan.

I guess I'm just confused by your reading of any change in the US's stance as a meanginful decline.

Decline of America Projection of Force sounds like

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I disagree with you on the foreign policy issue, I think that we as a nation had a very clear foreign policy until Obama took office and during his first term completely changed everything. that is not a obama bash but a statement of fact. We haven't had as bad a relationship with some of our best allies in decades.

Except during the Bush presidency when the US was a laughing-stock and embarrassed itself by codifying warcrimes into SOP.

Aren't we only helping Iraq and the Kurds because they are our allies?

Iraq isn't our ally, it's our puppet-state. The Kurds are an.... ally of convenience. They would probably be closer allies in the area had the US not ignored them after our proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They're fighting ISIL because ISIL will otherwise exterminate them and, also, they're fighting in their homeland. They would fight regardless.

You must have a very different definition of 'puppet-state' than most folks do...