This opinion by Mr. Lind is reasonably thought out and concisely put for the purpose of getting the idea out on this forum. I just don't agree with his presumptions.
The most significant point of disagreement is over Lind's low regard for 3rd Generation war-fighting capability. The best deterrence to another Korea- or Vietnam-style of war is our preparedness to fight it. I don't think it is responsible to just make friends with Russia, or to promise never to go to war with China. Both countries are pursuing strategies intended to re-establish themselves as super-powers, capable of bending the wills of whole continents with their military and economic power.
The Aegis cruisers will become even more valuable both as surface combat ships and force projectors in critical chokepoints for maritime commerce. The Aegis anti-missile capabilities will become more effective with testing and project development. They will be essential to protect those "box" carriers Mr. Lind wants to keep, as well as maritime transport of every kind, and selected military bases and population centers within the United States.
I think that the U.S. military would do well to shut down all foreign military facilities and withdraw from all military commitments that require military forces to be permanently stationed overseas. The U.S. military should be focused instead on rapid deployment into areas where military force is needed in response to another country's acts of aggression.
Originally posted by AGBrina: This opinion by Mr. Lind is reasonably thought out and concisely put for the purpose of getting the idea out on this forum. I just don't agree with his presumptions.
The most significant point of disagreement is over Lind's low regard for 3rd Generation war-fighting capability. The best deterrence to another Korea- or Vietnam-style of war is our preparedness to fight it. I don't think it is responsible to just make friends with Russia, or to promise never to go to war with China. Both countries are pursuing strategies intended to re-establish themselves as super-powers, capable of bending the wills of whole continents with their military and economic power.
The Aegis cruisers will become even more valuable both as surface combat ships and force projectors in critical chokepoints for maritime commerce. The Aegis anti-missile capabilities will become more effective with testing and project development. They will be essential to protect those "box" carriers Mr. Lind wants to keep, as well as maritime transport of every kind, and selected military bases and population centers within the United States.
I think that the U.S. military would do well to shut down all foreign military facilities and withdraw from all military commitments that require military forces to be permanently stationed overseas. The U.S. military should be focused instead on rapid deployment into areas where military force is needed in response to another country's acts of aggression.
You are very short sighted and really don't have a grasp of the limitations of rapid deployment. Isolationism is not the answer, never has been and never will be.
12383113: I believe that it it Mr. Lind who is advocating a Grand Defensive Strategy. Perhaps I did not make myself understood.
I am not an isolationist. Rather I want to maximize the military resources available for deployment into whatever troublespot that occurs. Fixed and scattered deployments at disparate locations abroad ties down and depletes our forces.
Once upon a time -it was the late '50s through the mid '60s- America had a command called "Stratfor" Headquartered in Tampa, Florida. It was a force of 186,000 men from all branches of service intended to be sent anywhere in the world within a matter of days (82d airborne division) and weeks (a Mechanized Army corps, a Marine division, and the Appropriate Air Force assets to support it). This force was primarily intended to go to Europe; but also could have gone to Cuba, or Korea/Taiwan/Vietnam in Asia. Over the course of the Vietnam War, the resources in Stratfor got deployed to Vietnam or elsewhere. But even as late as 1975 (my last year of active service) there were 2 Army divisions detailed to Stratfor for ready deployment to whatever place they were needed. (Granted: the U.S.Army was so demoralized by 1975 that these earmarked divisions may have existed on "paper" only. But we were still playing wargames as if they existed.)
"We should not plan for conventional wars against hypothetical "peer competitors," which can only be Russia or China. We should do our utmost to make Russia an ally, and we should make a fundamental, bi-partisan national strategic decision that we will not go to war with China. Regardless of who "won" such a war, it would destroy both countries, just as the two World Wars destroyed both Germany and Britain. The world needs China to serve as a source of order in what will be an increasingly disorderly 21st century. We should welcome the growth of Chinese power, just as Britain learned (reluctantly) to welcome the growth of American power in the 20th century. It is only a threat to us if we make it one."
this guy has just got himself on my lunatic list. what happens when China or Russia decides they don't want to play nice, and we've turned all our real weapons into slag?
what we need to do is stomp - hard - on the tendency of many contractors to crank prices through the roof because they know the Generals will pay. A $2k computer is still a $2k computer - top-of-the-line (or close). Why is a $50-million weapons system not still a $50-million weapons system?
I don't think we should ignore 4-GW, but that is mostly tactics and strategy changes. We cannot ignore the threat of an older-style warfare against a peer competitor. The only reason Russia and China are our only peers/hypothetical competitors is those very weapons systems Mr. Lind wants to get rid of.
Mr. Lind makes sense, as does AGBrina in counterpoint. The knee-jerk comment of "isolationism" doesn't fit in the discussion. Reducing our involvement in the business of other nations is anything but "isolationist." It's "realist." Rag-tag but zealous Middle Easterners with no formal education and living under extreme poverty and in war-torn cities and towns have brought that reality to us daily for five years using leftover munitions and duct tape.
Don't agree with realist quotes, we minded our business til 1916 in WWI, look what the cost us, we ignored the world till 1941, look at the cost of that- we told the Commies taht Korea was unimportant in 1950, looked what happened. We payed little attention to Muslim fanatics- embassies bombed, 1 DD tore up, 3k of Americans died in one attack. Every time we have played the head in the sand game, someone has tried to kick our butt! It's been proved if you aren't proatcive then you have to react to your new enemy.
The US must face reality. The sun is about to sit on the American Empire, and we have little choice but to scale back our military presence throughout the world. The economic supremacy of the US is in rapid free fall and we simply can no longer afford to support a bloated military presence around the globe. In the past decade the US has abrogated its role in using diplomacy as a means to resolve conflict. We may as well abolish the State Department all together. We have morphed into a war initiating nation whose economy and international relationships are dictated by the Military Industrial Complex. The reality of economic downturn, coupled with our penchant for being the world's most hated bully, demands that we reject the destructive tenets of Pax Americana, withdraw our forces that are permanently assigned overseas, and realign our military as a defense force rather than an aggressor force. If this is "isolationism" then so be it. The US would be much better off spending 12B a month that we don't have on rebuilding its economy, and in restoring the words "diplomacy" and "peace-making" to their proper places in our lexicon.
Originally posted by Misanthrope2: The US must face reality. The sun is about to sit on the American Empire, and we have little choice but to scale back our military presence throughout the world. The economic supremacy of the US is in rapid free fall and we simply can no longer afford to support a bloated military presence around the globe. In the past decade the US has abrogated its role in using diplomacy as a means to resolve conflict. We may as well abolish the State Department all together. We have morphed into a war initiating nation whose economy and international relationships are dictated by the Military Industrial Complex. The reality of economic downturn, coupled with our penchant for being the world's most hated bully, demands that we reject the destructive tenets of Pax Americana, withdraw our forces that are permanently assigned overseas, and realign our military as a defense force rather than an aggressor force. If this is "isolationism" then so be it. The US would be much better off spending 12B a month that we don't have on rebuilding its economy, and in restoring the words "diplomacy" and "peace-making" to their proper places in our lexicon.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Misanthrope2: The sun is about to sit on the American Empire, and we have little choice but to scale back our military presence throughout the world.
What people with surrender attitudes like this do not understand is that whatever America's flaws, whoever rises to take our place as the world leader will be far, far worse.
Look around the world: Who do you want to take our place? There are no acceptable alternatives and there are no alliances we can make with any other countries because none share the commitment to our values and way of life.
So goes America, so goes the freedom of the people of the world. It is only fitting that a country so committed to freedom does in fact turn over every country it conquers back to the people it has conquered. No other "Empire" in the history of the world has ever done this, which is why we are not an "Empire" to begin with.
It is actually unfortunate that we stopped Manifest Destiny as the Pacific Ocean instead of defending a promoting freedom one country at a time one war at a time around the world.
If you do not wholeheartedly believe that America's values are the best, then you have the responsility, obligation, and the opportunity like exists in no other country to change them to something you do wholeheartedly believe it.
Show some respect for America. The "sun is setting on the American Empire" because of people like you.
It is actually unfortunate that we stopped Manifest Destiny as the Pacific Ocean instead of defending a promoting freedom one country at a time one war at a time around the world.
So conquering the World would be consistant with American Values?
