View Poll Results: Which branch and explain?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Army

    19 29.69%
  • Navy

    8 12.50%
  • Airforce

    11 17.19%
  • Marine Corps

    6 9.38%
  • Coast Guard

    0 0%
  • Other

    20 31.25%
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 133

Thread: Military Branches

  1. #41
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,013

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Our Military Branch Choices should be Army...or Navy?
    The Army has enough internal problems without adopting three other branches into the fold to belch on. Even Saddam Hussein's military was distinctly seperated on the grounds of basic mission. Consolidation is self defeating. If it had to happen it would have to be an entirely new unit void of the bad habits of the past.
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-04-10 at 07:28 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #42
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,013

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Sure you can....if we had nuclear weapons at the START of WWII, we wouldn't have needed boots on the ground....
    Just bomb the hell out of them, even with conventional bombs, and then leave. They can clean up the mess themselves...
    It's impractical though.

    Iraq proved once and for to the RMA and the Washington black holes that their ideas of winning wars was not correct. The Gulf War was an exception not to be repeated any time soon. Despite Rumsfeld's idiocy and his worthless "Shock and Awe" tactics, boots on the ground was needed to fight that war mile by mile.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #43
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    You should call him an idiot.

    Kennedy's Whiz Kids also thought such fundamental basics in regards to consolidations. They believed that all should wear the same uniforms. All should use the same weapons. All should use the same planes, equipment, and so on. This guy you were arguing with is clueless. The Whiz Kids were proven wrong in their visions.

    Consolidation would weaken the force, by stripping specialities. Because the missions are so broad, one consolidated branch could not sustain the training needed to support this diversity. Marines and soldiers can't be trained to walk patrols and steer ships. Air Force bombers cannot also be trained to dog fight. Transport helicopter pilots cannot be trained to fly attack Apaches and Cobras. The Army's big box mentality could not sustain a Marine mission and vice versa.

    The branches are needed in order to sustain speciality. Without speciality, there is no focus that hones a skill or a mission. It becomes too ragged. "Jack of all trades, but master of none" becomes the reality across the single consolidated branch. It's our specialities that enable us to perform Combined Arms with perfection. It's what makes us the best.
    BTW, what do you think of the Canadian Forces, which is basically Canada's unified military? While they unified their command structure, Canada doesn't have the same scope of operations that the U.S. does, which is why I don't think the U.S. should do it. But I would like someone with your military experience to comment on it if you could.

  4. #44
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,013

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    BTW, what do you think of the Canadian Forces, which is basically Canada's unified military? While they unified their command structure, Canada doesn't have the same scope of operations that the U.S. does, which is why I don't think the U.S. should do it. But I would like someone with your military experience to comment on it if you could.
    Most unified militaries are only that in name. Underneath the name they may as well fall under different roofs. Even under Napoleon's Army they were separated in terms of cavalry, artillery, and so one. But their "enemies" were across the border (The Egyptian campaign would have been easier had he a standing Navy that focused on sea duties only.) This is true for most. Unified militaries generally have a single local mission with very few exceptions. They are traditional in that neighboring enemies were the targets. Today's world is different which is why even under a unified Soviet military or a Chinese Army there were/are distinctions of speciality which act as seperate branches.

    Unified militaries are fine if your mission calls for something less than ours. But they aren't good enough to stand on their own because of their lack of speciality. One of the reasons no military can stand up to us is that we are diverse in our training and specialized, yet more than capable of supporting each other. I've never been along side Canadians, but Canadian forces are one of our greatest allies in a fight they involve themselves in. In Afghanistan, they are third on the list for casualties. And this is not because they suck, but because they are in the fight. First and second are America and the U.K. respectively. Everyone of our other "allies" are far below and far away from the fight. In fact, the total casualty count of every one of our other allies barely exceeds what Canada has lost. Historically, the big three have always been these three English speaking nations sticking together.
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-04-10 at 08:02 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    It's impractical though.

    Iraq proved once and for to the RMA and the Washington black holes that their ideas of winning wars was not correct. The Gulf War was an exception not to be repeated any time soon. Despite Rumsfeld's idiocy and his worthless "Shock and Awe" tactics, boots on the ground was needed to fight that war mile by mile.
    I respectfully disagree. We had the wrong strategy post-invasion and correcting it did not require more boots on the ground prior to the build up of the insurgency. Rumsfeld and brass (Franks, Abasaid) should have immediately gone into COIN mode and get the troops off the bases and into FOBs and patrolling continuously. Protect the population, right? 3 block war. They did it right in a few areas (Mosul) but it should have been theater wide. Instead, we decided to stand-off, train security forces, and disengage soonest, leaving an operational vacuum that the insurgency filled.

  6. #46
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,013

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I respectfully disagree. We had the wrong strategy post-invasion and correcting it did not require more boots on the ground prior to the build up of the insurgency. Rumsfeld and brass (Franks, Abasaid) should have immediately gone into COIN mode and get the troops off the bases and into FOBs and patrolling continuously. Protect the population, right? 3 block war. They did it right in a few areas (Mosul) but it should have been theater wide. Instead, we decided to stand-off, train security forces, and disengage soonest, leaving an operational vacuum that the insurgency filled.
    I'm not sure where you are disagreeing. You are condoning boots on the ground here, which is what my statement was clear about. Boots were needed between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, and boots were needed after Baghdad fell. 12 years of Washington rhetoric that technology alone will win our wars just like in the Gulf War was proven false. It was always going to be false because the scenarios of the Gulf War was a wargamers wet dream. A lack of boots and an avoidance of cities is what allowed our military to have to fight later fights, because the enemy merely hid. Furthermore, most of Iraq never felt defeated and never even saw a U.S. military unit when we took Baghdad. In a nation where people were separated in accordance to tribe and community, this was devistating in the long run. But not enough boots on the ground after Baghdad fell was a definate point of where we screwed this up. You want to secure a neighborhood in New York? Drop in a beat cop. It's fundamental and virtually everything about occupation 101 was ignored by the Rumsfeld coven.

    I could write up a long winded post of what I believe about what went wrong (and you know I'd be right because I am MSgt), but I've been told that people are tired of reading my "crap." I also tend to be in this entirely for the discussion rather than thread subject restrictions and people don't seem to like that divergence these days.

    By the way, where near is Reston?
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-04-10 at 08:21 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I'm not sure where you are disagreeing. You are condoning boots on the ground here, which is what my statement was clear about. Boots were needed between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, and boots were needed after Baghdad fell. 12 years of Washington rhetoric that technology alone will win our wars just like in the Gulf War was proven false. It was always going to be false because the scenarios of the Gulf War was a wargamers wet dream. A lack of boots and an avoidance of cities is what allowed our military to have to fight later fights, because the enemy merely hid. Furthermore, most of Iraq never felt defeated and never even saw a U.S. military unit when we took Baghdad. In a nation where people were separated in accordance to tribe and community, this was devistating in the long run. But not enough boots on the ground after Baghdad fell was a definate point of where we screwed this up. You want to secure a neighborhood in New York? Drop in a beat cop. It's fundamental and virtually everything about occupation 101 was ignored by the Rumsfeld coven.
    I think we agree on the use of a different strategy, where the boots are playing beat cop immediately after Baghdad fell. My difference with your statement is I don't think we needed MORE boots on the ground. I think the strategy change with the numbers we had committed would have been enough to effectively fight the insurgency and build local security forces to end the looting. I think we agree that we would be facing an insurgency, no matter what. But we didn't need more boots. At the height of the active insurgency/civil war we only needed 50,000 extra boots with the strategy change. Anbar Awakening helped of course.

    I do think the looting would have happened no matter what and no matter how many boots we had on the ground. To many locations to protect and we didn't know which would get hit. Looting is evidently some sort of tradition over there and much of it was coordinated.

    I could write up a long winded post of what I believe about what went wrong (and you know I'd be right because I am MSgt), but I've been told that people are tired of reading my "crap." I also tend to be in this entirely for the discussion rather than thread subject restrictions and people don't seem to like that divergence these days.
    I would love to read such a post, if you have the time and energy to write one. Note that I think disbanding the Iraqi Army was necessary.

    What do you mean by "rather than thread subject restrictions and people don't seem to like that divergence these days"? I don't understand.

    By the way, where near is Reston?
    Reston is in the Dulles corridor, outside of DC.

  8. #48
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion View Post
    I voted the navy and here's why.
    I agree and would like to see a US constitutional supported military. The US Constitution provided for a full time Navy (oversees both the Marine Corps and Navy) and an army only to be called up when needed and for a limited time (no standing peacetime Army!). The control of the National Guard would return to the states. So, the national/federal government would leave us with the Navy and Marines and the states would have their militias or National Guard.
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  9. #49
    Student Civil1z@tion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    12-10-10 @ 02:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    247

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by peepnklown View Post
    I agree and would like to see a US constitutional supported military. The US Constitution provided for a full time Navy (oversees both the Marine Corps and Navy) and an army only to be called up when needed and for a limited time (no standing peacetime Army!). The control of the National Guard would return to the states. So, the national/federal government would leave us with the Navy and Marines and the states would have their militias or National Guard.
    A small cadre force to provide the experienced officers and NCOs during wartime would be necessary, but beyond that I wouldn't have a problem with that scheme.

    I would like to point out however, that the Constitution did not ban standing armies, even very large standing armies, it simply stated that the army could not be given appropriations for more than 2 years at a time (meaning that at most, Congress could decide not to fund the army every two years). It is, of course, a sign of the Founders thinking that they did not place such restrictions on a navy and it makes sense when you consider that Navies do not lead coups (doing so can be rather impractical given the small numbers of ground troops navies have access to and you certainly can't use those limited forces to pacify the countryside). They probably would not be too thrilled at how large the Army is (though they'd be proud of the current US Navy).

  10. #50
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Most unified militaries are only that in name. Underneath the name they may as well fall under different roofs. Even under Napoleon's Army they were separated in terms of cavalry, artillery, and so one. But their "enemies" were across the border (The Egyptian campaign would have been easier had he a standing Navy that focused on sea duties only.) This is true for most. Unified militaries generally have a single local mission with very few exceptions. They are traditional in that neighboring enemies were the targets. Today's world is different which is why even under a unified Soviet military or a Chinese Army there were/are distinctions of speciality which act as seperate branches.

    Unified militaries are fine if your mission calls for something less than ours. But they aren't good enough to stand on their own because of their lack of speciality. One of the reasons no military can stand up to us is that we are diverse in our training and specialized, yet more than capable of supporting each other. I've never been along side Canadians, but Canadian forces are one of our greatest allies in a fight they involve themselves in. In Afghanistan, they are third on the list for casualties. And this is not because they suck, but because they are in the fight. First and second are America and the U.K. respectively. Everyone of our other "allies" are far below and far away from the fight. In fact, the total casualty count of every one of our other allies barely exceeds what Canada has lost. Historically, the big three have always been these three English speaking nations sticking together.
    I'm glad to have someone of expertise to discuss this with.

    I was recently chatting with two friends (both former Marines), and we were talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (one served there, one was out of the service before it started, but was in First Gulf War) and we were actually thinking the other way. That further division would be better.

    It was based on this. The overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam's regime were relatively simple compared to what followed. I suggested (and my father was Navy, so I'm familiar - but I didn't personally serve and probably couldn't have even if I wanted to) that we create a "Peace Force" and an "Anti-Insurgency Force" (you can call them what you like).

    The "Peace Force" would be armed but would focus primarily on recovery of the occupied nation, but would be able to respond defensively to attack. The Anti-Insurgency Force would be a fast, mobile force that would squelch and hold regions in turmoil until the "Peace Force" would come in once security is established.

    The reasoning behind this is that the invading force (the current branches) are trained to kill the enemy, which require a degree of dehumanization of the enemy. I think, psychologically, it would be very difficult with the absence of uniforms (and that's going to be just about any conflict we face from here on out) to think one way and then turn on a dime and try to win over hearts and minds once the enemy government is toppled.

    Thoughts?

    And I just want to say I've really appreciated most all of what you've posted - even if occasionally (though not often), we've disagreed.

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •