Last edited by MSgt; 09-04-10 at 05:28 PM.
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.
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 06:02 PM.
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 06:21 PM.
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 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.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.
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.
Reston is in the Dulles corridor, outside of DC.By the way, where near is Reston?
'The whole universe is going to die!'
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).
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.
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.