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 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 133

Thread: Military Branches

  1. #51
    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 FilmFestGuy View Post
    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.
    I have been a proponent of permanent Peacekeeper units for some time. I think by having Peacekeeper military units it will keep the military prepared for occupying countries and provide institutional memory in the military for law enforcement in foreign nations.

    I also wouldn't mind permanent Anti-Insurgency units for that same reason. However, I don't know how much insurgencies will flourish in future conflicts. Perhaps having a small unit for each branch would be enough, who can then train more numbers when they need to.

    However, I don't think peacekeeping and anti-insurgency operations warrant separate military branches. Rather, I think peacekeeping should be handled much like how we handle special operations. That is, each branch of the military would have their own separate Peacekeeping units and those units will train and work together more through interservice cooperation than they do with other units of their same military branch.

    If we're talking about adding more service branches, though, I would like some research done in the virtues of having a separate Cyberwarfare branch of the military that works with the other branches in developing attacks and defenses for cyberwarfare. I really think that's going to be a future arena in warfare and will eventually warrant it's own separate and independent service.

  2. #52
    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 samsmart View Post
    I have been a proponent of permanent Peacekeeper units for some time. I think by having Peacekeeper military units it will keep the military prepared for occupying countries and provide institutional memory in the military for law enforcement in foreign nations.

    I also wouldn't mind permanent Anti-Insurgency units for that same reason. However, I don't know how much insurgencies will flourish in future conflicts. Perhaps having a small unit for each branch would be enough, who can then train more numbers when they need to.

    However, I don't think peacekeeping and anti-insurgency operations warrant separate military branches. Rather, I think peacekeeping should be handled much like how we handle special operations. That is, each branch of the military would have their own separate Peacekeeping units and those units will train and work together more through interservice cooperation than they do with other units of their same military branch.

    If we're talking about adding more service branches, though, I would like some research done in the virtues of having a separate Cyberwarfare branch of the military that works with the other branches in developing attacks and defenses for cyberwarfare. I really think that's going to be a future arena in warfare and will eventually warrant it's own separate and independent service.
    Cool. However it's implemented, I think it's a good idea. And cyberwarfare isn't something I thought about. I know we have people trained in it, but you're right. It's probably something that's not being properly thought out.

    I heard a retired General on NPR the other day, and I think he said the best thing I've heard about the military (and I'm paraphrasing): The problem with the contemporary military is that they're stuck fighting World War 2 every time a new conflict breaks out.

    I'd never thought of it that way, but I think he's right. Our stategies are still based on old models. We need new thinkers (Patraeus is close, I think) to create strategies to match the present world instead of still thinking the way we did 60 years ago. It worked really well 60 years ago and helped free the world. It hasn't worked so well since.

  3. #53
    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

    If you are going to occupy other countries, dedicated anti-insurgency and peacekeeping forces seem to be a must (a better option would be to stop occupying other countries of course). Clearly the US military does perfectly fine in a conventional fight. We're fast, have a lot of firepower, gain air superiority quickly, have great battlefield information gathering capabilities, and highly trained soldiers. I'm not sure there is a military on Earth that could face the US in a conventional fight (even China). But we keep finding that we get struck sticking around in the countries we beat. That's all well and good when the populace is peaceful and the regime secure, but in the likely case that one or both of those things doesn't happen we need an entirely different skill set that at this point we're maybe OK at but could use a ton of improvement. A dedicated force would probably do a lot for that.

  4. #54
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,255

    Re: Military Branches

    What the hell is the purpose of a thread like this?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #55
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Military Branches

    Marines or Army. No need for two land forces.
    PeteEU

  6. #56
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    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.
    When you attack a country that has severe internal problems to start with, you don't take out their military or police. Those must remain in place to keep the peace once the initial fight is over.

    You just use smart bombs and cruise missles to take out their ability to wage war with anything larger than hand held weapons. That way they are at a minimum threat to us.
    Then, meet with the military leaders and have them "govern" until a civilian govt can be formed, if that is even necessary.

    Boots on the ground are just targets, especially in places like the middle east. They may hate each other, but one thing they will have in common, they hate occupiers more.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  7. #57
    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 PeteEU View Post
    Marines or Army. No need for two land forces.
    The Marines aren't land forces. They are a military force designed and equipped for amphibious operations and rapid deployment. They also have their own aviators, which includes those for fixed-wing aircraft.

  8. #58
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    The Marines aren't land forces. They are a military force designed and equipped for amphibious operations and rapid deployment. They also have their own aviators, which includes those for fixed-wing aircraft.
    A marine is like any other service member, except with balls....
    so says an old friend who was a marine aviator. He said Marines flew much closer to the ground than other aviators...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  9. #59
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Police Departments enforce munipal law.
    Sheriff's patrol the county.
    A state couldn't function if the State Police weren't out there collecting taxes on the highways.
    The FBI enforces federal law.

    The DEA shouldn't exist, since the federal government doesn't have constitutional authority to regulate drugs.
    The federal government does not have the athority to regulate alcohol or tobacco, either, per the Constitution. And fire arms are heavily over-regulated in defiance of the Second Amendment. Thus the BATF isn't necessary.

    DHS should never have been created, since FBI already exists.

    Border Patrol is a specialized task, but there's no reason the FBI couldn't absorb that.

    Treasury directs the Secret Service to deal with counterfeiters and Presidential Security. Clearly both functions can fall under the FBI umbrella.

    In general, there are too many bureaucracies and too many duplicated functions for efficiency or coherence in policy.

    82 Americans died protecting their freedoms under the First and Second Amendment simply because the bureaucrats running the BATF wanted a high profile arrest just before their budget came under review by Congress.

    DHS is prevented from acting in matters of border security, and hence it can't possibly be responsible for "homeland" (something wrong with the word "national"? Closet nazis refer to the "homeland"...) security.
    DHS exists mainly because of a fundamental shift in the concept of terrorism. Prior to 9/11, terrorism in the US was mostly thought of as a criminal offense rather than acts of war. The various agencies that deal with criminal offenses are notoriously territorial and were not sharing information. Further, US intelligence agencies were separated by law from domestic activities, but had the brunt of information on terrorists and their activities. The formation of DHS allowed intelligence and law enforcement to communicate and has done quite well in thwarting terrorist activities in the US. By absorbing Border Patrol, TSA, the Coast Guard, and various other law enforcement agencies under one umbrella, it was able to increase collaboration and coordination not only in mitigating threats, but in investigating incidents and dealing with the resultant emergency conditions. An incident commander does not now need to waste time securing the cooperation of various agencies in order to deal with an emergency.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  10. #60
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    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.
    Im not saying the Army should be the one.
    Im saying we could go back to an Army/Navy combo.
    It would be costly and difficult, but with the question proposed it would seem the only reasonable answer of any of them.

    Personally I think things are fine the way they are.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •