Has America become complacent?

[Augustus Allen]

Is it just me or does anyone feel that the United States military is heading down a dangerous path, with all of the down-sizing, and odd decisions (i.e., doing away with tanks, and replacing them with light armored vehicles, the unfounded belief that airpower alone can win a war, etc.) that have taken place in the past 10 years? Some may feel that the Gulf War was a sweet victory, but why has the United States historically made bad decisions after victory? Seems as though the same thing happened after WW2 in Korea, and we had to find out the hard way. By no means am I a warmonger, but I am alarmed that we may be placing young men and women in harm's way with no clear-cut advantage over potential adversaries.

Semper Fidelis,

six-eight

[minmax]

America just has a short attention span. We decided F-4s did not need guns b/c missiles were so great. So F-8s got to smoke Mig 21s while Phantoms dodged rounds. We decided the M113 was the greatest things since sliced bread until cav troops put sandbags in the floor to protect them from mines. This nation just runs in cycles from learning the hardway and walking around fat, dumb, and happy.

Heck, my students in High School are nice and tight at the beginning of the semester but over time they get loose and sloppy and I have to tighten them up. Just a function of time wearing down one's edge. But just like clock work something collectively pisses this nation off and we get it back together. I guess the trick is go into combat after the military has gotten the peace time stupidity out of its system. Well that's my two cents.

[Augustus Allen]

I agree. But why does it have to get to that point? Why can't we learn from victory as well as defeat? Sadaam could have lobbed a few Scuds tipped with nerve gas at Saudi ports; he could have immediately invaded Saudi Arabia, then where would our victory be? Future opponents will not make the same mistake. Does the American psyche forget so easily? It makes my blood boil that we could even think of letting the art of warfighting to go by the wayside. Does anyone think that the US could handle 2 major regional conflicts, much less 1?

[Bil Hardenberger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>i.e., doing away with tanks, and replacing them with light armored vehicles, the unfounded belief that airpower alone can win a war, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think was ever the plan.. there will always be a Heavy Corps to respond to a large drawn out affair, like Kuwait. But the Army has decided that with today's environment what they need is an air-deployable ready force, so you will see several Light (deployable in a few days time) Armor Brigades begin to form (i.e. replace some of the heavy units) over the next several years.

Even this is a stop gap measure until the Army's planned Transformation (conversion to a Future (as yet undetermined)AFV. This is scheduled to begin deployment in 2008, (overly optimistic for a vehicle that hasn't even been designed yet, let alone tested, and as far I know, the specs haven't even been determined) and deployment may not be completed until 2040, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Bil

P.S. The above dates may be off by a year or so, it's been a while since I read about this stuff and my memory is not what it was!

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Bil Hardenberger ]

[Augustus Allen]

I understand that we have needed to shrink the defense budget slightly, and the world situation is in a state of flux, but I just hope that we are not making a mistake that will cost us in future security. Maybe I am being pessimistic, or I just don't know any better.

[hellfish]

The IBCTs are NOT replacing Heavy Brigades! Only the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd ID is exchanging it's tanks for LAVs. All other IBCTs will be from light units like the 25th ID, 2nd ACR and 172nd Inf Bde.

And as for America becoming complacent - yes, it is a cycle. After every war, we downsize and restructure. But.. looking around right now, we really don't have any threats that we can't deal with? Am I wrong? We're NOT getting into a shooting war with China anytime soon. Iraq is still impotent. Iran is too internally confused to do anything. North Korea is flatlined. India is rapidly becoming friendly with us. What kind of war could we possibly fight in the next ten years?

The IBCTs are there to provide a rapidly deployable force with some armor protection. France has used such forces successfully for many years in Africa, the Balkans and the Middle East. These types of brushfire wars - witness Somalia and Panama - are the only real shooting wars the US is likely to get into for the forseeable future.

These kind of wars do not require a large defense establishment and yet the American military is still potent enough to discourage most types of major wars. The threat of dealing with an American armored or mech division will keep a lot of militaries in their barracks. The American political structure, especially post-Somalia, is geared toward preventing the commitment of troops to places where American interests are not at risk - therefore, if casualties are going to be taken, they will be taken and, up to a point, accepted by the American people. If we were going to get into a shooting war with Iraq again, I am positive that the majority of the American people would support an intervention - because of the oil. If North Korea invaded South Korea, the American people would probably support intervention because of the strong economic ties between the ROK and the US.

Out of curiosity, has anyone read 'The Lexus and the Olive Tree' by Thomas L. Friedman? It has a wonderful explanation/theory of post-cold war conflict prevention.

[qassis]

We citizens need to choose. Do we want a strong military - yes or no? A strong military costs money. We need to recruit and keep good people. We need to maintain our equipment and continually seek to improve that equipment. Military have families - if we don't take care of them, the soldier / sailor / marine / airman will leave. Shoud we be willing to pay for a strong military - only if we want to continue to have freedom.

(hmm, what does this topic have to do with TACOPS?)

[Coyote]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> These types of brushfire wars - witness Somalia and Panama - are the only real shooting wars the US is likely to get into for the forseeable future.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Forseeable" being the operative word here. If we plan to remain active in shaping the course of world events in our favor we need a fairly wide mix of forces to choose from. As discussed above public opinion/policy do run in cycles and the weapons/forces we build normally have as much to do with getting votes as with winning wars. Those are just facts of life and they are not confined to the US.

It only makes sense in a world as fragmented as this one, to keep the widest practical array of forces on-hand. When I was in the 25ID (Light) I would have been glad (make that ecstatic) to have a couple of medium brigades as ready reinforcements. Getting reinforcements in days rather than weeks could make a big impact on how the next conflict turns out. Not every adversary will be gracious (stupid) enough to let us ship in a couple of heavy corps before the big battle.

Gary Chilcote

Coyote

[Mannheim Tanker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coyote:

"Forseeable" being the operative word here. If we plan to remain active in shaping the course of world events in our favor we need a fairly wide mix of forces to choose from. As discussed above public opinion/policy do run in cycles and the weapons/forces we build normally have as much to do with getting votes as with winning wars. Those are just facts of life and they are not confined to the US.

It only makes sense in a world as fragmented as this one, to keep the widest practical array of forces on-hand. When I was in the 25ID (Light) I would have been glad (make that ecstatic) to have a couple of medium brigades as ready reinforcements. Getting reinforcements in days rather than weeks could make a big impact on how the next conflict turns out. Not every adversary will be gracious (stupid) enough to let us ship in a couple of heavy corps before the big battle.

Gary Chilcote

Coyote<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Having a good mix of units at our disposal is the best strategy. It would be pure stupidity to invest everything in a Cold War heavy-armor army. Hehe...this coming from a Cold War heavy-armor tanker!