- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,606
- Reaction score
- 19,348
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
""The (National Defense Strategy) too often rests on questionable assumptions and weak analysis, and it leaves unanswered critical questions regarding how the United States will meet the challenges of a more dangerous world," the report says, criticizing the lack of investment and organizational changes to reinforce the new strategy. The Commission assesses unequivocally that the NDS is not adequately resourced," the report says, while adding that "available resources are clearly insufficient to fulfill the strategy's ambitious goals, including that of ensuring that DOD can defeat a major power adversary while deterring other enemies simultaneously."
"The United States is particularly at risk of being overwhelmed should its military be forced to fight on two or more fronts simultaneously," it adds.
The defense budget is up to 715 BILLION a year. If that won't do the trick, the problem isn't a lack of money. It's in the leadership and their decision-making.
Of course.... having a less-than-perfect military is a good reason to maintain meaningful ties with allies and not pointlessly provoke potential enemies instead of running around waving our dicks in everyone's faces, which seems to be the Trump strategy.
No kidding. That's pretty much always the case, for everyone, everywhere. That's why the best strategy involves avoiding trying to fight multiple major powers simultaneously and alone.
The defense budget is up to 715 BILLION a year. If that won't do the trick, the problem isn't a lack of money. It's in the leadership and their decision-making.
Of course.... having a less-than-perfect military is a good reason to maintain meaningful ties with allies and not pointlessly provoke potential enemies instead of running around waving our dicks in everyone's faces, which seems to be the Trump strategy.
No kidding. That's pretty much always the case, for everyone, everywhere. That's why the best strategy involves avoiding trying to fight multiple major powers simultaneously and alone.
The report says the EXACT OPPOSITE, that we are still under-resourced...not that "TRUMP IS THE PROBLEM". The entire point is no cuts. Sorry. I realize that throws a monkey wrench in your attempted "BLAME TRUMP" nonsense...
From the CBC
Why the U.S. could lose the next big war - and what that means for Canada
It was more than the usual sky-is-falling rhetoric we're used to seeing in national security reports out of Washington.
It came from some pretty sober, respected voices in the defence community.
A special commission report, presented to the U.S. Congress this week, delivered one of the most stark — even startling — assessments in the last two decades of the limits of American military power.
The independent, nonpartisan review of the Trump administration's 2018 National Defence Strategy said the U.S. could lose future wars with Russia or China.
"This Commission believes that America has reached the point of a full-blown national security crisis," reads the 116-page document written by 12 leading defence and security experts and released Wednesday.
COMMENT:-
Picked this article for a starting point because it was most likely to be a "grabber".
I recommend that you read the CNN version for a more US-centric analysis.
I strongly recommend that you read the whole report, which you can down load as a PDF "Providing for the Common Defense".
The defense budget is up to 715 BILLION a year. If that won't do the trick, the problem isn't a lack of money. It's in the leadership and their decision-making.
Of course.... having a less-than-perfect military is a good reason to maintain meaningful ties with allies and not pointlessly provoke potential enemies instead of running around waving our dicks in everyone's faces, which seems to be the Trump strategy.
No kidding. That's pretty much always the case, for everyone, everywhere. That's why the best strategy involves avoiding trying to fight multiple major powers simultaneously and alone.
From the CBC
Why the U.S. could lose the next big war - and what that means for Canada
It was more than the usual sky-is-falling rhetoric we're used to seeing in national security reports out of Washington.
It came from some pretty sober, respected voices in the defence community.
A special commission report, presented to the U.S. Congress this week, delivered one of the most stark — even startling — assessments in the last two decades of the limits of American military power.
The independent, nonpartisan review of the Trump administration's 2018 National Defence Strategy said the U.S. could lose future wars with Russia or China.
"This Commission believes that America has reached the point of a full-blown national security crisis," reads the 116-page document written by 12 leading defence and security experts and released Wednesday.
COMMENT:-
Picked this article for a starting point because it was most likely to be a "grabber".
I recommend that you read the CNN version for a more US-centric analysis.
I strongly recommend that you read the whole report, which you can down load as a PDF "Providing for the Common Defense".
The report clearly points out how devastating Sequestration was to defense spending. Sequestration could have ended. Obama tried to end it. But NOOOOOO. The GOP's no cooperation with Obama mandate killed that and here we are now with a President that insults are allies and encourages just the sort of authoritarian regimes that will never cozy up to us as a country. Trump does not care about us as a country. Everything he does on the foreign policy front is to benefit his personal wealth ambitions and not more than that.
That said, the way our system here is manipulated to short term goals with inefficiencies that abound we are at a long term disadvantage to a country like China and even in some ways to a Russia. That they present challenges that are not even remotely similar do not help us as it requires even more resources to maintain readiness v both. Is it any wonder that countries like NK and Saudi and Iran pick at us like we are are a festering carcass. Could it be because we act like a festering carcass and maybe are in fact a festering carcass.
I find it particularly disconcerting that American strategic thinking is moving away from a force structure determined to be able to fight two adversaries at once to one predicated on fighting one major war. That sounds a good deal to me like Military Strategists determining that they simply will fail to be able to maintain force structure capable of fighting on two fronts either through lack of funding or inefficiency in procurement and other processes if not both. I agree with the analysis in the report that suggests that classifying the issues and the priorities as they have been is likely a mistake in a circumstance where we are more concerned about whether our Internet connection is functioning as opposed to whether we are capable of the top priority for any national regime, national security.
Overarching all of this IMO is this nonsense about retrenchment and protectionism and nationalism and beating up on our allies for no particular good reason. A real geopolitical truism is that power hates a vacuum. You back yourself down behind your silly wall and you will find that your adversaries have moved right up to your wall and boxed you in. I am frankly not convinced we can afford four more years of Trumpism on the geopolitical front, never mind the domestic front. Trump did not get us here. But he showed up at the worst possible time IMO given the task at hand.
From the CBC
Why the U.S. could lose the next big war - and what that means for Canada
It was more than the usual sky-is-falling rhetoric we're used to seeing in national security reports out of Washington.
It came from some pretty sober, respected voices in the defence community.
A special commission report, presented to the U.S. Congress this week, delivered one of the most stark — even startling — assessments in the last two decades of the limits of American military power.
The independent, nonpartisan review of the Trump administration's 2018 National Defence Strategy said the U.S. could lose future wars with Russia or China.
"This Commission believes that America has reached the point of a full-blown national security crisis," reads the 116-page document written by 12 leading defence and security experts and released Wednesday.
COMMENT:-
Picked this article for a starting point because it was most likely to be a "grabber".
I recommend that you read the CNN version for a more US-centric analysis.
I strongly recommend that you read the whole report, which you can down load as a PDF "Providing for the Common Defense".
On which two fronts would we fight two other major powers?
The US can’t win a war against China or Russia because nobody wins that war.
at first glance the report does not seem to anticipate an attack on the United States but an attack on our allied and interests. Is it a foregone conclusion that the US must defend our international corporate interests. Or should American companies invest in America?
The US will never be invincible. One lesson the whole world should have learned from the 1967 six days war is that God ultimately decides what the results of wars will be.
The report clearly points out how devastating Sequestration was to defense spending. Sequestration could have ended. Obama tried to end it. But NOOOOOO. The GOP's no cooperation with Obama mandate killed that and here we are now with a President that insults are allies and encourages just the sort of authoritarian regimes that will never cozy up to us as a country. Trump does not care about us as a country. Everything he does on the foreign policy front is to benefit his personal wealth ambitions and not more than that.
That said, the way our system here is manipulated to short term goals with inefficiencies that abound we are at a long term disadvantage to a country like China and even in some ways to a Russia. That they present challenges that are not even remotely similar do not help us as it requires even more resources to maintain readiness v both. Is it any wonder that countries like NK and Saudi and Iran pick at us like we are are a festering carcass. Could it be because we act like a festering carcass and maybe are in fact a festering carcass.
I find it particularly disconcerting that American strategic thinking is moving away from a force structure determined to be able to fight two adversaries at once to one predicated on fighting one major war. That sounds a good deal to me like Military Strategists determining that they simply will fail to be able to maintain force structure capable of fighting on two fronts either through lack of funding or inefficiency in procurement and other processes if not both. I agree with the analysis in the report that suggests that classifying the issues and the priorities as they have been is likely a mistake in a circumstance where we are more concerned about whether our Internet connection is functioning as opposed to whether we are capable of the top priority for any national regime, national security.
Overarching all of this IMO is this nonsense about retrenchment and protectionism and nationalism and beating up on our allies for no particular good reason. A real geopolitical truism is that power hates a vacuum. You back yourself down behind your silly wall and you will find that your adversaries have moved right up to your wall and boxed you in. I am frankly not convinced we can afford four more years of Trumpism on the geopolitical front, never mind the domestic front. Trump did not get us here. But he showed up at the worst possible time IMO given the task at hand.
If trump supporters think Putin will come to the rescue they are delusional. Putin has trump by the testicles and he will do everything he can to take over the USA. trump and his family will flee to Moscow and Americans will have to start learning Russian.
One possible option is to use the one that the major American corporations used in the 1930s and 40s - "sell" their overseas assets to "neutrals" (so that they wouldn't be [directly] providing war materials to the other side, then "buy" those assets back from the "neutrals" (including all of the accumulated profits and the reparations money paid by the victors for the damage done to "neutral" assets) for the same amount that they "sold" them for in the first place.
I was making a slightly different point. I was questioning whether or not we should declare vital national interests beyond our borders? The paper assumes we should, that we are responsible for peace and prosperity. In the nuclear age is this thinking obsolete?
any war is the final war, there will be no victory.
Good points.
There is an old saw to the effect that "The military always prepares for the last war.".
I see it slightly differently so that it should actually read "The military always prepares for the last war that it won.".
Although it's probably stretching the point, it appears that the US military establishment is trying to get ready to fight WWII v. 2.0.
This would be fine if that was the war that those people who are attacking America were actually intending to fight (and/or are fighting now).
I was making a slightly different point. I was questioning whether or not we should declare vital national interests beyond our borders? The paper assumes we should, that we are responsible for peace and prosperity. In the nuclear age is this thinking obsolete?
any war is the final war, there will be no victory.
The US will never be invincible. One lesson the whole world should have learned from the 1967 six days war is that God ultimately decides what the results of wars will be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?