Can the US afford to "rebuild" the military?

[Bigmack]

This morning's Seattle Times had the below op-ed piece.

Even those opposed to Dumbya's war are talking about "rebuilding" the US military after Iraq.

My question is... Can we afford to rebuild the military?

With record deficits, the dollar plunging, oil being sold in euros, a terrible trade balance, etc, etc, can the US continue to play World Cop? The Soviets weren't brought down by St. Ronnie, but by spending themselves to death on the military even though they had a hollowed economy.

And don't get me started on how the military funds are spent. Our super-expensive Intel agencies couldn't stop a bunch of guys with box cutters from hijacking planes and hitting prime targets. (That's if you believe the standard story.) Our Army and Marines have been ground down and blown up by a non-country and a small irregular insurgency.... imagine how they would do with two or three of these clusterfucks going on simultaneously!

Maybe it's time to just admit that the US isn't cut out for Empire and World Domination. Maybe the US should do that soon... before we collapse like a house of cards.
- - - - -
Democrats fear war limiting Army's future capability
By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau

snip....

Dicks, Smith and Larsen all say they worry the war is eating away at the U.S. Army's future capability.

"Our military is being hollowed out," Larsen said. Recruitment for the all-volunteer military is being hit hard, he said, and the National Guard and Reserves are being stretched thin.

"We don't have enough units," Dicks said. "Our strategic reserve is now down to the Air Force and Navy."

The cost to replace the equipment and personnel over the next 10 to 20 years is staggering, Larsen said.

Both Larsen and Dicks also said they're concerned about the military's ability to take on another mission. What happens if a country such as North Korea becomes more threatening?

"I voted for our troops. Our troops need that money," Larsen said. "We need to rebuild the military."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003644677_aliciacol31m.html

[TahitiNut]

1. It's like giving a patient a blood transfusion in the left arm ...

... while a family of vampires are feasting on his neck. The military, marginally adept at defending a nation against the current array of potential threats, is inept at managing the enormous amount of funding it receives and that ineptitude is compounded by having pork barrel politicians forcing materials and services upon them solely because some political crony wants to feed at the trillion-dollar trough.

The military organization has been made virtually unmanageable with an array of out-sourced operations and services that were traditionally incorporated in the military itself. Contractors are not subject to the same "management techniques" and force movements that the military employs. The overall organization has been made into a surrealist's nightmare of Frankenstein's monster - virtually unmanageable under any circumstances let alone the kind of quick or rapid (re)deployment demanded in today's military.

In short, it's an operational and financial disaster.

[Hugin]

8. "having pork barrel politicians forcing materials and services upon them solely because..."

"having pork barrel politicians forcing materials and services upon them solely because some political crony wants to feed at the trillion-dollar trough."

You've noticed that 'little' thing, too? LoL!

:thumbsup:

[RL3AO]

2. The U.S. military isnt built to fight insurgencies

its built to fight very powerful militaries.

[Bigmack]

6. Like I said... Maybe

the US just isn't cut out for World Domination. There aren't a whole lot of powerful militaries around.... just a bunch of brushfire-type wars against insurgencies, or second-rate military powers.

The Soviets are gone... who's the new enemy?

China is a good candidate, but they already own us, so I can't see a war there. All they have to do is quietly crush our economy, and the US is dead. They won't do it because it would hurt them economically.

It's hard to be a badass World Power when your rivals only keep you alive to serve as a market.

[RL3AO]

7. We are not trying to dominate the world

its just Bushie is doing a very bad job of policing it.

[Bigmack]

12. We're not?

How many aircraft carrier groups in how many oceans? (13)

How many first-strike Trident subs....in god-knows-which oceans? (14)

How many US soldiers/sailors/Marines/airmen stationed overseas? (270,000 not counting Iraq)

How many bases in how many countries? Over 700 - that we admit to - in over 130 countries. Plus 6000 installations in the US and possessions.

We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined.

If we're not trying to dominate the world, then how come all the arms?

[dkofos]

9. No military is built to fight an insurgency. You can't win.

Well I suppose you could win if you exterminate all the people.

[Parisle]

3. We can probably do a fair job, IF.....

--- ...if procurement decisions are taken out of the hands of the usual contractors, lobbyists and bribe-taking procurement officials,... and put directly into the hands of middle echelon generals with no connections to suppliers.

--- ...if we stop the hundreds of billions going down the rathole in Iraq ASAP.

--- ...if we keep it to the basics, and forget about all the expensive Star Wars crap and anti-ballistic missile systems.

--- ...if we do everything to avoid those $700 hammers and $5,000 toilet seats,... including throwing anyone involved in such scamming in prison for a long time.

[whosinpower]

4. Re think this

Perhaps America has put far too much stock into its military in the first place. Currently you spend over DOUBLE what all the other major players combined spend on their military.

And what do you get for your dollars? You end up providing troops and a military that destabilizes other countries and regions for the benefit of American corporations. Should this be so? Is that what your military is for?

And, at the end of the day, the Osama's of the world have proven that the best trained, most expensive, best armed military force on the planet cannot win when faced with a determined guerilla force. So why continue? Try something else. Think outside the box. I mean really--11 determined men armed with boxcutters damaged America far far more than any traditional army. Well, actually they just scratched the surface--the REAL damage came from within your own administration. And the trully sad thing about it all, the one thing that upsets me far more than anything else, is that in the hours and days that followed September 11, George W. Bush was given a golden opportunity that humanity has seen so very very rarely. We all united. We were all sympathetic. We were all one one side. AND HE WASTED IT!

Getting off my soapbox now. You may disagree with me, of flame me if you wish.

[RL3AO]

5. Just goes to show, our military is not meant to fight guerilla forces...

so why do we keep doing it?

[dkofos]

10. It is monetarily beneficial to the MIC for the military to be engaged

in a long protracted war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. What a crock. The Pentagon and the "defense" industry just looking for more bucks.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

In Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

While FY 2008 budget requests for US military spending are known, for most other countries, the most recent data is from 2005 (at time of writing). Using US spending at that time, we can compare US military spending with the rest of the world:

* The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total.
* The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
* The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.
* It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.
* The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
* The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.

Country Dollars (billions) % of total Rank

United States 420.7 43% 1
China * 62.5 6% 2
Russia * 61.9 6% 3
United Kingdom 51.1 5% 4
Japan 44.7 4% 5
France 41.6 4% 6
Germany 30.2 3% 7
India 22 2% 8
Saudi Arabia 21.3 2% 9
South Korea 20.7 2% 10
Italy 17.2 2% 11
Australia 13.2 1% 12
Brazil 13.1 1% 13
Canada 10.9 1% 14
Turkey 9.8 1% 15
Israel* 9.7 1% 16
Netherlands 9.7 1% 17
Spain 8.8 1% 18
Taiwan 8.3 1% 19
Indonesia* 7.6 1% 20
Myanmar 6.9 1% 21
Ukraine* 6 1% 22
Singapore 5.6 1% 23
Sweden 5.6 1% 24
North Korea* 5.5 1% 25
Poland 5.2 0% 26
Iran 4.9 1% 27
Norway 4.7 0% 28
Greece* 4.5 0% 29
Kuwait 4.3 0% 30
Colombia* 3.9 0% 31
Switzerland 3.8 0% 32
Pakistan 3.7 0% 33
Vietnam 3.5 0% 34
Belgium 3.4 0% 35