2040: US is #3 Economically, #1 Militarily. What happens?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Wycoff

Bush and his cronies are big time open borders, and many Republicans are willing to blindly follow him. If he's for open borders, they're for open borders.

I don't see this at all, and neither does Bush. He told President Fox of Mexico as much yesterday.

[notyoueither]

Didn't the three amigos just ink an agreement to accelerate openning the borders?

[Zulu Elephant]

Isnt there a chance that in a few decades, the whole world will have become a virtual free trade area, what with the constant lowering of tarriffs. Wouldn't this take the ground from the underneath the feet of this US survival plan?

[notyoueither]

What would it matter if everyone were comfortable enough with each other to have open borders?

The age of needing to be so uptight about these things would be over, and I'm sure American commerce would be in a position to compete.

Bring it on, I say.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Sikander


U.S. military power is certainly rooted in technology, but it also rests on the qualitative superiority of its professionals. Add to this the fact that technology still adds a lot of capability to the force even in a low tech counterinsurgency war and you'll see that the U.S. is not exactly toothless.

The problem with qualitative superiority is that it never covers all the fields of risk and danger. Some are acceptable, others are not; having 96 soldiers wounded at lunch is totally unacceptable and depicts inferiority of the command, more than superiority.

And what is the use of technology when it takes two years to improve the doors of the humvees which were the cause of many losses. Rumsfeld had the audace to explain that he goes to war not with the army he wanted but with the army he had. This is also totally unacceptable when you spent lavishly the billions dollars, and negates the theory of qualitative superiority.

[Drake Tungsten]

Rumsfeld had the audace to explain that he goes to war not with the army he wanted but with the army he had.

I never have figured out what was wrong about that remark...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DAVOUT

The problem with qualitative superiority is that it never covers all the fields of risk and danger. Some are acceptable, others are not; having 96 soldiers wounded at lunch is totally unacceptable and depicts inferiority of the command, more than superiority.

True, there are situations where there is simply no substituting for sufficient quantity. The incident where the suicide bomber managed to get into the mess tent is a combination of budget cutting (elimination of the Army's organic food preperation staff, which were replaced by contractors) and the incompetence of the base commander in regards to force protection. I can't imagine what was going through the minds of those who set up that system, as they had to be aware of the danger. Hopefully they won't be in a position to make important decisions again. One mistake can cost a battle, sometimes even a war. This one did neither.

Originally posted by DAVOUT

And what is the use of technology when it takes two years to improve the doors of the humvees which were the cause of many losses. Rumsfeld had the audace to explain that he goes to war not with the army he wanted but with the army he had. This is also totally unacceptable when you spent lavishly the billions dollars, and negates the theory of qualitative superiority.

The use of technology is that humvee doors are a pretty small part of the picture. I think that our troops find reliable secure communications, satellite guided bombs, good night vision equipment etc. etc. ad nauseum to be quite useful. Qualitative superiority is not negated simply because it is not ideal, it can still exist even when the enemy has some areas of advantage.

Take look at what happened in Najaf when the Sadr's militia made the mistake of giving the intiative to the Americans. The kill ratio was over 200 to 1, with little damage to the city and a huge increase in the prestige of both the Americans and the Iraqi interim government. Had it been Vietnam we would have sent a brigade in there and leveled half of the city, and caused 1000+ civilian casualties.

As for America's reluctance to suffer casualties, it seems that we are more open to that possibility than we have been in the past. There isn't any chance that we'll cut and run from Iraq due to casualties in the foreseeable future. We are still more risk averse than we were in Vietnam, and less so than at any time afterward.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Didn't the three amigos just ink an agreement to accelerate openning the borders?

Security / border concerns were addressed, but immigration reform / guest workers were sidestepped. Bush told Fox that he'll press for them but doesn't see them getting through congress.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Rumsfeld had the audace to explain that he goes to war not with the army he wanted but with the army he had.

I never have figured out what was wrong about that remark...

Because there was no good reason to rush to war, if he didn't like the army he had why didn't he push to wait until he'd had a chance to reform an army.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you know how long and difficult a process it is to reform an army? If so, do you really expect the Bush Administration to hold off on a war they thought was important in order to craft the "perfect" army (one that would probably prove to have unforeseen deficiencies once combat actually started anyway)? You're not that naive are you?

[Dinner]

I really don't like the idea of people claiming the EU is one nation. The Iraq crisis proved that they are still seporate nations which work together but which really can't be considered one nation. Maybe some day in the future but not yet.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Sikander


Take look at what happened in Najaf when the Sadr's militia made the mistake of giving the intiative to the Americans. The kill ratio was over 200 to 1, with little damage to the city and a huge increase in the prestige of both the Americans and the Iraqi interim government.

Usually irregular troops never accept the battle against regular. As you said it was a mistake which caused the desaster for the militia, not a real proof of superiority; I think that the Brits would have achieved something comparable.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Rumsfeld had the audace to explain that he goes to war not with the army he wanted but with the army he had.

I never have figured out what was wrong about that remark...

If you pretend to be, by several degrees, the biggest military power equiped with the most advanced technology, with military budgets exceeding those of the rest of the world, and if you waged war against a crappy underdevelopped country, the military forces of which gave up after a few days, it seems a poor excuse to explain that your army was under equipped. Even if it is true.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Do you know how long and difficult a process it is to reform an army? If so, do you really expect the Bush Administration to hold off on a war they thought was important in order to craft the "perfect" army (one that would probably prove to have unforeseen deficiencies once combat actually started anyway)? You're not that naive are you?

It is quite funny that the first military power complains that reforming an army is long and difficult. Possibly you could try to spend more money

[Drake Tungsten]

If you pretend to be, by several degrees, the biggest military power equiped with the most advanced technology, with military budgets exceeding those of the rest of the world, and if you waged war against a crappy underdevelopped country, the military forces of which gave up after a few days, it seems a poor excuse to explain that your army was under equipped. Even if it is true.

Where did he say they were underequipped? He seemed to be admitting that they weren't ideally equipped, which is an entirely different issue. It's no great surprise that an army designed to overwhelm large, mechanized opposing armies might not be ideally suited for dealing with a guerrilla insurgency. You still have to fight that war with the army you have, though...

It is quite funny that the first military power complains that reforming an army is long and difficult. Possibly you could try to spend more money

Money isn't the only thing required to reform an army. It's not even the most important thing.