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

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
[
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...

These Iraqis insurgents are totally unfair; in a preemptive war there is no room for insurgents who try only to destroy the advantage of the preemption.

[TCO]

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...

It's not about truth, it's about how it makes people feel. Look at Zulu elephant who doesn't see any danger of US military adventures if we decline economically, but sees a big calamity from us electing "rough-talking" presidents.

[Drake Tungsten]

These Iraqis insurgents are totally unfair; in a preemptive war there is no room for insurgents who try only to destroy the advantage of the preemption.

War isn't fair. For proof, see the 200-1 kill ratios mentioned above, racked up by a less than ideally equipped US Army...

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by TCO
It's not about truth, it's about how it makes people feel.

Yeah, I know. Probably shouldn't let it irritate me so much, but I can't stand it when mouthbreathers jump on a guy for telling it like it is...

[GePap]

The reason Rumsfeld should have been fired long ago is that he was warned more boots on the gorund would be needed-and he did not do it.

Rumsfeld *****es about the army he had, but Rumsfelds dream army would be even less capable of pacifying Iraq then what we have. In fact, we got into this mess BECAUSE Rummy wanted to make the war a showpiece of his ideology, which is that wars could be fought and won with smaller better forces, and this was superior to using the whole Powell doctrine of utterly overwhelming forces. Yes, the US could certainly beat a degraded third world force with a small, quick force, which it did. Problem was, such a force, while good for taking out the enemy army, was not good enough to bring complete control- something that Rummy was told before we invaded and ignored.

So Rummy can ***** about the army under Clinton all he wants, but the Iraq mess is all his own.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
War isn't fair. For proof, see the 200-1 kill ratios mentioned above, racked up by a less than ideally equipped US Army...

You should not be intoxicated by the kill ratios; the kill ratio figures are misleading. For instance the loss of 50000 US soldiers in Vietnam was certainly, even if much lower that the Vietnamese losses, a major cause of the defeat.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
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

The problem is the politicians are more interested in spending money on pork barrel projects and upon corporate welfare (neither of which the militaryneeds) then on actually spending money on the what is really needed (meaning men). Bush would rather spend $200 billion (his figure while the CBO estimates costs to be in the $400-$500 billion range) for his star wars program, and buy three new fighters when one would do (but the pork is needed to keep senators happy and to keep corrupt corporations sending in those campaign contributions), an absolutely junk Styker (designed to fight the cold war, cancelled in the 1980's, but resurrected like a zombie by Bush. Bush did the same with star wars), and a trouble some new rifle to replace the M-16 when the M-16 doesn't even need replacing. All that adds up to some where between $500-$900 billion for pork projects we don't need yet Bush refuses to spend $300 million to increase the number of troops on active duty because "it is to expensive".

We need to cut our defense budget in half and cancel the pork.

[Dracon II]

Excuse the following post, as I'm as drunk as an Aussie with a paycheque, and have enough booze to last a long weekend...

Hegemonic decline seems to me to be a reality. China, Europe, India et al seem to be developing their own structures independent of the US. Moves towards an east asian economic and political community are being held with reference to Chinese and Indian, not US power.

Given that rather spurious argument (the arguments for US decline have been made by infinitely more sober persons than I), I agree with Gpap, with his cute Nietszche avatar (ironic given that his post was about the impotence of power), that direct war between great powers is insane and would not come under serious consideration. Europe at the height of its power could not have occupied China, and Japan has no hope of doing it anymore (despite the latent fears of my girlfriend, whose hatred and fear of Japan is understandable given she comes from Nanjing, site of one the most horrible massacres in modern history). The proxy war model developed in the cold war seems to present a viable model for conflict in the future, providing it doesn't mutate into something bigger. If, as it seems to me, that several distinct poles of power are emerging in the world today, a worst case scenario would be a multipolar cold war. Like in the cold war, where two sides tried to build two distinct spheres of influence... a multipolar cold war would also be characterised by such... in the form of regionalism (several of you seem to suggest this in your rationalization of efforts to unite the americas).
I'm not equipped with statistics (where do you guys get all your information by the way? I've a feeling the Australian education system is quite inferior)... but by instinct alone I can sense trying times ahead (most immediately tomorrow morning when I wake up).
Makes me worried for Australia... we are wedged neatly between China and the USA at the moment... the USA being an old ally and still an important economic partner, and China a now unavoidable focus of our economic dependence with a proximity (especially close looking next to me in bed every night) that can no longer be ignored politically and strategically. If China isn't an emerging great power, why would Australia even suggest turning its back on the US come a confrontation in Taiwan? Being one of America's most sycophantic and adoring allies this should not be taken lightly. Australia has always allied itself with the hegemon of the time; Britain by virtue of our origin and fear of Asia, and the USA by virtue of our fear of Asians and Communists. So now that we are so doggedly courting an Asian country with a ruling Communist Party, beware! Australia backs the winner... and then proceeds to eat its ***** no matter the fishy smell.
If China's economy implodes... then it is brief... America's economy imploded in 1929 and it took a world war to recover so beware of an imploding China. Besides, China will never implode back to a time when it was not relevant... so quit delaying the inevitable. But maybe I'm biased, because I am eating Chinese ***** no matter the fishy smell.....

[Kidlicious]

Best drunk post of the year.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by 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.

Great plan. I love having the Salvadorian MS-13s turning suburbs into war zones... I love giving any terrorist with brains enough to get into central America easy access to anywhere he wants to go.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Sikander

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.

That's because sensible Congressmen like Tancredo and Sensenbrenner thwarted his attempts. Bush is an open borders man, and Fox regularly implores his citizens to illegally immigrate.

[Dracon II]

"thag you very buch" - Bilbo Baggins

I'm going to bed now.

[Kidlicious]

Keep one foot on the floor Dracon II