Posted on 10/15/2019 10:46:54 PM PDT by rintintin
Donald Trump is right to extricate the US from Syria. American troops have no strategic reason to be in that country. If they stayed any longer they would only be sucked in deeper – if they tried to impose a sort of peace, they would be attacked by all sides. The outside world has no dog in the Turkish-Kurd fight.
The US should get out of Syria as it must leave Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.
While Trump’s motives or thought process for the latest move aren’t exactly clear – as ever – that he has enraged conservative and liberal interventionists alike is as reassuring as it is alarming. Belligerent meddling is now embedded in the west’s world view. But just as there is rarely a good time to intervene in other people’s troubles, so there is rarely a good time to stop. Were there a way in which a US army could swiftly bring peace and concord to northern Syria it might be different. There is none. Nothing in the modern history of the Middle East – not the Taliban or the Saddam or Assad regimes – has equalled the horror unleashed by the US’s “wars of 9/11”. They have come to seem as interminable as they are unspeakable.
As in any intervention, narratives evolve and alliances are formed. Most foolish was the encouragement and aid offered since 2015 to rebels in the Syrian civil war fighting against Bashar al-Assad – a war which David Cameron was inexplicably eager to have the UK join. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
We need to come home from everywhere but the ME is a good place to start.
You’re so desperate that you’re using The Guardian to back you up?
What’s next, VICE? :)
That would be a good start. Next step beef up special forces a bit, and cut ground-pounding infantry by half. Got to start whittling down that $750 billion budget deficit and $22 trillion debt some time!
Nope, Spectator:
Pulling US troops out of Syria will prove to be the right decision by John R. Bradley
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3786493/posts
Read it if you have time, it’s a great article
Put all that manpower, money and equipment to work securing our borders.
I'll tell you what's 'unspeakable', Mr. Jenkins.
Two airliners flying into skyscrapers in Lower Manhattan.
A third one having to be directed into a field in Western PA to avoid a similar act at the US Capital or White House.
A fourth airliner flying into the Pentagon, where someone I knew bought the farm that day.
As a proud American whose country fought yours and won , (twice) and saved your country's bacon (twice), I state wholeheartedly say (with gusto):
How about we ratchet back Social Insecurity, Student Loans, Medicare, Medicaid, EITC, etc., etc.?
Why is it always the military that takes it in the shorts?
Not our circus
Not our monkeys
Ummm yeah. Trump seems to have a pretty good handle on things as well as good timing. I think I’ll pass on telling him what to do and let him do his job.
Agreed. I never thought I would agree with the Manchester Guardian about anything, but here we are.
After the Middle East, get out of Europe and withdraw from NATO.
Because defense is more than 50% of the discretionary budget.
I agree with you on cuts to EITC, student loans, Medicaid, welfare, etc., but that doesn't begin to close the budget gap w/o cuts to military spending.
We do not need all the infantry we have by a long shot...no "fully committed" ground war in the last 75 years. Modern warfare has changed since the 1940's. We ramped up our infantry by over 35x in the early '40's and can do it again if needed....no need for such a large standing army nowadays. A boost in special forces is warranted in modern conflicts, but not such a large infantry.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_federal_spending_pie_chart
https://www.thebalance.com/current-us-discretionary-federal-budget-and-spending-3306308
https://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm
Pull ‘em all out. Bring ‘em all home.
Let the locals fight for their own damn country.
We certainly have not been stingy on giving them means to get the job done. How many billions of dollars on pallets will we keep sending them?
Let them pick up arms and go make their own history matter.
If they can not do so, then why did we ever venture there? Survival is not always granted for free, sometimes it has to be fought for , to the death.
Time to stop being the punching bag and become the gloves.
So what happens when infantry has to go into Hong Kong?
With a force you just decimated?
How many infantry do you think are actually in uniform?
How many troops and support do you think it would take to control Hong Kong? Or Taiwan, who we are obligated to defend by treaty?
Urbanization is occurring and accelerating worldwide.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Hong Kong is on their own...the British/Hong Kong cut a deal/treaty with the Chinese in 1985 for turnover & governance. The U.S. can provide moral support that is about it.
As far as Taiwan goes, the "Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty" terminated on the 1st of January 1980. We are under no obligation to defend Taiwan. The follow-on "Taiwan Relations Act" allows for arms sales to Taiwan and many other things, but not direct defense. 1 million U.S. ground troops & their equipment probably wouldn't physically fit on Taiwan anyway.
Taiwan Relations Act:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479
Urbanization is occurring and accelerating worldwide.
That is why I mentioned beefing up special forces/Green Berets in my last 2 posts. They specialize in urban warfare.
How many infantry do you think are actually in uniform?
Just over 1 million "in uniform" for the Army alone according to The White House/Pentagon:
White House Defense Budget Doc
Pentagon:
https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/MRA_Docs/TFM/Reports/Final%20FY18%20DMRR%2011Dec2017.pdf
Historical U.S troop levels:
https://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm
As far as how many are "combat ready" at any given time, that is unknown...I'll let you look that one up, but if like the Marines then "every soldier is a rifleman"?
Any declared war requiring 1 million U.S. ground troops would go nuclear long before reaching that level of troop engagement. This isn't 1940. Maintaining a standing million man (oops, "person") army in peacetime is unsustainable given current budget constraints. Current Navy, fine. Current Marines, fine. Current AF, just OK...need continued weapons-capable drone development with emphasis on low cost/high number deployed.
My morning coffee is pretty high quality and smells quite good thank you!
Last I recall, the Army had something like 450,000 Active Duty in uniform. The rest are reservists? [edit - the budget doc you linked said 476,000, the rest are reservists and ARNG].
Not everyone is an Infantryman. Or trained in urban warfare.
Small unit warfare is a great skill set, but how many people do you think are actually trained in that?
I used Hong Kong and Taiwan as possible examples. Substitute some place like Lagos, etc. It's the same problem. One of scale.
I would point to a couple of other things.
1) For any given weapon system, there are many CONgressmen that have a vested interest in a piece of the pie. I've seen the maps detailing this. As long as acquisition is run this way, budget bloat will be a huge problem. Add to that the fact that CONgress requires our military to be doing many things that are not the main purpose of a standing army. We as a country need to decide what our military is and what it is not.
2) I'd be far more willing to cut a few billion dollar jets than greensuiters.
3) We have competitors that have been investing heavily in their own military as well as stealing our technological know-how.
4) Next time we have a Katrina or a Dorian hit, who does the country call upon? Again, what should our military do and what shouldn't it?
Thank you again for taking the time to reply. I'm glad you are aware of the urbanization trend. Most people aren't. And, I like strong coffee. Lots of it.
FReegards, 'Pod.
Thanks for the civil dialog...not anti-military, just looking for ways to avoid the coming debt bomb, and maintain a military that works effectively for us in 2019...not the infantry driven ground-pounding meat-grinder ways of WW1 & WW2. Maybe I am seeing infantry like the battleships of the 1920’s & ‘30’s...soon to be replaced by aircraft carriers. Keep the dialog going! Thanks, Drago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.