“Armies are like newspapers”
Sorry about that, the author should seek some professional help
What an idiot. The “professor” is the sort of person that doesn’t believe in guns but lives in a gated community protected by police with guns.
“...a smaller Army should serve just fine.”...
...keeping US citizens in check and guarding FEMA camp residents under Obama’s martial law.
“In an article of The American Conservative dated March 24, 2008, Bacevich depicts Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama as the best choice for conservatives in the fall. Part of his argument includes the fact that “this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival....To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion.”
and how did that work out for you, you jackass.
What we lose is the ability to project force. Why do you think Putin is invading Ukraine? He reads the ink coming out of State Whitehouse and Pentagon. With the philosophy enumerated he knows it is cool to unite the old Soviet block. Why not? Why not try? See what the West will do.
One kick and the whole rotten mess falls down.
Betting he voted for hussein at least twice.
Speaking purely academically, with the explosion in the sophistication and use of drones and other “super weapons” (e.g. AA12, remotely controlled flying cameras, robots, etc.), the army should be able to shrink, if only because the power wielded by each individual participant is greatly increased.
Again, I’m speaking strictly academically, assuming all other factors are equal.
Bacevich is brilliant. I have met and talked with him. His thoughts should be taken seriously. His thoughts should also be taken in context. Besides being a tremendous warrior and a brilliant thinker, he is also a grieving Father who lost a beloved Son in a poorly run war. Maybe he can keep that from affecting his thoughts in this area. The man I met was human in the very best sense of that word. I was in awe of his mentoring of his Lieutenants. It was very much like a Father teaching his Sons. I have an intense admiration for Bacevich, and I agree with his take on our leaders in the military, but I disagree with him on how we determine the size of the Army.
“... Yet to judge by outcomes, the Army is not a force for decisive action. It cannot be counted on to achieve definitive results in a timely manner. In Afghanistan and Iraq, actions that momentarily appeared to be decisive served as preludes to protracted and inconclusive wars. As for preventing, shaping and winning, this surely qualifies as bluster — the equivalent of a newspaper promising advertisers that it will quadruple its print circulation. ...”
IDIOT! Yeah, sure... “the Army is not a force for decisive action” - particularly when the ROE make it impossible for our guys to inflict the sort of punishment that sends the right message ... “
It cannot be counted on to achieve definitive results in a timely manner” particularly when our military is operating under a cowardly back-stabbing CIC - who is in reality an in-your-face Marxist and an a$$-kissing closet Muslim, one who desires to appease the oligarchs whom hold his leash!
This drivel is the typical perversion and omission of facts that is put forth as “enlightened thinking” by the myopic and traitorous liberal maggots who have infected our nation with their terminally putrid pabulum.
I so despise these self-absorbed egg-heads. The majority of these Marxist-inclined “intelligentsia” are educated beyond their intelligence!
Ya, Andy, we’ll just NUKE all forthcoming opposition....we don’t need no stinkin’ Army!
Obama has the DHS to address all of his MILITARY NEEDS....
As you are a veteran I respect that you have an opinion of the size and structure of the military.
As someone that made the following statement- In an article of The American Conservative dated March 24, 2008, Bacevich depicts Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama as the best choice for conservatives in the fall.
You lose all respect and nothing you say has any value to me as a veteran and an American citizen...
I am retired military and I can count the finest officers I have served with on one hand. Andy Bacevich is one of them. I personally served with him in the 11th ACR while in Germany and ran into him many times at Ft Bliss while he commanded a squadron and I was in the SF community. If he hadn’t run into some very bad luck in Kuwait with that unfortunate explosion killing several US personnel I believe he would have achieved the rank of 4 stars.
Merely evidence that the left most data point of the sample can be found even in the profession of arms.
As a number of other posters have mentioned, Skip Bacevich is a retired Army Colonel whose views on our recent wars and on the military in general are at odds with most of his fellows officers.
Skip is, I believe, still bitter about his relief from command of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment following the tragic accident in Kuwait. He turned his back on the military and found another career as the Left’s favorite military nay sayer. The death of his son in combat contributed, but is not the cause of his current political and philosophical stance. His arguments have found a predictable audience and we will need to remind the American people and their fickle political leaders that we have been down this road before with disastrous results.
We are powerless right now with regard to the Crimea both in our weak capability to respond and because of the unwillingness of our President to do anything. Contrast that with the Cold War where we had a President who stood strong, an Army ready to act, and a people solidly behind both. We won through resolve without some great bloodbath that would have killed both Bachevich and me together with many of our fellow soldiers.
Troop size is meaningless in times when a force chooses to not utilize the power and might of ones weapons inventory.
We don't need more troops, but more bombs.
Far too many brothers and sisters died because they were forced to clear buildings and towns instead of destroying the structures itself.
Why send forces into tora bora and other places for the enemy when you can nuke them.
When was this article written? 1916? 1939? Seems like we’ve heard this song before.
I’ve read all the comments and have some thoughts.
Swarming and drone (UAV) technologies could take the place of some of the today’s active missiles, rockets, operators and surveillance. Transport or protection for manned embassies and bases or boots on the ground obviously involves some vehicles, technologies and materials.
Unless law-abiding Americans are stripped of their guns, I believe that few of today’s entities would choose to physically “invade” within the next generation, unless after killing many people with nuclear devices.
We must think about the types of threats now possible. In my opinion, the worst predictable attack a successful EMP trigger (nuke at altitude) over Kansas would be enough to send America back to the 1600s. Damage would be little to nothing of infrastructure, while people without other recourse could easily be rounded up and put to work for their new masters.
It doesn’t matter a whit what size the US thinks its forces should be. It matters what Russia and China thinks the size of our military should be.
And it’s obvious what their answer is.