Central banks shift reserves away from US

Financial Times ^ | January 24 2005 00:03 | By Chris Giles

[Trueredstater]

Thank-you for that comment.

[Jackal007]

Actually I AM qualified to speak on military matters, and I believe that your assumptions that we need to "be wary" of the "military-industrial complex" are warranted in some respects.

However, I firmly believe that in order to have a STRONG country, you have to have a STRONG and VIABLE military to back up policy...especially foreign policy. Why? A quote that comes to mind is, "You can accomplish more with a handshake and gun, then you can with just a handshake."

I do not believe that a fundamentally weak military is good for foreign OR domestic policy. I also do not believe that the U.S. military is set up to "overthrow" our government with a "coup." That is why the two top bosses in the U.S. military's chain of command, the president and the SECDEF are CIVILIANS...one of the visionary concepts our founding fathers put into our Republican form of government.

I think you missed the point of my message. I'm not advocating a "gunboat diplomacy" form of foreign policy or of a "nazi" or Soviet style military that "thumps the heads" of activists (although, I'd like to personally thump some of their heads!). I'm merely saying that, "you reap what you sow"...if we keep downsizing our military everytime we win a war(which Vietnam we did not) and throw our hands in the air and say, "halleleujia, we have NO MORE enemies", one of these days, we will not be able to sustain a retaliatory response to active agression against our "interests"...think 9-11-01. And THAT time is coming upon us with all of the "outsourcing" of our manufacturing capabilities to other countries. I mean hell, we have the Chinese building components of commercial aircraft by Boeing...those are capabilities/skills that you lose if you don't use them.

Additionally, the theses of my argument is: It is more cost efficient to MAINTAIN a constant number of troops and equipment than it is to downsize, then ramp up, downsize, then ramp up. If you sustain a force at present dollars, it turns out to be cheaper than trying to play "catchup"(as we ALWAYS do) everytime the war drums are banged. It's always cheaper to maintian than it is to build up. Always.

Lastly, NO COUNTRY has EVER survived after it has decided to be more "liberal" and "pacifistic" in approach to national defense, just as NO country has EVER surivived becoming an "antogonistic" and "belligerant" military-industrial complex. We only have to look at the fall of Nazism and Soviet Communism to illustrate the net loss due to belligerance.

[Jackal007]

By the way...I appreciate your rational and well thought out debate.

Also, I agree there is not a politician CURRENTLY in office in this country, who has the balls to make the "tough" decisions that will cut long term costs!

There's too much of a "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" mentality. Unfortunately this is the only time "politicians" take a conciliatory, "non-partisan" approach to legislation...when it can "help" them or their prospective constituants pockets to get fat. I hate PORK BARRELL programs, and I hate "partisan" politics...no matter what wing we're talking about!

[Trueredstater]

I as well appreciate your perspective. I have read some military history and strategy books, but I read them more to familiarizw myself with a particular conflict then to learn tactics.

You quoted a 1MM size army. How does that compare with current levels, or should I say pre-Iraq levels? Does the 1MM include reserves, or is it full time?

While I'm on it, does the reserve system work from a military perspective? Or, should the army be fulltime for all soldiers?

[Jackal007]

Hello again...the 1 million soldier army should be the active component only. As of pre-Iraqi Freedom it stood at around 480,000.

As you can see, that is a long way off.

When I started at U.S.M.A.(West Point), there were just over a million soldiers.

When I was commissioned in 1988,(and subsequently went on active duty)it stood at 880,000. By 1994 just after my company command(and the year I left active duty) we stood at 460,000...a huge difference. It pisses me off to this day!

I left active duty for two reasons: BILL..........Clinton!

I think the Reserve system does work. However, if we are truly to be "An Army of One", the system needs to be fixed.

When I have more time, I'll tell you what is fundamentally flawed about the Reserve and Guard, and what we could do to help them interface more seemlessly into active units upon deployment.