What Year Is It? 1938? 1972? Or 1914?

WSJ, Atlantic Monthly ^ | August 15, 2006 | ROSS DOUTHAT

[MNJohnnie]

Modern war is as much about Economics and Logistical might as numbers of bodies. HERE are some numbers that show why no one will be able to face the US on the battlefield and win in our life time. Our enemies are not stupid. That is why they will NOT do anything that will bring a straight up Conventional fight with us. They will instead rely on proxy war and our own Traitor's Alliance of Leftists Politicians and the Junk Media to paralyze any response by us. So they will wage PR wars, like the one the usual handwringers in the Junk Media are helping them scream about over Lebanon, while avoiding anything that provokes a straight up military confrontation.

Hypothetical Military Match Up. USA vrs the China/Iran/Syrian Axis. I will even add China as a potential Axis member.

Even if you multiply the CIA facts by a factor of the 5 on the absurd notion that they are successfully "hiding" their real military from us, the Iran/Syria/China Axis comes NO where near the US ALONE in Military power.

I am not even going to bother putting Israel, Japan, South Korea, India and the NATO countries on our side. The scale all ready tips so heavily to the US there is no reason to pile on.

This is JUST a comparison between the US and the Iran/Syrian Axis. For fun I will include Egypt and the Saudis as part of the Iran/Syrian Axis to show how absurd the "It's World War Three" babbling is.

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/united_states/united_states_military.html

USA.

Military branches: Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard; note - Coast Guard administered in peacetime by the Department of Homeland Security, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age; 17 years of age with written parental consent (2006)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 67,742,879 females age 18-49: 67,070,144 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 54,609,050 females age 18-49: 54,696,706 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 2,143,873 females age 18-49: 2,036,201 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $518.1 billion (FY04 est.) (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.06% (FY03 est.) (2005 est.)

***Snip***

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/iran/iran_military.html

Iran.

Iran Military - 2006

Islamic Republic of Iran Regular Forces (Artesh): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force (includes Air Defense); Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e Eslami, IRGC): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force, Qods Force (special operations), and Basij Force (Popular Mobilization Army); Law Enforcement Forces (2004)

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age for compulsory military service; 16 years of age for volunteers; soldiers as young as 9 were recruited extensively during the Iran-Iraq War; conscript service obligation - 18 months (2004)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 18,319,545 females age 18-49: 17,541,037 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 15,665,725 females age 18-49: 15,005,597 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 862,056 females age 18-49: 808,044 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $4.3 billion (2003 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.3% (2003 est.)

****Snip*****

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/syria/syria_military.html

Syria

Military branches: Syrian Armed Forces: Syrian Arab Army, Syrian Arab Navy, Syrian Arab Air and Air Defense Force (includes Air Defense Command) (2005)

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age for compulsory military service; conscript service obligation - 30 months (18 months in the Syrian Arab Navy); women are not conscripted but may volunteer to serve (2004)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 4,356,413 females age 18-49: 4,123,339 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 3,453,888 females age 18-49: 3,421,558 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 225,113 females age 18-49: 211,829 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $858 million (FY00 est.); note - based on official budget data that may understate actual spending

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 5.9% (FY00)

***Snip*****

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/egypt/egypt_military.html

Egypt

Military branches: Army, Navy, Air Force, Air Defense Command

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age for conscript military service; three-year service obligation (2001)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 18,347,560 females age 18-49: 17,683,904 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 15,540,234 females age 18-49: 14,939,378 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 802,920 females age 18-49: 764,176 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $2.44 billion (2003)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.4% (2004)

******Snip****

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/saudi_arabia/saudi_arabia_military.html

Saudi Arabia

Military branches: Land Forces (Army), Navy, Air Force, Air Defense Force, National Guard, Ministry of Interior Forces (paramilitary)

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age (est.); no conscription (2004)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 7,648,999 females age 18-49: 5,417,922 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 6,592,709 females age 18-49: 4,659,347 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 247,334 females age 18-49: 234,500 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $18 billion (2002)

****Snip******

href="http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/China/China_military.html">http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/China/China_military.html

China

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 10% (2002)

Military branches:

People's Liberation Army (PLA): Ground Forces, Navy (includes marines and naval aviation), Air Force (includes Airborne Forces), and II Artillery Corps (strategic missile force); People's Armed Police (PAP); Reserve and Militia Forces (2006)

Military service age and obligation: 18-22 years of age for compulsory military service, with 24-month service obligation; no minimum age for voluntary service (all officers are volunteers); 17 years of age for women who meet requirements for specific military jobs (2004)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 342,956,265 females age 18-49: 324,701,244 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 281,240,272 females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 13,186,433 females age 18-49: 12,298,149 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $81.48 billion (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.3% (2005 est.)

[SpaceBar]

A simple "you are wrong" would have been sufficient with a brief rebuttal.

The question was no doubt posed towards people's intuition, not requiring a full researched bibliography and cross referenced weblinks.

On another note, your tagline curiously seems to suggest you put some value in historical patterns.

[RobRoy]

>>A simple "you are wrong" would have been sufficient with a brief rebuttal.<<

I disagree with MNJ's "long" rebuttal.

He says this:

>>Modern war is as much about Economics and Logistical might as numbers of bodies. HERE are some numbers that show why no one will be able to face the US on the battlefield and win in our life time. Our enemies are not stupid. That is why they will NOT do anything that will bring a straight up Conventional fight with us.<<

But ignores the Tet offensive. True. We will win in the battlefield, but what it takes to get us there can be quite traumatic. And if we continue to “measure” our response, to really win decisively in the battlefield, we have to be motivated. And what motivates us (things like pearl harbor and 911) is never good.

It also ignores the fundamentalist muslim mindset. At least Nazi’s did not have religious zeal. A Nazi suicide bomber is an oxymoron

[schu]

It should be clear that the Islamics desire to "destroy" America and the west is not based upon a modern military conquest. But that does not preclude another approach to victory, where victory is defined as the west becoming an Islamic theocracy and adopting Sharia.

Europe is a terrific example, you cannot defeat Islam by offering nothing as an alternative. IIRC, less than 10% of Europeans attend church, when the people start looking for answers after a nuke goes off in London or New York, where will they turn?

schu

[Robert DeLong]

Well that is certainly one thing in our favor, however, it still means a ground invasion to win. As we see in Iraq a win is only part of the equation. There is Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east and Turkmenistan to the north. If we fail to get the Ayatollahs and they are allowed to find refuge in any of these three countries then it will be a protracted war as it is in Iraq today, and there are plenty of people in these countries who all too willing to help them. Once we divert resources from Afghanistan and Iraq these countries will at the very least lose some more control to the bad guys. These guys will then claim victory as did Hezbollah's Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and more radicals will come join in the fray (which is why it was a mistake for us to broker a ceasefire and a tragic mistake for Israel to accept a ceasefire). There is also no way to tell how Russia's Vladimir Putin will react either. Would he help or hinder our objectives? Right now Russia is voting in the U.N. to prohibit Iran from gaining nuclear capabilities while at the same time suppling Iran with the necessary elements to produce a nuclear arsenal. What would Chinese President Hu Jintao do? You see there are a lot more variables than just our capabilities. One thing we can be sure of is that France will help Iran, and more than likely Germany would help them too. Why? Because they are stupid as the day is long. Would Iran also get help from Korea, Argentina, Pakistan and even some Americans, more than likely Like I said a lot of variables come into play and that is why we need to be sure we can defeat them, not just inflict a lot of damage. Because damaging them but leaving them in place would equate to a loss for the U.S. and I do not think the world has the stomach to deliver what would be necessary to win in Iran. We already know the democrats would do whatever is necessary to help the U.S. lose, as they are doing to make Iraq a worsening situation. Even far-right individuals are helping to make it worse for the U.S. in Iraq. I never thought I would live to see the day when far-right and far-left embrace the same anti-war stance together. Anyway, I hope you see that it is a much bigger undertaking then you think, which is exactly why we haven't gone into Iran thus far.

[Question_Assumptions]

I think that the current age is, in various aspects, 1938, 1942, and 1972. I don't think that's contradictory, since no time in history perfectly repeats any one other time and the reason why I think it's 1972 is very different than what the author of the article thinks.

It's 1938, in that we are on the verge of another World War with appeasement wasting opportunities to stop it. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's only a matter of time before the Middle East gets lit up like a Christmas Tree by nuclear bombs and nobody seems to care about stopping Iran from getting nukes. It's 1942 in that we've had our Pearl Harbor and it did partially wake us up and get us involved early. Had the Islamofascists been smart, they wouldn't have attacked America. Of course if they were smart, they wouldn't be Islamofascists, either.

Now, I also think it's 1972 and that's potentially as dangerous as 1938. Why? Because in 1972, Americans were fatigued by the Vietnam War, peaceniks wanted to bring the troops home immediately, and we were standing on the edge of a shift in politics that would give the Democrats control of all three branches of government with disasterous results. And this is something I wish conservatives would attack in the MSM orthodoxy.

Make no mistake about it, the pull out of Vietnam and subsequent Democrat actions in the foreign policy realm were a disaster that led to the deaths of millions of people (Vietnam, Cambodia, the Middle East, Africa) as they let the dominoes fall and simply let the Communists take over various countries. They let the Sandanistas take Nicaragua, the Khmer Rouge take Cambodia, the PLO take Lebanon, and on and on and millions died and millions more suffered for it, despite their claims of compassion and caring for others. Ol' Jimmy "Apeasement" Carter responded to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by boycotting the Olympics. Jimmy green-lighted Iraq attacking Iran. Jimmy set the standard of "land for 'peace'" with his deal with Egypt. And Jimmy and the Dems would have let the Cold War go on forever. Jimmy and the Democrats were a disaster for just about everyone. That's what you get when you think the Republican is so bad that it's "time for a change" and don't think about what the change is.

So, yes, I also fear that it's 1972 in the sense that fickle Americans, tired of the war and believing the MSM propaganda about lies and corruption, will put Democrats in charge of Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008, and that would be the same sort of disaster that Jimmy was. For all his flaws (being a rapist among them), conservatives were fairly lucky with Bill Clinton and Dick Morris' "triangulation". We got welfare reform out of him, NAFTA out of him, and he was fairly harmless to the economy (thanks, in part, to a Republican House). True, he could have been Jimmy II had things gotten worse faster, but he is not the worst we can get from the Dems. Another Jimmmy or Howard Dean is.

[exit82]

1938.

Hoping for an August, 1945 concerning Iran.

[schu]

Good stuff. Agree, the aftermath of Vietnam war was the most disgraceful time in our history. Our government disgraced those that fought and died, and let millions get slaughtered. I fear the same thing here.

schu

[Question_Assumptions]

The problem is that the left has spun abandoning Vietnam as an inevitable and good ending, largely by ignoring what happened when Southeast Asia did fall under Communist control. Purges in Vietnam? Re-education camps in Vietnam? The Killing Fields of Cambodia? We'll just pretend that didn't happen so we don't have to face that the same thing could happen in Iraq.

[No.6]

I know we're not there yet, but I'm looking forward to the time when we can all agree it's time to be 1571ers.

[dervish]

"Hitler was a far more formidable foe than that unkempt schoolteacher in Tehran.

Only a Hitler with nukes. Besides the schoolteacher is not calling the shots.

[dervish]

"Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 18,319,545


Fallacy -- assuming the enemy will play by your rules

"In the early 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war, thousands of Iranian children, many straight from school, were used by popular militias in human wave attacks against Iraqi forces, often given a symbolic key to the paradise promised them as martyrs."

and

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

[Bernard Marx]

The modern "westernized" world fights with ridiculous self-imposed restraints, while the Islamofacist world fights a world-wide guerrila war without restraint of any kind other than their failure to conjure and implement an overarching strategy.

Those restraints gave the U.S. its first military defeat in Vietnam. Asymmetric warfare as waged by the Muzzies takes advantage of our culture's decadence and complacence, our economic dependence on oil, our outsourcing of the industrial economy that brought our WWII enemies to their knees and an active Fifth Column that places political power above the nation's safety.

Yes, we can win, but only if we realize 1) that we're really in a war and 2) how it has to be fought, with all the personal sacrifice and courage that involves. Frankly, I think the Muzzies have a pretty good read on us.

[Wolfstar]

Yes, we can win, but only if we realize 1) that we're really in a war and 2) how it has to be fought, with all the personal sacrifice and courage that involves. Frankly, I think the Muzzies have a pretty good read on us.

I couldn't agree with you more. :(

[woofie]

Bump