Posted on 06/14/2009 8:57:35 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
NEW YORK -- Military service is in Capt. Kamaljit Singh Kalsi's blood. But his plans to go on active duty in July are now on hold. An Army policy from the 1980s that regulates the wearing of religious items would mean he would need to shave his beard and remove the turban he wears in accordance with his religious precepts.
Sikhs have a long history with the U.S. military, serving in World Wars I and II, the Korean and Vietnam wars, and in the Persian Gulf.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Please describe what "warfare model" you are talking about. It certainly worked in Iraq and we overthrew the Taliban in a matter of weeks. And given time and resolve, it will work in Afghanistan.
The War on Terror is asymmetric, and the terrorists have huge leverage on a cost-per-casualty basis. The war is on their turf — so they don’t even need to pay travel costs — and their equipment cost is peanuts.
That has always been true whether it was Malaysia or Iraq. Guerrillas can be defeated with an effective strategy that combines military means and gaining support of the populace.
How much does an Apache helicopter cost? And how much does the surface-to-air missiles cost to shoot it down? How much does a HumVee cost? And how much does an IED cost to blow it to smithereens? How much does a single jet sortee cost — one that drops napalm and kills, say, 20 terrorists?
That is only one way of fighting the terrorists, and it is necessary at times. Big unit action, agressive mobility, imbeding and integration with local forces, intelligence, clear and hold, use of special ops forces, money, etc. are all part of a comprehensive strategy. Helicopters, jet planes, etc. are part of the overall force structure. The objective is to win and not save money.
These desert ruffians don’t really need to be killed with half-million dollar bombs, surely. But that is the US warfare model.
That is pure nonsense. That is not the model we are using in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is far more nuanced and comprehensive than what you describe.
I was picking on the ChiComs because they are funding about a third of this year’s operating DEFICIT so far — which is a different thing to your national debt. (As you will know, the national debt is an accumulation of many years of deficit financing)
It matters not whether it is funding this year's deficit or not. It just becomes a liability for the USG. For the first eight months of the fiscal year, which began in October, the total deficit hit $991.95 billion. The total US national debt is $11.4 trillion of which $7 trillion is publicly held, as differentiated by the Intragovernmental Holdings part of the debt, which consists primarily of entitlement obligations, i.e., we owe the money to ourselves.
As of January 2009, China holds $739 billion [24%]of the publicly held debt and Japan holds $635 billion [21%]. In April China's holdings rose to $763.5 bilion in treasury securities.
On that basis, I venture that the ChiComs are almost certainly funding this year’s military opex, and probably also this year’s military capex as well. And if not the ChiComs, then some other lender.
LOL. Do you think that US T-bills are specifically sold to fund various projects. China has bought our T-bills. We can use that money any way we want. It is not earmarked.
So why would Canada want to do something like that? Their model has tended toward peacekeeping instead: as a Nation they have deployed on nearly every peacekeeping mission worldwide since the UN was founded. Their rationale is obviously to keep the peace so that war expenditures can be avoided. So far, not a bad strategy.<
Canada can afford to do that because the US is providing them with the security umbrella. Peacekeeping is a good way to have the UN subsidize your security forces. The US pays 27% of the UN bill for peacekeeping operations. Canada is also part of NATO. It should have a more robust security force. The US spends more on defense than the rest of NATO combined.
That is what Chicago could afford, so that is what New Zealand has.
NZ has an active duty force of 9,000 personnel and spends 1% of its GDP on defense.
The Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) includes two Anzac class frigates, developed in conjunction with Australia. Eight other vessels are in use, consisting of patrol vessels and logistics. Over the next few years the RNZN will acquire seven new vessels: one large Multi-Role Vessel, two Offshore Patrol Vessels, and four Inshore Patrol Vessels. All of these new vessels will be part of Project Protector and will be built to commercial standards.
The Royal New Zealand Air Force consists of 50 aircraft, consisting of P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft and Lockheed C-130 Hercules and other transport aircraft. The RNZAF does not have a strike force following the retirement of its A-4 Skyhawk and Aermacchi MB-339 squadrons. A plan to acquire 28 F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft was cancelled in 2000. The NH90 helicopter has recently been ordered to replace Bell UH-1 Iroquois. The PAC CT/4 Airtrainer is locally produced.
New Zealand's Army consists of around 4,500 full-time and 2,500 part-time troops. Most troops are infantry. New Zealand does not operate tanks, although it does have 105 operating Light Armoured Vehicles, known as the NZLAV. The New Zealand Special Air Service, an Army unit, is the NZDF's special forces capability.
Chicago Police Department, also known as the CPD, is the principal law enforcement agency of the City of Chicago, Illinois, in the United States, under the jurisdiction of the city mayor. It is the largest police department in the Midwest and the second largest in the United States after the New York City Police Department with over 13,400 sworn officers and over 1,850 other employees.
NZ could be doing more as well. The US is spending over 3% of the GDP on defense.
> It is the largest police department in the Midwest and the second largest in the United States after the New York City Police Department with over 13,400 sworn officers and over 1,850 other employees.
Fair enough — seeing as we are comparing the Chicago Police Department with the New Zealand Armed Forces, it makes sense to include figures for New Zealand’s Police and Chicago’s Armed Forces — so that we have an apples-to-apples comparison.
The New Zealand Police have approx 8,400 sworn officers and a further 2,900 unsworn employees. On a per-capita basis it is the second-smallest police force in the OECD (after Finland) but at approx 11,000 members it isn’t wildly out-of-line with Chicago’s 15,000 member police force.
Chicago does not support an Armed Forces capability of their own, whereas New Zealand supports a force of about 9,000.
Therefore, my original point holds: New Zealand can afford approximately what the City of Chicago could afford. In fact, based on the numbers we support substantially more.
> Canada can afford to do that because the US is providing them with the security umbrella.
You mean NORAD? Canada has always paid its share of NORAD.
> That has always been true whether it was Malaysia or Iraq. Guerrillas can be defeated with an effective strategy that combines military means and gaining support of the populace.
So far that has yet to be proven. It might have worked in Iraq — indications are certainly hopeful in that regard.
Can you name anywhere else that this has worked? It didn’t work in Vietnam. It hasn’t yet worked in Afghanistan — although that is the intention. It certainly didn’t work in Cuba.
How much does it cost, in real dollar terms, to kill one terrorist/guerilla/irregular combatant?
How much does it cost, in real dollar terms, for our enemy to kill one of our soldiers?
I have no hard figures to answer those two questions with, but I would be truly stunned if the former weren’t several orders of magnitude greater than the latter. Which leads to your next question:
> Please describe what “warfare model” you are talking about.
It comprises several features (I may miss a couple — it’s 4:45 AM and I need some sleep):
1) fighting an asymmetrical war with no prospect of converting it into a symmetrical one
2) observing self-imposed rules that work against your war effort
3) having a populace that is not engaged in the war effort
4) having media undermining your war effort
5) upholding constitutional and human rights to the determent of the war effort
If you reflect thru these five branches to your war model, I’m sure you could think thru a few expensive examples for each. I sure can.
#4, for example. Common sense would say that the Office of the Censor should be at work, and that CNN should only be broadcasting what the censor says they can broadcast. That is how things worked in WW-II, and that was what was necessary to win.
#5, two examples come to mind: racial profiling and GITMO, renditioning and waterboards. Should there really be any question that all of these things are necessary during a time of war?
#1, one example amongst many. How much use is an aircraft carrier in an asymmetrical war? It’s handy, sure. But it’s also jolly expensive to run. Even if it isn’t actively involved in killing any terrorists, even if it is parked in San Diego, it is adding to the costs of your asymmetrical war. Tanks same-same. Helicopters same-same. The enemy isn’t using any of these, and thus not incurring these costs...
I could go on, but I’m getting dozy.
Check ya later!
*DieHard*
It is a ridiculous comparison, i.e., a city versus a sovereign country. The city of Chicago isn't responsible for the national defense and our sovereignty. Your point is nonsense.
You mean NORAD? Canada has always paid its share of NORAD.
LOL. No, I mean the "security umbrella" that the US provides as the world's lone superpower. We spend billions on nuclear weapons for example. Under NATO and article 5, an attack against one member is an attack against all. The US provides security in many ways.
Can you name anywhere else that this has worked? It didn’t work in Vietnam. It hasn’t yet worked in Afghanistan — although that is the intention. It certainly didn’t work in Cuba.
Malaya, Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Peru, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Philippines, and others.
#4, for example. Common sense would say that the Office of the Censor should be at work, and that CNN should only be broadcasting what the censor says they can broadcast. That is how things worked in WW-II, and that was what was necessary to win.
You obviously don't have a clue about America and our system of government or the extant political forces that have a stake in defeat. The media in the US and the UK for that matter are not going to be restrained unless there is a consensus that there is indeed a war that threatens our survival. In fact, Obama has eliminated much of the language that connotes that there is indeed a war going on. There is no longer a War on Terror nor are there terrorists. We are back to treating militant Islamic fundamentalism as a criminal matter to be handled in the courts.
#5, two examples come to mind: racial profiling and GITMO, renditioning and waterboards. Should there really be any question that all of these things are necessary during a time of war?
There has been. That is the reality. Logic and facts are not germane.
#1, one example amongst many. How much use is an aircraft carrier in an asymmetrical war? It’s handy, sure. But it’s also jolly expensive to run. Even if it isn’t actively involved in killing any terrorists, even if it is parked in San Diego, it is adding to the costs of your asymmetrical war. Tanks same-same. Helicopters same-same. The enemy isn’t using any of these, and thus not incurring these costs...
Aircraft carriers are one of the reasons that the US is the only country in the world that can project its power globally. They can support both conventional and asymmetrical warfare. Helicopters give us an advantage over the guerrillas and terrorists by providing mobility and fire power along with evacuating our wounded. They destroy the enemy and save lives. I suggest you go to Youtube go see how effective they really are in combat.
> It is a ridiculous comparison, i.e., a city versus a sovereign country. The city of Chicago isn’t responsible for the national defense and our sovereignty. Your point is nonsense.
Greater Chicago has about 4 million people. New Zealand has about 4 million people. In both cases, some produce wealth and some bludge. Pool the money together in both cases, and they’d both probably generate comparable amounts of wealth.
New Zealand can afford about the same amount of expenditure, all told, as Chicago. Our purses are about the same size.
The comparison is valid. In fact, in this case, it is brilliant. If Chicago had to kit out a military presence, how much could it afford, given its other commitments? Probably the same amount as New Zealand can afford.
Would Chicago be able to afford an aircraft carrier? Not in a million years. Neither can New Zealand.
How about some ICBMs? Can Chicago afford a few of those? Nope — didn’t think so. Well, neither can New Zealand.
Can Chicago afford an elite force? Of course: that would be a good spend. That’s what New Zealand has with the NZSAS.
How many tanks can Chicago afford, given its other commitments? Maybe a few, but they’d get better bang-for-buck spending on other vehicles instead. Ditto New Zealand.
> Malaya, Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Peru, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Philippines, and others.
Malaya remains a very unpleasant place. Northern Ireland’s troubles are far from over, notwithstanding the ceasefire. Philippines continues to have troubles with the Moros and militant muslims. None of your examples are brilliant cases of winning hearts-and-minds.
> You obviously don’t have a clue about America and our system of government or the extant political forces that have a stake in defeat.
You’d be surprised. I have a very good clue about America (having been born and raised in Canada and having traveled extensively thru most of the lower 48 plus Hawaii). It’s entirely possible that I am as well informed about America as you are.
> We are back to treating militant Islamic fundamentalism as a criminal matter to be handled in the courts.
That’s a Helluva way to win a war. And an excellent illustration of my point: your warmaking model is gimped.
> They destroy the enemy and save lives. I suggest you go to Youtube go see how effective they really are in combat.
How well they work is not the point: how much they cost is.
Get out your slide rule and calculate the cost of one of those helicopters, then distribute it over the number of enemies it is likely to kill over its useful life. The result is the cost/enemy killed.
Compare and contrast with the cost our enemy is likely to incur to kill one of our soldiers.
The helicopter is bound to be a very expensive option by way of comparison. Ditto the aircraft carrier. By orders of magnitude.
What I want, here on FR at least, is for us to stick together.
Canada is not your enemy.
How well they work is not the point: how much they cost is.
I am glad you are not in charge of running a war. I wonder if anyone did a cost analysis of how much the atomic bomb cost before launching into its development. Or a Polaris submarine that has never fired a missile in anger? The objective in warfare is to win. Losing is far more costly.
It doesn't matter if the war is economic, or physical. Either way, our side needs to win.
> I wonder if anyone did a cost analysis of how much the atomic bomb cost before launching into its development. Or a Polaris submarine that has never fired a missile in anger?
Evidently not, which probably accounts for a large part of the US national debt and the waste and corruption in your arms establishment.
> So, NZ has an annual budget 7 times that of Chicago’s. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Possibly, in that more money is extracted from the ever-suffering NZ taxpayers than is extracted from their Chicago counterparts (”budgets” don’t grow on trees, as you will be aware. They all come out of somebody’s pocket)
When you look at the numbers you’ve produced it is truly remarkable that NZ can afford our military AND enjoy an excellent socialized medical scheme AND provide half of the South Pacific with our foreign aid and defense AND end up with budget surpluses to tide us thru difficult times like our current economic crisis.
Yes, we are vulnerable to foreign invasion: Indonesia is certainly splitting at the seams and in need of more room and resources. Even if we spent 100% of our GDP on defense that geopolitical fact could never change. There are only a finite number of parameters we can affect in any meaningful way. So our Nation spends as wisely as it can and contributes where it can make the best impact.
That still leaves a population the size of Chicago to run a complex country in the middle of the South Pacific with negligible natural resources to fund everything with. Whether you think it is fair or not, that is the reality we have.
Our arms establishment and weapons systems helped bring down the Soviet Union and liberated Eastern Europe. Many of those nations are now part of NATO. The fact that we defeated Communism and have liberated Iraq and Afghnistan was a cheap price to pay.
Possibly, in that more money is extracted from the ever-suffering NZ taxpayers than is extracted from their Chicago counterparts (”budgets” don’t grow on trees, as you will be aware. They all come out of somebody’s pocket)
You still don't get it. Chicago is a city, NZ is a nation. The residents of Chicago pay Illinois state taxes and federal taxes so your assumption is wrong when you try to compare both by comparing budgets.
When you look at the numbers you’ve produced it is truly remarkable that NZ can afford our military AND enjoy an excellent socialized medical scheme AND provide half of the South Pacific with our foreign aid and defense AND end up with budget surpluses to tide us thru difficult times like our current economic crisis.
LOL. And you only pay 1% of your GDP on defense and have a 9,000 person active duty military. You are the mouse that roared. Just pray that in the future the Chinese or some other malevolent power doesn't have designs on taking over your Shangria-La. Then who are you going to call upon to help you? Did you appreciate the US during WWII?
Yes, we are vulnerable to foreign invasion: Indonesia is certainly splitting at the seams and in need of more room and resources. Even if we spent 100% of our GDP on defense that geopolitical fact could never change. There are only a finite number of parameters we can affect in any meaningful way. So our Nation spends as wisely as it can and contributes where it can make the best impact.
The best way to do that is to coordinate the design and focus of your military with your allies so you can make your expenditures more effective.
> You still don’t get it. Chicago is a city, NZ is a nation. The residents of Chicago pay Illinois state taxes and federal taxes so your assumption is wrong when you try to compare both by comparing budgets.
Actually, you don’t get it. It is a correct comparison: we pay all of the city expenses Chicago would pay, too, on top of our national costs like the military: if anything our city costs are multiplied as there are about 86 cities and towns in NZ, each with their own set of costs. (we don’t have states, which chops out one layer of complexity).
At the end of the day four million people need to fund everything that we do. Of those four million, half of them are kids. Of the two million that remain, roughly half are non-productive: pensioners, invalids or on a benefit. So effectively one million people fund a country plus 86 cities and towns with everything. Military, hospitals, schools, water & wastewater, police, courts, gaols, embassies — everything.
Once again, we can afford about the same as what the people of Chicago can afford.
> Our arms establishment and weapons systems helped bring down the Soviet Union and liberated Eastern Europe
...replacing the inefficient Soviet Union with a lean-and-mean and newly efficient oligarchy of Russia. Whether Eastern Europe remains liberated remains to be seen. The last chapter on the Cold War has yet to be written.
> The fact that we defeated Communism and have liberated Iraq and Afghnistan was a cheap price to pay.
Communism has not really been defeated tho’, has it? The ChiComs have merely transformed it into a more transparent kleptocracy. Russia has transformed it into a wealthy oligarchy. Neither are proper democracies and both are threats.
Iraq may have been liberated: we hope so. Afghanistan is far from finished and is still very much a threat: the Taliban could return anytime.
> Just pray that in the future the Chinese or some other malevolent power doesn’t have designs on taking over your Shangria-La.
Our current foreign policy is to build closer economic and political ties with the ChiComs. I think that is a huge mistake and would much prefer we followed our traditional ANZUS alignment. Who knows where our new conservative government will take us: I hope that it re-thinks that policy.
> Then who are you going to call upon to help you?
It may just be that our Nation falls to an enemy power. If it does, I won’t live to see it.
> Did you appreciate the US during WWII?
I can’t speak for the Kiwis who lived thru WW-II, but I would suspect they were far too busy killing Nazis to pay too much notice what the rest of the Allied team was doing.
To the extent that the US also contributed to the Allied team effort I suspect the US contribution was appreciated.
No, you still don't get it. The revenue available to the the city of Chicago can't be compared to the country of New Zealand. The national budget of NZ is seven times that of Chicago's because the state and federal taxes payed by the residents of Chicago are not included in their city budget. It is not because Chicagoians pay only one-seventh the taxes you do. Get it?
...replacing the inefficient Soviet Union with a lean-and-mean and newly efficient oligarchy of Russia. Whether Eastern Europe remains liberated remains to be seen. The last chapter on the Cold War has yet to be written.
LOL. You really don't know how to handle good news. Russia is a country of 140 million. Its citizens have a life expectancy of 66 years and a fertility rate of 1.41, well below replacement levels. It has a population growth rate of -0.467% (2009 est.) This is not the stuff of world or European domination.
I can’t speak for the Kiwis who lived thru WW-II, but I would suspect they were far too busy killing Nazis to pay too much notice what the rest of the Allied team was doing.
Who defended the Homeland? Or were the Nazis roaming around NZ keeping you busy? LOL. .
> The revenue available to the the city of Chicago can’t be compared to the country of New Zealand.
Sure it can.
> The national budget of NZ is seven times that of Chicago’s because the state and federal taxes payed by the residents of Chicago are not included in their city budget.
And yet the Federal Government and the State Government spend budget in Chicago, investing in Federal and State infrastructure projects. Over and above what the City spends. Roll those expenditures in and the comparison is perfectly valid.
> It is not because Chicagoians pay only one-seventh the taxes you do. Get it?
We pay all the infrastructural costs similar to what Chicago pays as a city, AND we pay all the infrastructural costs similar to what Chicago receives as a part of the State of Illinois, AND we pay all of the infrastructural costs similar to what Chicago receives as a part of the United States.
We therefore can afford as much “Armed Forces” as Chicago can afford. No more, no less. Get it?
> This is not the stuff of world or European domination.
Tell that to Georgia.
> Who defended the Homeland?
The New Zealand Home Guard did. Battle-hardened veterans of the Great War.
Drive around Auckland along Tamaki Drive and you can still see gun emplacements. Under the streets of Auckland there are still perfectly good air raid tunnels. Devonport still has a huge ammo and arms dump. They didn’t appear by magic, and they aren’t natural formations: they were built by New Zealanders to repel and defend against foreign invaders.
To hear you Yanks talk you’d think the Japs were the first threat New Zealand ever faced from foreign forces, and that New Zealand sat there helplessly waiting for Americans to save them. Not so.
Prior to WW-II the Russians and the French had both presented threats, in their time. And, like the Japs, they wisely stayed away with both feet.
> Or were the Nazis roaming around NZ keeping you busy? LOL.
What a jerk. We’re definitely finished now.
LOL. Only "perfectly valid" if you have an IQ of a moron.
Prior to WW-II the Russians and the French had both presented threats, in their time. And, like the Japs, they wisely stayed away with both feet.
LOL. NZ=The mouse that roared. The Japanese stayed away because the US and the UK provided your security. Your 9,000 man armed forces wouldn't equal a speed bump to any serious enemy. Your socialist paradise is fortunate that it is located so out of the way, that very few would care to make the effort to take it over.
> Your socialist paradise is fortunate that it is located so out of the way, that very few would care to make the effort to take it over.
As usual you are mistaken. We live in a wise, fiscally-responsible conservative paradise that can easily afford to pay its bills.
You live in a bankrupt socialist paradise that is in the process of being invaded and taken over by Mexico — without so much as a shot being fired to prevent it.
That’s Change You Can Believe In.
Welcome to the Plonker List. You’ve tried hard to qualify and I’m pleased to advise that you have succeeded.
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.