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*