Posted on 05/28/2002 9:55:34 PM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
The Pakistani people for the most part like the US and they were very good friends 10 years ago. The problem they have is the same as Iran with the radicals and this is the voice you hear and see but I don't think it's the normal opinion over there? I know some Pakistani people myself and they love the US and their kids are 100% Americanized but they are a pain to go to dinner with because of the pork issue. It's not just eating pork but nothing cooked in pork fat or oil. Ordering a darn salad with croutons can be a 10 minute ordeal :)
Now to Pakistan. There have been several forays into Pakistan by the US and British media, and the people of Pakistan do not have a very favorable view of the states. The perception of the US is actually quite low over there, and maybe the Pakistanis you met are good people who just want ot live a good life, but many are not.
And they are fanatical. For example an interview with one Pakistani general was shocking to the west when he said that he would be willing o see the whole of his own country Pakistan destroyed by Indian retaliation if it meant destroying a couple of Indian cities in the process. Think about that.
And as for them being our allies. Hmmm, how come theya re ranked by the British Foregn Secretary as the global cesspool of terrorism then? I thought we were against terror and those who harbor it. And although i can understand why the US is lenient with the Saudis (due to the oil), i do not see why we should play bed fellows with the Pakistanis, when according to even the most conservative projections, it will be a major threat in the future when Musharaff is usurped from power (the major way of power transferrance in Pakistan is through a coup).
What then?
Now, that is not appropos for someone who 'likes the US.' Unless you want to assert a claim that they were misunderstood and misquoted.
And if you really believe they like Americans then go over to Pakistan, find a house in a place not frequented by Internationals, and then hang an American flag outside your house. I seriously doubt you will last a fortnight. And i emphasize it has to be parts of Katachi or Islamabad that are not designated as international places, meaning you are not surrounded by the relative safety of others like you.
Dot hat and see what happens to you. Unless of course i am wrong, and they 'love' americans. Something tells me you would be safer in Afghanistan!
"Come on, be serious. The US military has so atrophied that it is even suffering from minor logistical problems."
The logistical problems have to do with what? If you saying there have been problem in the Afgan Ops then this is due to the location and has nothing to do with the airlift capability so even having 1000% more aircraft it wouldn't matter. If you give me a specific I can go on because I've worked in logistics the last few years and know a little about it.
"And since you asked for examples (so you could blow me out of the water) how about the fact that in just the Afghan operations there was a sever crisis when it came to the numbers of JDAM munitions after a month! (DOD)"
The JDAM munitions are fairly new and just came on line in 1999. The fact that they were so effective and now proven you can bet they are retrofitting tens of thousands of the older dumb munitions which we have over 20 million bombs in storage. It may be a matter on time but not the money or will right now !
"Or what about the low numbers of cruise missile, botht he Tomahawk and the air launched B-52 version crusie missile? And even when Clinton did that tactical strike against al Queda in 1998 aftre the Embassy bombings there were calls for replenishing the supplies of the Tomahawks."
Bring this further, after Kosovo in 1999 we drew down our conventional cruise missle stock pile pretty low. The exact numbers were classified so it's not public but I do know we ordered 30 per month in 1999 so the numbers should be back over what we need. Again, it's classified but I would suspect we have enough for a good 30 days of sending 50 cruise missles if we had to. I don't think we would need more then 150 on any attack on Iraq?
"Now, if relatively limited operations in Afghanistan can drain the military resources so, what about a drawn out campaign against red China? Bigger landmass plus better defenses than Afghanistan (which only had 1980s stingers while the Chinese have Chzech radar that can track the F-117A). It is just a simple matter of logical progression. The US is just not ready for such a campaign, probably not even for a dug in Iraqi defense. And although we would probaly win the death toll would be prohibitive (especially when you consider most civilians would not stand by and see their sons and daughters killed. ) Think 'nam."
What senerio would have us in a sustained was with China? There aren't any and if Taiwan is on the table it wouldn't be anything in China. We'd use some subs and maybe one battle group to block their war ships but that's about it. As far as Afghanistan being a drain on resources where did you get this from? I think you're mixing the drain on homeland defense with the Afgan war? Heck, we used more troops, supplies, aircraft and logistics in a exercise in Korea last month then we've used in Afghanistan. All this while several other worldwide exercises were going on which still used less then 50% of our total resources !
Finally, you have to look through the clouds when you see some reports out there because the people leaking have an aganda. The Airforce wants more C-17's for airlift so we have an airlift problem, etc. !
And you must be joking if you think the US fulfilling its treaty to defend Taiwan would only require 'a few submarines, and maybe a carrier group.' Did you read my article on the Sunburn missiles and what they were developed for? And do not think about a stealth strike either due to the upgrade chech radars.
It is called assymetrical warfare, and at present the US is not prepared for it.
Actually congress has asserted this fact in the past, and although i agree with you some of this may be a political ploy to get funding for weapons programs, it still remians a reality. The US can not EFFECTIVELY meet its objectives of facing 2 foes at different global regions. That is a fact. And although i love the US military and am in awe of it, i do not blind myself to the fact serious work needs to be done to correct nearly a decade of atrophy.
Listen, I'll put this in quick simple terms.
We still have a military designed for a war with the USSR. We got more crap stockpiled throughout the world they don't even know how much they have. We have more tanks, missles, support vehicles and munitions then anyone can count. it's packed in grease all over the world. That's as far as I want to say about what we have but you get the idea. I know because I seen alot of it and used to scratch my head thinking why do we need so much. This stuff doesn't get thrown away -- never ! They make it and ship it somewhere then it's packed in grease until it's needed. It comes out brand new when the time comes. We ungreased alot of this during the first Iraq war and packed it up in grease again right afterwords.
Can we fight two wars at the same time?
I would say that in 99% of anything we could think up we can with what we currently have. It's not even a matter of arms, bombs, aircraft, logistics etc.. We have all this and we can use commericial aircraft and ships if we needed (It's US law) but there is one thing that we don't know for sure if it will work out in the second front and this is the people. The active duty can take care of war one but war two would require alot of reserves. Are they up to the task? I would bet they would be because in WWI and WWII we had a bunch of farm boys with 26 weeks of training being sent to the front and they did OK so our reserves would be rusty at first but they'd kick ass in the end - it's the American way !
Now if your question is can we take 10,000 dead American G.I.'s without another attack on the US my answer would be I don't think we can?
What are you basing this on? Rumsfield just said on friday that we could fight two wars at the same time. Is he lying?
I think we're seeing the lobbyists for more defense spending putting this stuff out !
I agree Clinton did cut the military more then he should have. He and the GOP Congress are to blame for this. The GOP went hog wild cutting the military the last 10 years and they are now jumping on Bush's back for the ride to build it back up. Look up the facts and you'll be pissed at what they tried to cut.
The biggest problem right now with the military isn't the numbers as we hear in the news but the quality of what we have.
We have a severe shortage of spare parts for most of our aircraft because it costs money to keep a part on a shelf. The C-5 fleet has 50% of them in maintenance because they're waiting for parts. The big problem I see is a long drawn out war just like the homeland defense deal we just went through but draining the logistic arm of our military.
They're replacing C-5's with C-17's that carry 50% of the load. Well, what happens to the other 50% of the airlift requirements? 10 years down the road we will have a problem because there will be no C-141's at all and only 10% of the C-5's will be flyable and congress hasn't funded more C-17's to replace all these while they want to fund a 200 billion dollar lease program for a replacement for the KC-135's that can go another 30 years. Our fighters are 30 years old and there isn't any 1 for 1 replacement deal on the books so what happens to them in 10 years when 80% are grounded for parts?
Talk about scratching you head?
Do you know of any logical reason for them to do this? It seems these paperpushers and policy makers are placing american soldiers in potential jeopardy.
Actually this reminds me of a documentary i saw where this maintenance chief on one of the Aircraft Carriers was complaining about the lack of parts, and that he was being forced to cannibalize some F-18s so that he would get parts for at least the rest of them! Why?
Instead of spending all that cash on the C-17, why not upgrade and keep the older version(that could carry more) , and then spend the saved money on parts for needed military hardware.
To me it seems weird, actually downright strange. And i would appreciate if you could enlighten me on why people who should be helping save American lives are risking them. Please, if you can.
I'm sick and tired of you "pefectionist idiots" giving us scum like Clinton. Someone posted all of the good things that occurred since Bush got into office and the list was impressive. It's so easy to forget how bad it was under Scumbad x42. But it's easy to focus on and throw temper tantrums (like you're doing) on all of the things we don't like under x43. Those of you .00000001% percenters who are waiting for the "great conservative messiah" to come along, it will never be good enough. You'll forever be angry, bitter, complaining.
Interesting,given recent "leaks" from the military indicating the exact opposite.
Most Americans have no clue that China has a standing Military in excess of 200 Million men. One major effect of the cultural bias to keeping baby boys and killing the girls.
The one hope I have is that China will continue to fester internally and may ultimately continue to check itself as it evolves through various levels disintegration. The Bank of China is essentially insolvent. The graft that defines China is hard to imagine. The infrastructure there is still predominately provincial with an alliance of Government, Military and Gangsters running the show, listed here in reverse order of clout. There are alliances and feuds forming constantly. It is not as unified as they would like us to think but the sheer mass of it is not well understood by most Americans either.
My bigger concern with China is progressive domination of the Asian theater. One small country at a time, taken internally initially. Viet Nam is a clear example of this today. China also supports disruptive activity through other rogue nations.
If we rebuild our military aggressively and with an equal view to offense and defense we may pull to uncomfortable parity in the next three to four years. But we will never enjoy the perpetual domination we could have realized if Clinton had never been in power.
There is some fairly incredible spending going on in the defense complex right now. I don't believe that Bush will have to wait until he has a majority in the house and the senate to keep that moving forward.
There are other issues, like the judiciary, that Bush needs at least a cooperative house and senate to move forward. Bush the second will have the opportunity to fill fully half of the Federal Judiciary and maybe to tilt the balance of the Supreme Court our way for years to come.
We have this forum to share ideas and opinions. What are your thoughts on Bush the seconds work so far?
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.