Posted on 05/23/2024 10:32:50 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier
"The Russians are stubborn and want us to continue fighting...Bro, this war is unwinnable."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
My opinions are my own, from my own experiences growing up in the 50’s and 60’s, as well as the 76 years I’ve been on this earth, my 26 years here on FR, and from my many years as an avid reader of history, researcher, and historian..
You’re coming up on 27 years.
I started in 98.
If I live that long. My goal is to not outlive my kids, or croak before I can vote for Trump for a third time in November. Anything after that is up for grabs.
Thanks for sharing your interesting take on Menes’s question, and the link. I hadn’t even thought along those lines, but you’ve made some excellent points. I was focusing on my own interest in WWII history, and the search to educate myself about it. They didn’t teach us in the 60’s about this stuff. Like every other war or tragic event, the mantra is that people need to move on, and history gets lost in the dust.
And then, may it come soon, an entirely new ball-game will begin.
“Using your “logic” in boasting that Russia having no aircraft carriers is in better shape than the US having 11 super-carriers...”
Having hugely expensive, obsolete weapons systems is worse than not having them because you have to pay the enormous maintenance cost. The reactor refueling alone for the Stennis is $3 billion.
If the USA had spent that money on forging presses for artillery shells, it could have bought 50 forging presses, and be able to produce 50,000+ shells per day.
Instead, the US Navy has hundred of $ billions in white elephants, that can’t even stop a naval blockade set up by a terrorist group.
Yes.
It may not be that far off, but it will probably be accompanied by great economic turmoil and distress in the United States, and in the most economically dependent satellites like Canada.
The Lord will have to shield the poor people and the economically unprotected, because the Elites of those countries surely will not.
Reverend Wright should wright the QDR.
The U.S. Dept. of Defense is charged with a wide range of responsibilities. These responsibilities range from dealing with existential threats to dealing with all kinds of lesser contingencies. No doubt that many of the technologies pursued by the DOD suffer from a desire that these technologies can be applied to a range of contingencies. Consider the disasters of the Littoral Combat Ship and the Zumult-class “destroyer.” The F-35, the most expensive purchase in DOD history, is a very expensive platform, and lacks important attributes of the platforms it is supposed to replace.
Aircraft carriers have capabilities that cannot be duplicated. To sustain the deployment of three or four carriers around the world, we need a multiple of them. Each takes years to design and build and, once built, they have service lives of fifty years. Another aspect of having eleven or so, is to be able to deal with loses whether due to a near peer in a war, or to any other cause.
Only a country like the U.S. can sustain a defense posture like we do. We spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defense, which is less than half the percent we spent fifty years ago. And, this 3.5 percent of GDP is roughly equal to what the rest of the world spends on defense. We would greatly appreciate that our NATO allies met the expectation that they spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. We’ll take care of the things only we can, and they can focus on conventional arms.
It is naive to compare aircraft carriers with artillery shells. Conventional artillery shells can be produced on an assembly line. Production can be ramped up as necessary. We’re supposed to maintain production capacity in reserve so as to be able to increase production to met surges in demand. Besides, we have largely moved away from dumb bombs, and to smart munitions.
Guided munitions are more complicated and production of them can’t be easily ramped up. With more complicated munitions, we manage stockpiles. Having dipped into these stockpiles, we should consider placing new orders.
Compare the west’s ability to defend against air attacks to Russia’s. We see in Israel and in Ukraine tremendous ability to defeat rocket, missile and drone attacks. In Ukraine, air defense deters Russia from deploying warplanes and helicopters near the front (and motivated them to develop glide bomb technologies). In contrast, Ukraine can fly inexpensive drones far into Russia territory to target its undefended energy infrastructure.
Nothing was going to stop Germany from invading Russia. That was in the cards all along. One question was whether Britain would sign a separate peace to assist in getting rid of the Soviets.
Hitler would have never kept any peace deal he made with Britain.
Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf that he had no designs on the British Empire. I think he would have preferred to ally with Britain if it were possible. But it was never going to happen.
Von Ribbentrop felt like the Brits insulted him, when he was Germany’s ambassador to London, and when he came back, he became the number one England-hater. But, he convinced Hitler that England would never declare war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, and after they did, he fell out of favor with Hitler.
“Hitler would have never kept any peace deal he made with Britain.”
Which is why Churchill said “No” but he kept stringing them along so they wouldn’t invade.
Thanks Reverend Wright for your usual intelligent input on these topics.
Redmen4ever,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Source regarding the 251 military operations since 1991: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42738
It’s in a Congressional report (simply add them up).
No doubt we’re expansionist and succeeding in tearing what once were Warsaw Pact nations, Soviet Republics, or nations in the Russian sphere of influence (historically allied or aligned with Russia but not part of the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact) under our control. One only needs to look at Syria, Iraq, Venezuela and Libya to see that (all oil and gas producers).
Russia and the US are not so unlike each other. In fact, I would argue that today it’s us that is more like them, with a highly centralized government in Washington (the States have lost their powers), a massive intelligence agency that is in the political sphere and used inside the nation, mass censorship and control over the public, a pseudo-democracy, a Constitution that is selectively ignored by government when convenient, with just a few oligarchs who have a disproportionate influence on government.
Both the US and Russia are oligarchies, not real democracies: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B On (((MOST))) issues where the public interest diverges from those of the oligarchs (say trade with the PRC), the interests of the oligarchs are accommodated by government.
These campaigns are about Western and US oligarchs wanting what once or still is in the Russian sphere.
Here’s the problem, winning does not make us moral nor does it justify war, i.e. Just War concept. The layperson would say: “might does not make right.” Military interventions for mere political, or for economic benefit are not what our military nor NATO are intended for. The US military is no foreign legion nor is it supposed to operate in the best interest of some political figure or economic benefactor as the Roman legions did. There is such a thing as a “just war,” but those are rather the exception today, not the norm.
Two distinct things happened which brought us to this point:
1). In 1991 when the Soviet Union and before that the Warsaw Pact dissolved, it left us as the only worlds super-power. China was an emerging power. In the words of Lord Acton: “Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.” Our policy makers quickly learned that they can rely on military force to get what they want. It became the quick and easy solution for every problem since unrivaled in military and economic power, as well as political influence we could basically do what with impunity. When you have a tool that works really well for you, guess what you tend to use?
Examples:
—No different than J. Cesar grabbing notoriety and popularity by invading Gaul, so is Lindsey Graham with Mexico: https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-mexico-military-drug-kidnapping-1786025 Threatening to attack a nation because it “sounds good” in what is political theater.
—In Serbia we wanted an end to the conflict (no direct national threat to us). The quickest, path of least resistance, and lowest cost way to achieve that was to bomb Serbia into submission. What did we really demand of Serbia? The average American doesn’t even know! We wanted the Serbs to give up land for people that were originally refugees from Albania when that country went communist. Most of these people are a Muslim (stemming from the Muslim invaders of Europe in the past) subculture found themselves oppressed in Albania. Tito let these people in: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00809A000500170170-2.pdf That is why you have so many Serbs living in Bosnia today and how you have folks originally from Albania and Muslim in the middle of what once was YU: http://www.catsg.org/balkanlynx/03_countries/3_4_map-centre/maps-grafics/UniversityofTexas_1992_Map_of_Ethnics_in_former_Yugoslavia.jpg But we conveniently do not mention any of this when we rationalize our bombing of Serbia with our “human rights, democracy, and sovereignty” cliche’s. The Croats are aligned with the Germans, so no one wanted to mess with them. Some of former YU is aligned with the Greeks. The French had ties there too. But the Serbs were/are aligned with Russia which had just imploded 4 years prior. It was a political and militarily expedient solution for the Euro’s and where we were trying to keep NATO alive (at that time NATO was being questioned). We pat ourselves on the back to this day, but was it morally right? Hardly. Will this peace last? No.
—Then there is Iraq. We lied about WMD and AQ being there, so we invaded under false pretenses. Few folks trying to rationalize this war mention the casualties there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War We never left and lied about that in 2011. That was just an Obama re-election PR stunt and the MSM went along with it. However, we retained >5,100 troops in country at the time (in big secure/fortress like bases on the outskirts of cities because the locals do not like us), have a vast mercenary force there and other security personnel (US State Department and CIA) as well as Iraqi’s we pay. No one wants us there, except some of the Kurds in the North. But neither Suni or Shi’ia want us there (<3%) and we have been asked to leave numerous times, which we simply ignore (the most recent request): https://breakingdefense.com/2024/01/despite-iraqi-pms-call-us-troops-wont-likely-leave-iraq-anytime-soon-analysts/ Let me ask you this, do you think Iraq is safer today than under Saddam? Do you think the presence of radical Islamist types and AQ went up or down in Iraq after we went there? Hint, Saddam was secular, his Ba’ath party was secular...
2). 2001 changed things also. After 2001 we massively expanded the scope of powers of the “police state” (Patriot Act etc.) as well as growing the apparatus and aiming it partially inward. While the initial targets may have been legitimate, going after those that attacked us on 9-11, it quickly morphed into something else both externally and internally. Post 2001 the US became even more assertive/aggressive, using more dubious techniques (just like the Russians: torture, kidnapping, assassinations, side stepping the US Constitution even more), and while some of these technical capabilities or processes may have already been in place, example FISA, they became used much more liberally (secret courts, violations of due process, illegal search and seizure/privacy with mass surveillance: again, no different than Russia).
We took things to far and have pissed off to many folks. Sure, there are those inside the US that believe in this garbage that somehow we are Gods anointed people and that we drop freedom bombs and fire democracy missiles at all our enemies. There are some such as yourself that think some process like Democracy makes us special (there are many nations that have democratic processes) albeit our democracy is riddled with manipulations which really question how real/true it is (again, no different than Russia). Do not be surprised if Biden gets re-elected. He is the favorite by the establishment (deep state), our oligarch who own the MSM and largely pay for the political system. It doesn’t matter if Biden needs a bib and diapers, he stands a good chance of being “elected” if you want to call it that.
I would argue, that in the past what made us special was that we believed in freedom and had certain moral underpinnings (there is a reason why there is a Statue of Liberty), we were reserved with the use of military force (Reagan: powerful and willing to use force, but defensive).
1986 and the bombing of Libya was justified, they attacked a disco and killed a bunch of people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya 1986 (retaliation / defensive - minimize collateral damage) is very different from 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya (offensive - complete disregard for consequences) We once were the “good guy” but today that’s not the case. No kidding, the jets of several US oil execs were on the ground in Libya even before the incidents surrounding the attacks on our ambassador. In fact, we had to use the jets of oil execs to evacuate some of our folks. Do you really think this is about peace (as we armed certain militias there), or democracy (we were arming warlords that were not interested in democracy), or human rights? Do you think Libya today is more secure than before our attacks in 2011? Do you think Libya today poses less of a threat regards terrorism? AFTER we plunged this nation into a civil war we have actual areas under ISIS/ISIL and other Islamist groups control, no kidding:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.KHfMDQhr4ji_-oxfTmvbfQHaHL%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=46fd8b089c19cc3e5e9a0df19f00e085760095a3817e0a84a0d06b015d82ffb3&ipo=images (but now we have our foot in the door and are trying to pull this place out from Russia’s influence and put it under ours.)
Offensive, expeditionary campaigns where we cannot articulate a national security threat (other than some abstract idea or some boogieman that isn’t real) and are motivated by political or economic interests are NOT moral.
We have no problem overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a despot if that democratic government collides with our economic interests (we don’t export liberty today). We have no problem with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia around which our entire Middle East strategy is based. We have no problem with the kingdom of Jordan. We have no problem with China, a single party communist regime which is regards humans rights about as bad as it gets and even as they literally drive tanks over pro-democracy students on Tienanmen Square (1989) we vote to give them most favored trade status and support their admission to the WTO regardless if it was Bush H., Bill C., or Bush W. and today Joe B. Only Trump went against the current.
Things are changing. We set wheels in motion we will regret. We (the average Joe Public) just does not realize this yet. When someone acts like a jerk and pushes folks around (coercive/threatening: Mexico, Pakistan...), lies (No NATO East Expansion), cheats (Minsk and Montreux), and does whatever they want because they’re the big kid on the playground and they don’t need follow rules (bring others to international courts but exempt oneself), not even those rules they created (Ballistic Missile Treaty or supporting Israel), they eventually have others gang up on them, and that’s what’s starting to happen: BRICS, Russia-China security alliance, even our neighbor and NAFTA member Mexico, etc. https://biblehub.com/proverbs/16-18.htm
We should have stepped on the breaks a while back, but instead pushed the accelerator peddle.
Name one nation whose territory American has annexed. Just one.
Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands et.al. have all relinquished their empires. The USA voluntarily gave the Philippines full independence after WW2. Only Moscow refuses to accept that the era of empires is OVER, and demands to re-construct theirs by force of arms, at the expense of the peoples who were finally freed in 1991.
This of course means nothing to Putinskis. As far as Moscow is concerned, might makes right, period, end of story. Has been so since the Mongol period ended. Which is why western nations oppose Moscow, why NATO was formed, why NATO still exists, and why even more nations in your vicinity have asked to join NATO since 2022. ASKED to join. The NATO charter does not allow it to force itself on anyone. (Another lie Moscow keeps promoting....that NATO was expanding itself into Ukraine. Any and all contacts with NATO were/are at Ukraine's instigation. Had to be. The events of 2014 and 2022 confirmed their fears. And everybody else's.)
Name one nation whose territory American has annexed. Just one.
The Mexican Republic—seized 1/3 of their nation. The Cherokee Nation took good lands and gave them deserts, killing lots of folks in the Trail of Tears. The Hawaiian Kingdom, stole the whole thing. The Kingdom of Spain, took Guam and The Philippine Islands as well as Puerto Rico. Lots of Pacific Islands from Japan to use as bases after WW II.
I still have the full text of Bush's message to Congress requesting authorization for military action in Iraq. There is NO mention of WMDs in it. That was a fabrication put up by Democrats to cover themselves with some of their base for voting for it. Ironically we DID find nerve gas WMDs there, and we had extensive satellite observations of convoys leaving Irag for Syria with [something] on board.
Is Irag safer today than under Saddam? Considering that he was often murdering Kurds and Marsh Arabs at the rate of thousands a week, I'd say yeah. At this point Baltimore is more dangerous than Baghdad, to our shame.
I remember at the same time reading information about Saddam letting terrorists train in isolated parts of Iraq. But I didn’t save the article...was very detailed.
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.