via The New York Times.
The US Army is getting eviscerated.
I thought it was simply bluffs and bluster, but they're actually going to do it.
If you're a Chinese Army Colonel would this announcement cause you pause or would it make you pop the bubbly?
Once these cuts are completed any ground China takes is ground they keep. Airpower can't remove an army from the field. Neither can naval power.
We are seeing the nation's defense weakened right before our eyes.
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagelplans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.I read this and I'm speechless.
The proposal, described by several Pentagon officials on the condition of anonymity in advance of its release on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.
The officials acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.
The US Army is getting eviscerated.
I thought it was simply bluffs and bluster, but they're actually going to do it.
If you're a Chinese Army Colonel would this announcement cause you pause or would it make you pop the bubbly?
Once these cuts are completed any ground China takes is ground they keep. Airpower can't remove an army from the field. Neither can naval power.
We are seeing the nation's defense weakened right before our eyes.
The US could easily interdict any Chinese occupation of small islands with subs and carrier aviation. Ground forces to throw them out would not be necessary - their is no population to be liberated. Besides, to commit ground troops to clear uninhabited rocks would not be tolerated by the American public. It's better IMO to make any land grab extremely painful. The PLAN losing all its brand new ships would be devastating to the Chinese hierarchy (whoever is in control of that...) Taiwan is another issue altogether, but committing land forces to an island where half the population might be satisfied with reunification is not a bright prospect.
ReplyDeleteTaiwan is a lost cause. US would be wise not to sell any more sensitive weapon technology to that island, because soon or later they will end up in Chicom hands. I guarantee you that!
ReplyDeleteJapan is losing patience with half-hearted US support in her struggle against Chinese aggression. Eventually they will realize they better re-arm themselves and face their giant neighbor alone. Japanese militarism resurrection is unavoidable, S Korea will be pissed off and refuse to join US-Japan alliance against China. Chicom will do its best to draw wedge between US and allies. And don't forget about N Korea. Lil fat Kim may feel restless if war breaks out in North East Asia and decides to make his own move toward the south.
adaptus primus
DeleteThere is nothing the US can do, especially the Abe administration is out of control and is about to cross the red-line imposed by the US, the revision of Kono statement. Obama administration warned that the revision of Murayama statement and Kono statement crossed the red-line; Abe's response is that he would keep the Murayama statement, but revise the Kono statement. The revision of Kono statement is expected to have a much worse fallout than Abe's Yasukuni visit, if one could imagine such one, because it would essentially amount to an official history denial by the Japanese government and a diplomatic nuking.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201301190040
A senior U.S. government official has cautioned the Japanese government about revising a 1993 statement acknowledging the Japanese military forcefully recruited “comfort women” to provide sex for soldiers before and during World War II.
http://japandailypress.com/japan-to-consider-revising-public-apology-statement-to-comfort-women-2444776/
Japan to consider revising public apology statement to comfort women
In a move that is set to incense neighboring China and South Korea, Japan is mulling on revising its landmark apology on the issue of wartime sexual slaves, according to a top official. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said that the interviews given by the “comfort women” forced into sexual labor during World War II would be reviewed.
Fuckin Japanese. With friends like these....
DeleteWhy the hell is it such a big deal for them to build-up their military without denying war crimes? You can't admit you fucked up, did horrendous things to other human beings and want still build-up their military?
If someone with a clue in the Foggy Bottom could remind Japan that a natural ally in the region could and should be South Korea, it would behoove them not to piss the Koreans off.
careful Paralus. half of Asia makes a living off of claiming war crimes against the Japanese during WW2. its particularly bad in S. Korea.
Deletepeople that never said a word for over 50 years suddenly appear talking about being comfort women and being abused.
not saying it didn't happen just saying that you have alot of people looking to make a buck off the pain.
additionally when is enough enough.
when does the rest of asia wake up and say WW2 was a long time ago and its time to move on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf the US gets into a major land war against China, something has gone very, very wrong. If military budgets cuts are to come, better they get taken out of the Army than the Navy.
ReplyDeleteThe US doesn't need a large land army to fight two wars at once. In fact US policy is not to conduct further exercises such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan which is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteso i guess the enemy doesn't get a vote in how the next war will be fought right? just like all the Generals are saying that air and sea power and the Pacific are the next hot spot who's to say that we won't see a major flare up in the middle east. how much are you willing to bet that syria will be stable and that we won't see a regional war between syria, iraq and turkey? who's gonna pick up the pieces of a fragmented syria, who's gonna police the kurds when they break off from iraq and declare parts of turkey their own? who's gonna keep hezbollah from toppling the lebanese government?
Deleteand that's just a part of the middle east. i haven't migrated to the rest of the region or taken into account the drama in africa.
no land wars? land wars are brewing all around us. the problem is that leadership doesn't want to see it.
Do you remembered when Thatcher government went all over the place and cut UK Defense force? When the Argentinians saw the last of the UK defense presence removed from the Falklands, they invaded. The Chinese learnt from this.
DeleteDo you remember when Sadam spoke to the US Diplomat in the area and cautiously asked if US would react if Iraq would invade Kuwait (US Diplomat said "Go ahead" so they did)? How many months did it take to mobilize the US Army and send them to KSA? The Chinese knows this.
(The Chinese Communist Party does not care how many naval assets will be sunk by US forces. The "great firewall of China" will stop this information from decimating to the Chinese public.)
Demobilizing of forces is one thing. Mobilizing them and sending them halfway around the world where there are no land mass in between. This is THE major weakness. Naval assets can destroy and delay re-inforcements from the air and from the sea with impunity.
If a MAJOR shooting war should erupt in Asia (against China), US Government will look like a fool.
Land war -- where?
DeleteOne way to make it "nowhere" is to reduce Army size.
The American people are sick of war and want no more of it.
The logic of Hagel's argument is horseshit: "you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war". What about the majority of the Cold War? What about the 90s? No landwar, yet large land-war DoD. The same logic could be applied to the Air Force or Navy, too. No Naval war, thus we have no need for huge numbers of surface combatants. Nobody is bombing our cities, why do we need dozens of squadrons of fighter aircraft? Fucking bullshit rationalization for window dressing for being cheap.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue I have is 440000 is just the start. It's way to easy for some assholes in Congress or the WH to round it down to 400,000 and then we have an Army that is irrelevant for a the roles demanded of a Superpower.
After WWII, Ike and others in the Army agreed to reducing the Army down so that just prior to Korean war, the Army 593000+ troops. And we found it wasn't enough really quick. We are setting ourselves up for another situation where we don't have the size to deter. So we won't invade China. What about North Korea? What about Thailand? What Black Swan is out there that we KNOW can't happen, but is out there?
Forget the Pacific for a second. What about the Middle East? or Eastern Europe? What happens if Ukraine goes to shit and the Russians start to gather at the border? Send in some drones? or some F35s.
Lastly, in regards to Army drawdown, management isn't going to lay itself off. Too many generals, too many officers. The cuts will not be in the fat tail, it will be done by having some dentist defang the dragon, precisely where it does not need to be cut. There is already talk within the Army that they are considering re-inventing what is essentially the Interim Brigade concept of having less troops in the BCTs and replacing them with drones and robots. It's bullshit. They finally, after a decade of war, get the BCT to the right-size so it is big enough to fight, then they want to slash them again?
You want to rightsize the Army? Fire 90% of the generals, replace them with Cols, reduce the Officer Corps to less than 3% of the total manpower, start refocusing on reinvigorating the professional NCOs because they need to be the backbone of the Army, not junior officers.
well said. the US Army is the canary in the coal mine and air or sea power will not hold the line when it comes to fighting the shit hitting the fan.
DeleteOne thing they need to do is reduce the Generals by 90%. Reduce & combine the general staff to 20%. At the same time reduce the Officer Corp to 30% and make it a lot harder for anyone that wants OCS, ROTC scholarships and appointments to the Federal academies. At the same time, grow and expand the Warrant officer corps and the NCO Corp. While I am at it, I would expand the National Guard, reserves and at the same time bring the State Guards & Milita to National Guard or Home Guard Standards. I would make it a lot harder to get in Active duty except for schooling.
Deletere: canary
DeleteI look at it differently. A large worthless high-personnel Army sucks up dollars which keeps the Navy from being all it can be. The US Constitution provides for a full-time navy and a sometimes army, as an indicator.
Ugghh....I think war with China happens before '16...because they won't want to risk actually competent people being put in charge of our civilian leadership.
ReplyDeleteBreaking Defense has a great bit on this.
ReplyDeletehttp://breakingdefense.com/2014/02/the-army-force-cuts-3-truths-4-fallacies/
This bit is telling. It's General McMaster's wise words explaining why a smaller Army isn't a good idea.
:'“The return of the revolution in military affairs,” a theory thought discredited in Iraq — “it’s like a vampire,” he said — with its promise that long-range sensors and precision strikes will let air and sea forces win wars cleanly and bloodlessly (for us) on their own.
“The Zero Dark Thirty fallacy” that we can solve our problems almost bloodlessly with Special Operations raids, “something akin to a global swat team to go after enemy leaders.”
What might be called the Mali Fallacy (my words, not his) that we can rely on allies and local surrogates to do the fighting on the ground while the US provides advisors and high-tech support.
All three fallacies, he said, begin with a core of truth: Air Force, Navy, Special Operations, and advisors are all impressive and essential capabilities, but they can’t prevail alone.
The fourth fallacy, by contrast, McMaster considers just plain “narcissistic.” The idea that the US can “opt out” of certain kinds of conflict — say, counterinsurgency, or ground warfare in general — without giving our adversaries credit for what they may be able to force us to do. Invading Afghanistan seemed ludicrous on September 10, 2001, after all, and inescapable on September 12th.'
WOW. nailed it.
The American public might not want a war.
The Military might not want a war.
But our enemy's might want a war and that is what we have to be ready for....
unilaterally removing the means by which we might respond to an international event or an attack upon the US doesn't mean we will be able to avoid a war.