What is the "Right" Size for the Military Force?

Ongoing discussion on downsizing our militarys in this time of war. This ridiculous insistance of dealing with national deficits by slashing the armed forces of any of our countries, guarantees an emotional response from any of us who are remotely connected to our troops who being told to "do more with less."

What is astounding to me is that civilian politicians - you know, those who have NEVER served, never mind in a time of war - are determined to decimate their fighting forces while we ARE at war. Into all of this 'debate,' come a voice of reason. War on Terror News has two columns which give historial perspective. They ARE must reads. Get a coffee, and settle in. Read them both, and be informed:

11/12/2011

What is the "Right" Size for the Military Force?

The current Administration has requested and gotten approved cuts of 49,000 US Soldiers, in the Active Army alone. In 2009, it began to cut 20,000 from the National Guard, quietly, without publicity. This year, Fiscal Year 2012, which began on October 1, 2011, begins the Active Army's implementation of the 1st cuts implemented by the current Administration. This is not the first time in military history that the military has been reduced in size, but it is the first time that it has occurred during a war. And the Secretary of Defense, along with members of the Joint Chiefs have warned that these cuts may not be over.

This begs the question: How big must the military be in order to succeed in it's mission? Well, the answer depends on the question of what the politicians expect our military to be able to do? And here we need the historical context of how that has changed in the last 3 decades.

In the 1980's, we faced an expanding Empire, that challenged the United States and Our Allies technologically, as well as exceeded our numerical capacity. Our Allies in Europe and Asia understood the threat that Communism posed and helped bridge the numerical disadvantage, while we accelerated our technological edge and developed a Professional edge in Troops that volunteered to stand the wall, and in sufficient numbers dedicated their lives to that pursuit. The mission was defined as the capacity to fight and win TWO prolonged wars/fronts simultaneously.

The enemy, the Soviet Union, possessed sufficient Nuclear Weapons, Biological Weapons, and Chemical Weapons, as did we, that any war would have likely have destroyed the bulk of North America, Europe, and Northern Asia. Both sides understood that any war of weapons of mass destruction would result in Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), and were rational enough to want to avoid that lose-lose scenario. Both sides also realized that a "Conventional War," which at that time meant a war devoid of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), which wasn't a commonly used term in those days, would almost assuredly turn into a war of WMD, if the two Superpowers confronted each other on the battlefield. At times, each had leaders that were thought of as just crazy enough to use those Nuclear Weapons, and that served to keep the other side a bit unsettled.

The nuclear powers we face today cannot be trusted to understand that a nuclear strike against us would assure their own destruction. Both Iran and North Korea are led by individuals that believe that even killing a few million Americans is worth the complete annihilation of their own people. The Chinese are still rational enough to know that a Nuclear War is not in their interests, and count more on their leverage with our insatiable need for new loans than the threat of MAD.

Instead, the Superpowers fought "proxy" wars, where one or the other might be actively engaged, while the other trained and supplied its enemy's enemy. These wars occurred in Viet Nam, El Salvador, Nicarauga, Angola, Cuba, Grenada, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, and Afghanistan, sometimes with proxy vs. proxy and others with Superpower and proxy vs. proxy. The closest we came to direct conflicts between the two Superpowers were Korea, Cuba, Germany, and Poland. More than once, the Nukes were readied, as were the Conventional Forces, for WWIII, most times, without the public ever knowing.

He has more, and you really need to go and read it all HERE.

In a following column/analysis, WOTN asks the obvious question:

Monday, November 14, 2011

Can A Smaller Force Keep America Safe?

[...]

This year, Fiscal Year 2012, which began on October 1, 2011, begins the Active Army's implementation of the 1st cuts implemented by the current Administration. This is not the first time in military history that the military has been reduced in size, but it is the first time that it has occurred during a war. And the Secretary of Defense, along with members of the Joint Chiefs have warned that these cuts may not be over.

This begs the question: How big must the military be in order to succeed in it's mission? Well, the answer depends on the question of what the politicians expect our military to be able to do? And here we need the historical context of how that has changed in the last 3 decades. (Expanded version of this article.)

In the 1980's, we faced an expanding Empire, that challenged the United States and Our Allies technologically, as well as exceeded our numerical capacity. Our Allies in Europe and Asia understood the threat that Communism posed and helped bridge the numerical disadvantage, while we accelerated our technological edge and developed a Professional edge in Troops that volunteered to stand the wall, and in sufficient numbers dedicated their lives to that pursuit. The mission was defined as the capacity to fight and win TWO prolonged wars/fronts simultaneously.

The World knew, President Reagan was just crazy enough to fight the Evil Empire if they attacked their own people, again. The Soviet Empire fell under the weight of its own people and overstretched economy. We had been spending more than 6% of Gross Domestic Product on Defense. The Soviets simply couldn't keep up that pace.

Without a perceived threat, and as we watched our potential enemies fall one by one, to their own people, the Allies determined that we should cash in "The Peace Dividend." We could cut back the amounts we spent on defense, as we were "entering a period of peace," where no nation could realistically challenge us on the battlefield.

The Bush Administration concluded that in a world of only one Superpower, that 12 Army Divisions, with only 100,000, not 250,000 stationed in Germany, could fight and win 2 wars. It was politically easier to reduce the number of Troops overseas than in the Congressional Districts of politicians, because Troops spend money on the local economy, even where those Troops are not liked. Still, 6 fewer Divisions, meant there would also be fewer stateside bases, so an independent commission was set up to decide which weren't needed anymore.

The collective memory of a stunning Victory in Iraq, soon turned into a festering wound, as President H.W. Bush was questioned for "not finishing the job," as Saddam continued to posture, and denied he had lost. The President who had seen his approval rate soar as a result of his resolve and reliance on General Powell and General Schwarzkopf to get the job done, saw it plummet as a result of his dithering on Tianamen Square, and the resulting economic downturn of decreased military spending....

There is more HERE..

At the end of the first column, WOTN says:

Cutting Our Force, in the middle of increased, not decreased uncertainty in the world, is the WRONG policy. It is not just dangerous, but straight up stupid. If we cannot protect our beans, with bullets, someone will take our beans with their bullets.

And he is obviously correct. It is now long past imperative for all Americans (and allies) to remind the politicians that their number one priority should be protecting their citizens from "all enemies, foreign and domestic..." Any fool knows that you do not do this by taking the knives to the military. Period.

Are YOU paying attention?