I bet that many of you have thought about the opportunities in the war on terror that were missed when dumped massive amounts of U.S. firepower into the middle of nowhere on a big wild goose chase for WMDs that were never there. Could we have captured and put on trial Osama Bin Laden? Could we have dealt more effectively with other tyrants who were loudly and proudly saying they had enough material for several bombs?
Well, it looks like the generals are starting to speak up:
[quote]The concentration of American troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the Pentagon’s ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts, the military’s highest ranking officer reported to Congress on Monday.
The officer, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed Congress in a classified report that major combat operations elsewhere in the world, should they be necessary, would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan. [/quote]
Of course, the troop commitment to Afghanistan is minor compared to the massive amounts of men and material that have been dumped into Iraq. Also, note that the United States hasn’t been able to do squat about North Korea.
[quote]The concentration of American troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the Pentagon’s ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts, the military’s highest ranking officer reported to Congress on Monday.
The officer, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed Congress in a classified report that major combat operations elsewhere in the world, should they be necessary, would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan. [/quote][/quote]
So what?
Our mobilization of troops in Europe during WW2 limited the Pentagon’s ability to deal with armed conflicts in the Pacific then. The fact is, we have limited resources and that means prioritizing is necessary.
What in the world would you suggest we do with N. Korea if all of our military might were free and at our disposal?
Perhaps MFGR can ask Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton? They did such a fine job of taking care of this mess in 1994. Is it called “kicking the can down the road” or “sweeping the mess under the rug?” You are so good with these witticisms MFGR, why don’t you tell us?
Say, how are those Europeans and the UN doing with negotiating an end to the Iranian nuclear program? Hmmm? Just curious. Maybe they can fix up the mosque and have a party?
Makes one wonder how on earth we were able to send trillions of dollars worth of equipment halfway around the world to our allies in that war, build so many aircraft carriers, battleships, tanks, etc. … and yet in the current Iraq war we suddenly have “limited resources” and cannot provide troops with armored humvees or other basic equipment they ask for. Apparently the Bush administration cannot even go to the trouble of asking the manufacturer of such armored humvees if they can please use their full capacity. Not even willing to consider the numerous other companies that provide armored humvees or other similar armored vehicles.
Far more importantly – what do you think North Korea would dare to do if they thought that all of our military might were free and at our disposal? China? Other countries? With the world knowing that the U.S. effectively has one hand tied behind its back (with a full 1/2 of its combat capabilities dumped in a useless desert), it’s no surprise that these guys have gotten a lot more aggressive.
What in the world would you suggest we do with N. Korea if all of our military might were free and at our disposal?[/quote]
I was wondering the same thing. Assuming that this is N. Korea comment is truly related to the subject (i.e. assuming MFGR wasn’t just throwing this one-liner out there as a attack just for the sake of making an attack), it would certainly be interesting to discover what kind of massive conventional military action could be taken against N. Korea without condemning much of Seoul’s 10,000,000+ population to death by conventional artillery and rockets…
EDIT: Hmm… it appears that MFGR has already responded, and that the answers are:
(1) N. Korea is rather slow, and does not understand that the reason the US cannot invade it has to do with millions of inevitable civilian casualties in South Korea and Japan – it thinks the US is hesitating because it doesn’t have enough troops free, and
(2) N. Korea has only started to become a dangerous and aggressive state since the liberation of Iraq.
[quote=“Hobbes”]Hmm… it appears that MFGR has already responded, and that the answers are:
(1) N. Korea is rather slow, and does not understand that the reason the US cannot invade it has to do with millions of inevitable civilian casualties in South Korea and Japan – it thinks the US is hesitating because it doesn’t have enough troops free, and
(2) N. Korea has only started to become a dangerous and aggressive state since the liberation of Iraq.
Have to ponder these I suppose… [/quote]
Well, Hobbes, you needn’t ponder answer no. 1 above, because obviously civilian casualties are only important and or unfortunate when they can be used to bash Bush.
It might be better to ask how we are going to be able to afford anything if the Iraq occupation continues. Iraq has now cost us US$300 billion, and combined with the tax cuts for the rich, we are fast losing the ability to pay for things like roads, schools, and hospitals, let alone for grander projects like doing something about global warming. Oh, I know, Bush is going to “privatize” all those things, so no problem.
The US budget deficit is being financed by China, Korea and Japan. If they decide to pull the plug, the US dollar won’t be worth its weight in toilet paper. Does that bother anyone here?
Funny thing is that it doesn’t matter too much what we would actually do with the troops if they were available … it matters more what China and North Korea think we might be able to do if they were available.
How about this, as a quick little experiment: Tigerman can go for a swim in shark-infested waters. He can choose to do it with both hands free, in which case the sharks will generally not take much notice of him under normal circumstances. However, should he tie one hand behind his back, the erratic swimming motions will normally get the sharks quite riled up. I watched some similar experiments being done on the Discovery channel recently.
Regarding North Korea, Hobbes raises a valid point – are they more aggressive now? I would tend to think so. Perhaps we can reduce our troops in the Korean peninsula down to 0 and further encourage North Korea.
"United States and South Korean military commanders are completing a new war plan intended not only to repel a North Korean invasion if hostilities erupt but to invade North Korea to demolish its armed forces, capture the capital at Pyongyang, and destroy the North Korean regime.
Said a senior U.S. official: “When we’re done, they will not be able to mount any military activity of any kind. We will kill them all.” . .
In addition, the Clinton Administration and the Congress appear to be losing confidence that North Korea will abide by the 1994 Agreed Framework that averted hostilities and supposedly halted the North Korean nuclear program. An unnamed senior Administration official was quoted in Washington on Nov. 10 as saying the U.S. was prepared to walk away from the agreement unless Pyongyang could show that it was not developing nuclear weapons at a new underground site. . .
The new plan calls for a deliberate campaign to crush North Korean armed forces and government in what an official called “defeating them in detail.” That means every gun and tank emplacement along the DMZ, ammunition and supply depot, bridge and crossroads, resupply and reinforcement route, air field and naval facility, commando base, headquarters and command post, and communications node, plus munitions factories, electric power grids, and government buildings in Pyongyang are on target lists. . .
A target of high priority would be the North Korean artillery corps deployed north of the DMZ where it could fire due south toward Seoul. Many of North Korea’s 10,600 artillery pieces are old and have limited range but about 200 multiple rocket launchers of 240 millimeters could hit Seoul to inflict severe damage. They are at the top of the target list.
Much of that artillery is parked in underground shelters that have been spotted by U.S. intelligence satellites and aircraft. Those guns must be pulled out to fire and thus become vulnerable. They can also be neutralized by bombing exits before they emerge. “We can bury them,” said a military planner." [/color]
Of course once North Korea achieved the ability to tip long-range missiles with nuclear warheads all the above went out the window. Before the DPRK had this ability, its nuclear weapons were largely useless as strategic weapons because they had no means to deliver them.
[A couple more Jimmy Carter posts were moved to relevant thread]
MODERATOR NOTE:
Guys,
Former President Carter has plenty of open space to stretch his legs, get up and move about the cabin in the Carter thread. A couple comments were moved there earlier today, and a couple more this evening were moved as well. Aside from the hassle of moving things around, the downside of this is that because editing individual posts is so time-consuming, sometimes cogent and useful comments get moved out of the thread at the same time as the Carter stuff.
If Jimmy C. is relevant to whatever other thread, then by all means write what you want about him – but please do try to use your judgment about whether a Carter reference is actually relevant or if it is more in the nature of “Well let’s just see what Carter would have thought about this issue…” I have great faith in your judgment to know the difference.
This goes for both “Initial Bringer-Uppers” and for those mischievous souls who would encourage them.
Why don’t you tell us what you think China and NK think we might be able to do if all of our military capability were available?[/quote]
Put simply: If all our military capability were available, we could potentially use it.
I realize that simple economic concepts such as “opportunity cost” have been beyond the Bush administration for some while. Perhaps it’s a function of their deficit spending – when Republican administrations (Bush II and Reagan, just to provide a couple of examples) borrow heavily, perhaps these guys think that they’ve got an inexhaustible supply. Thus, they don’t realize that spending resources for one purpose means not having them available for other purposes.
We commonly see this sort of thinking on college campuses when kids get their first checkbook (“How can I be out of money? I still have checks left.”) or first credit card (“It’s OK, I just pay the monthly minimum.”).
With the Bush administration not realizing something this basic about troop numbers as well, their way of thinking is bound to hit a wall. The trend has been for countries like Spain, Ukraine, Poland, etc. to pull back their troops, not to add soldiers. The U.S. government’s ability to borrow money is simply much better than its ability to borrow soldiers.
I have to wonder then how MFGR feels about Carter who wanted to pull all troops out of Korea and Clinton who cut back the military and military spending substantially. Was that any different from the fact that we have a bigger army and more military spending now but are engaged in actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Have you read the recent announcements that the US will begin drawing down its troops with the bulk of this taking place after the December elections in Iraq? What then do you think we should do with these troops? Invade North Korea? Where would we invade from? Do you think that South Korean support will be necessary to do so? Do you think that we will get it? Please do supply “true facts” to support your view that such an invasion is possible, that the fallout would be limited against US allies like Japan and South Korea, that the Russians and Chinese would tolerate it and that South Korea would even allow us to use its territory for the invasion. When you have supplied this evidence, then I will listen to you but until then, you are merely engaging in idle speculation.
Again, I find it highly ironic that you are so concerned about Bush and his misallocating of troops (Iraq and Afghanistan) while having nothing to say about the perception created when Carter wanted to remove all troops from South Korea. Again, this is the same president who negotiated the peace deal with the North Koreans in 1994. Do you think that the North Koreans had suddenly forgotten that Carter had this position? That his personality was essentially the same as the president who wanted to carry this out immediately upon taking office in 1977? Do you think that this colored in any way shape or form the North Koreans intentions and willingness to abide by this treaty? You are talking about having a credible force and the ability to use it, well then how would you characterize the Carter years when this was clearly not the case by your own definition or during the Clinton years when the sharp cutbacks were occurring? Then couple the fact that Carter was chosen to lead the delegation to negotiate with the North Koreans and then you have all the variables that you are using to excoriate Bush and his policies but you have them to a far greater degree. Talk about inconsistency MFGR.
Uh, how could we “potentially” use our military against North Korea?
We have nukes available. We could potentially nuke North Korea, couldn’t we? I don’t think that would be a very good option, despite it being available, potentially.
I think his point is TM, that we have too many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should remove them so they can potentially threaten NK. Seems a man named John Kerry the anti-war war hero had the same idea among others. Did not he and Howard Dean say that the troops should not be killing Iraqis, they should be killing North Koreans, as they are the pressing threat? I thought this “let’s kill the right guys” ideology died with the election…guess I was wrong.
Why any reasonable person would support a potential nuclear confrontation over a conventional war is way way beyond me. :loco:
[quote=“jdsmith”]I think his point is TM, that we have too many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should remove them so they can potentially threaten NK. Seems a man named John Kerry the anti-war war hero had the same idea among others. Did not he and Howard Dean say that the troops should not be killing Iraqis, they should be killing North Koreans, as they are the pressing threat? I thought this “let’s kill the right guys” ideology died with the election…guess I was wrong.
Why any reasonable person would support a potential nuclear confrontation over a conventional war is way way beyond me. :loco:[/quote]
Kerry uses Botox.
“Potentially” is the best way for us to be using our military. It’s a great deterrent to aggressive little wannabe military powers when our forces are not tied up in the middle of nowhere. What’s the opportunity cost of invading Iraq?
Half our combat troops are not available for use elsewhere.
Like any resource, when you have a supply problem, you start to treat it like a more precious commodity. The U.S. will also likely be very careful in evaluating any other potential uses of the remaining troops that does not directly involve the United States.
Going back to the Powell Doctrine, the wisdom of which is not necessarily lost despite the current Bush administration not particularly listening to it, it would appear that there might be some difficulty selling the American people on any more “optional wars”, i.e., wars not fought clearly for the direct survival of the United States.
If our use of now-scarce military forces are now harder to commit, there are some countries that may realize it and, ultimately, take advantage of it.
