Originally Posted by
BackintheLPA
My own observation of war in general leads me to conclude that "show me a war worth fighting and young people will rise to meet the threat".
I've deployed 4 times to Afghanistan and I still can't see anything more than futile effort. The tragic irony of spreading "liberal democracy" is that the economic and physical bleeding that happened to the Russians is not much different than what will eventually happen to the U.S.
Terrorism, in the simplest terms, is a tactic designed to provoke a response. They intended to damage the country economically and they have done a fine job with our own help. Politicans and the Pentagon have weakened this country by pushing technology as the future of warfare. How many F-22s and F-35s have flown a single sortie in Afghanistan?
How many contractors who donate to these same politicans and employ the retired flag officers benefit by pushing unneeded technology? Mean while the same fools want to get rid of the A-10, which is the one tool needed to fight the type of wars that we will see in the future.
I find it hard to believe that a rational person truely believes that it is possible to build a State in Afghanistan. The only reason the State exists is to provide order. The Karzai government is unable to do that because of rampant corruption, plan and simple. On the other hand, the Taliban CAN provide order. It may not be the kind of 1st world order we prefer, but you will not have to pay a bribe to get someone to handle a crime. Afghanistan(if there is such a place) will tolerate our presence as long as the money continues to flow in copious amounts. When it stops they will turn on the US like they have done to every outsider since Alexander the Great.
AFG was initially a response to 9/11 (legitimate in casus belli and scope IMO). We ran the al-queda supporting taliban out of their comfortable position of power. Mission accomplished. Where things got hard was when we felt obligated to stay and keep the taliban at bay and attempt to "save" the locals. Obviously a much harder proposition (ask the brits or rooskies), but it's kind of in our nature to try to clean up messes we make.
Also, BTW our future defense planning is moving away from COIN in favor of low-intensity special operations and other asymmetric methods (cyber, etc).
Originally Posted by
BackintheLPA
The wars of the future will not be fought with F-22s and F-35s against the Chinese.
Economics alone dictate that there are less-than-even odds of open conflict with china. But the balance of POTENTIAL military power in the pacific will likely dictate how forward leaning china is as it attempts to expand and consolidate it's regional power. If we leave a vacuum, they will fill it, and it will be by force or implied threat of force (favorable access to resources and trade deals).
The wild-card you're forgetting is oil supply and demand. If we don't PRO-ACTIVELY establish alternative energy/fuel infrastructure before oil prices begin their peak-oil climb to infinity, there will be open conflict of some sort during the ensuing catastrophic global economic collapse.
I say keep the F-22, they're paid for. CANX the F-35 IMMEDIATELY, buy advanced hornets and eagles for interim air superiority through 2030 and roll the F-35 technology and lessons learned into a clean-sheet, less-capable but still 5th gen fighter that is designed from the ground-up for affordability. But that's not going to happen unless we have another economic collapse.
Originally Posted by
BackintheLPA
Nor will there be conventional armies and tank formations waiting for Russians to come through the Folda Gap. The wars of the future will be centered around the legitamacy of the State and the State's ability to provide order. It will resemble low-level civil war at its worst, centered around adversaries that no longer hold allegiance to the State. The groundswell is beginning to manifest and intensify around cultural and immigrant asimilation. The current and future economic malaise will only accelarate the problem as the general public finally wakes up to fact that government is incapable of providing order. Syria, Egypt, and Libya are a preview of what will dominant warfare in the 21st century.
Probably true for the third-world, but I wouldn't entirely write off open state vs. state conflict either. It's hard right now because US/UN/NATO/EU won't let it happen but if the western powers get distracted by serious economic or social problems there are still people who will take advantage of such an opportunity.
Originally Posted by
BackintheLPA
Until this country adopts a defensive grand strategy and addresses the failed state on our southern border, this country will continue to get it wrong. I seriously doubt that this will happen due to the profit motive of war and this type of warfare has proved to not provide the same type of margins to contractors.
Mexico sucks no doubt, but I don't think it requires a military solution. We just need to tighten the border to control who gets in and allow a practical, documented guest worker program to accommodate the workers we so obviously have a need for. At legal wages. A far as the ultimate solution down there? Hope they sort out their corruption issues through technology-enabled transparency and social communication. An invasion or even low-intensity ops is politically out of the question. That's one crusade we can't fight.
Originally Posted by
BackintheLPA
With that said, Could you encourage someone to sign up to expose themselves to this kind of risk?
We have a fair number of fine young people who have recently served or are currently serving. Given a worthy cause I think we can still assemble a capable military force.