Actually, Foreign Nations Pay Billions For U.S. Military Bases from the National Memo
"The Pentagon spends an estimated $10 billion a year on overseas bases. More than 70 percent of the total is spent in Japan, Germany and South Korea, where most U.S. troops abroad are permanently stationed. In return, the Pentagon receives various forms of compensation from the host countries, like rent-free real estate for the bases and cash payments to offset U.S. costs. ... "But we gain the most out of these alliances because it helps keep threats much farther from our shores than they otherwise would be," he said."
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Friday, May 27, 2016
America -- Still the Leading Power in the World
America is still great — but it needs to stay strong (Fareed Zakaria) from the Washington Post
"In fact, it is increasingly clear that the United States has in recent years reinforced its position as the world’s leading economic, technological, military and political power. The country dominates virtually all leading industries — from social networks to mobile telephony to nano- and biotechnology — like never before. It has transformed itself into an energy superpower — the world’sbiggest producer of oil and gas — while also moving to the cutting edge of the green-technology revolution. And it is demographically vibrant, while all its major economic peers (Japan, Europe and even China) face certain demographic decline."
"In fact, it is increasingly clear that the United States has in recent years reinforced its position as the world’s leading economic, technological, military and political power. The country dominates virtually all leading industries — from social networks to mobile telephony to nano- and biotechnology — like never before. It has transformed itself into an energy superpower — the world’sbiggest producer of oil and gas — while also moving to the cutting edge of the green-technology revolution. And it is demographically vibrant, while all its major economic peers (Japan, Europe and even China) face certain demographic decline."
Saturday, April 9, 2016
The Upside of Downsizing the Import of the National Security Council
How the NSC Hijacked U.S. Foreign Policy from the National Interest
"In the last year, the Obama administration began a little-noticed process that should be embraced by the next president: the downsizing of the National Security Council (NSC). ..., while the paring back of the NSC is unlikely to feature in presidential debates or stump speeches, it is a consequential initiative that, if supported by the incoming administration, will help the next commander-in-chief more effectively deploy America’s diplomatic resources."
"In the last year, the Obama administration began a little-noticed process that should be embraced by the next president: the downsizing of the National Security Council (NSC). ..., while the paring back of the NSC is unlikely to feature in presidential debates or stump speeches, it is a consequential initiative that, if supported by the incoming administration, will help the next commander-in-chief more effectively deploy America’s diplomatic resources."
Saturday, January 30, 2016
ELECTION TALKING POINT: What about the Size of the Army?
Lindsey Graham: Army is smallest since 1940, Navy smallest since 1915 from Politifact
"In the letter, Panetta said, "Facing such large reductions, we would have to reduce the size of the military sharply. Rough estimates suggest after 10 years of these cuts, we would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history." As far as we can tell, Panetta’s assessment is accurate. The Army already is reducing the number of soldiers to 440,000-450,000 -- down from its recent war-time high of 570,000, according to the Defense Department’s 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. (Those reductions are the result of the ending of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not mandated budget cuts as part of the sequestration.) Going forward, if sequestration-style cuts go into effect for fiscal year 2016, the number of soldiers will likely have to drop to 420,000. This is the lowest number of soldiers since 1940. Before the draft went into effect later that year, there were about 264,000 troops in the Army. Turning to the Navy, there are currently 289 deployable battle force ships. According to the quadrennial review, there will be an estimated fleet of 234 ships in Fiscal Year 2019. That is the lowest number of ships since 1915 -- two years before the United States got involved in World War I. That year, the Navy had 231 deployable ships. In 2016, it jumped up to 245 ships. Still, Graham was trying to make the point that the budget cuts have weakened the military to points not seen in decades. However, we learned from experts that comparing the number of troops and ships doesn’t say much about military might. We took Graham’s claim to several experts, who told us that comparing the American military of 2014 to that of the early 20th century is irrelevant. Because of technological advances, the ships and troops of today’s military have greater capabilities than they did in the world wars. "One of the reasons for the decrease in size -- both Army and Navy -- is that we now rely far more on technology than on sheer numbers," said Roland, the military history expert from Duke. "The question is not how we compare to our Army in 1940 or our Navy in 1915, but how we compare with our potential enemies in 2014. We are head and shoulders above them.""
This is the topic of many of today's posts -- get boned up on the facts as you will hear about this all the way to November!!
"In the letter, Panetta said, "Facing such large reductions, we would have to reduce the size of the military sharply. Rough estimates suggest after 10 years of these cuts, we would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history." As far as we can tell, Panetta’s assessment is accurate. The Army already is reducing the number of soldiers to 440,000-450,000 -- down from its recent war-time high of 570,000, according to the Defense Department’s 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. (Those reductions are the result of the ending of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not mandated budget cuts as part of the sequestration.) Going forward, if sequestration-style cuts go into effect for fiscal year 2016, the number of soldiers will likely have to drop to 420,000. This is the lowest number of soldiers since 1940. Before the draft went into effect later that year, there were about 264,000 troops in the Army. Turning to the Navy, there are currently 289 deployable battle force ships. According to the quadrennial review, there will be an estimated fleet of 234 ships in Fiscal Year 2019. That is the lowest number of ships since 1915 -- two years before the United States got involved in World War I. That year, the Navy had 231 deployable ships. In 2016, it jumped up to 245 ships. Still, Graham was trying to make the point that the budget cuts have weakened the military to points not seen in decades. However, we learned from experts that comparing the number of troops and ships doesn’t say much about military might. We took Graham’s claim to several experts, who told us that comparing the American military of 2014 to that of the early 20th century is irrelevant. Because of technological advances, the ships and troops of today’s military have greater capabilities than they did in the world wars. "One of the reasons for the decrease in size -- both Army and Navy -- is that we now rely far more on technology than on sheer numbers," said Roland, the military history expert from Duke. "The question is not how we compare to our Army in 1940 or our Navy in 1915, but how we compare with our potential enemies in 2014. We are head and shoulders above them.""
This is the topic of many of today's posts -- get boned up on the facts as you will hear about this all the way to November!!
ELECTION TALKING POINT: The size of the US Military
Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level from the New York Times
"The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000. That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary’s aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there. ... The cuts proposed by Mr. Hagel fit the Bipartisan Budget Act reached by Mr. Obama and Congress in December to impose a military spending cap of about $496 billion for fiscal year 2015. If steeper spending reductions kick in again in 2016 under the sequestration law, however, then even more significant cuts would be required in later years."
Good table here.
"The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000. That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary’s aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there. ... The cuts proposed by Mr. Hagel fit the Bipartisan Budget Act reached by Mr. Obama and Congress in December to impose a military spending cap of about $496 billion for fiscal year 2015. If steeper spending reductions kick in again in 2016 under the sequestration law, however, then even more significant cuts would be required in later years."
Good table here.
Fallows: America's political leadership "will do anything for the military except take it seriously..."
The Tragedy of the American Military (James Fallows) from the Atlantic
"The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win."
"The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win."
Saturday, October 31, 2015
The Limits on Training "Local Forces"
Why Is the American Military So Bad at Teaching Others How to Fight? (Fred Kaplan) from Slate
"The task goes far beyond what U.S. soldiers are trained to teach.,,, If the goal is to turn the fighting completely over to the local armed forces, then training must also involve teaching them how to conduct and call in air strikes, gather intelligence and apply it to tactical operations, move soldiers rapidly from one area to another (which involves flying helicopters or small transport planes), resupply soldiers when they’re deployed far from the base (logistics), and plan operations on a strategic or theater-wide level. "
"The task goes far beyond what U.S. soldiers are trained to teach.,,, If the goal is to turn the fighting completely over to the local armed forces, then training must also involve teaching them how to conduct and call in air strikes, gather intelligence and apply it to tactical operations, move soldiers rapidly from one area to another (which involves flying helicopters or small transport planes), resupply soldiers when they’re deployed far from the base (logistics), and plan operations on a strategic or theater-wide level. "
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
TODAY'S BIG NUGGET: GOPers Embrace the Neo-cons -- for All the Wrong Reasons
The Surge Fallacy (Peter Beinart) from the Atlantic
"Having misunderstood the lessons of the Iraq War, Republicans are taking a dangerously hawkish turn on foreign policy."
"Having misunderstood the lessons of the Iraq War, Republicans are taking a dangerously hawkish turn on foreign policy."
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Are America and China Spiraling toward War or Peace?
Are America and China Spiraling toward War or Peace? (Peter Harris) from the National Interest
"Contrary to much conventional wisdom and international relations theories, which tend to predict hostility between rising and established powers in world politics—a law-like dynamic that the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison has called the “Thucydides’s Trap”—Goldstein portrays the emerging U.S.-China relationship as highly contingent upon human agency. Whether peace obtains between the United States and China, he argues, will be determined by strategic choices rather than structural forces."
"Contrary to much conventional wisdom and international relations theories, which tend to predict hostility between rising and established powers in world politics—a law-like dynamic that the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison has called the “Thucydides’s Trap”—Goldstein portrays the emerging U.S.-China relationship as highly contingent upon human agency. Whether peace obtains between the United States and China, he argues, will be determined by strategic choices rather than structural forces."
China Looking to Project its Naval Power
China, Updating Military Strategy, Puts Focus on Projecting Naval Power from the New York Times
"China intends to project naval power in the open ocean in coming years, and not just defend the country’s coastal waters, according to a strategy paper released on Tuesday. The paper, the first policy document issued by the Chinese military in two years, comes at a time of growing Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. China’s efforts to enforce its disputed claims to vast stretches of the sea by building up artificial islands and structures on reefs and outcroppings have drawn the
Philippines and its ally the United States into a test of wills in the region."
"China intends to project naval power in the open ocean in coming years, and not just defend the country’s coastal waters, according to a strategy paper released on Tuesday. The paper, the first policy document issued by the Chinese military in two years, comes at a time of growing Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. China’s efforts to enforce its disputed claims to vast stretches of the sea by building up artificial islands and structures on reefs and outcroppings have drawn the
Philippines and its ally the United States into a test of wills in the region."
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
The Bear Awakens?
Russia's Military Is Back (Nikolas K. Gvosdev) from the National Interest
"Russia is now engaged in its largest military buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago, with major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. Putin has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity..."
"Russia is now engaged in its largest military buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago, with major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. Putin has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity..."
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Russia's New GRAND Alliance!
Russia to Hold Joint Military Drills with North Korea, Cuba from the National Interest
"“We are planning an expansion of the communication lines of our military central command. We are entering preliminary negotiations with the armed forces of Brazil, Vietnam, Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” Gerasimov said, according to a Newsweek report."
"we are planning an expansion..."; "We are entering preliminary negotiations..." Ah -- there's Putin trying to organize some "grand alliance" undergirded by ... what? With the exception of North Korea, none of these people have any long term interest in forming an alliance or even a miliary reproachment with Russia. Vietnam's major regional opponent is China and the Vietnamese are already doing high level conversations and coordination with the US. Cuba can't wait to shake loose from the likes of Russia, and you have to wonder what price tag Brazil will put on its willingness even to be mentioned in this company. And North Korea? Another boat anchor regime for Putin to add to his growing collection... - Nuggetsman.
"“We are planning an expansion of the communication lines of our military central command. We are entering preliminary negotiations with the armed forces of Brazil, Vietnam, Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” Gerasimov said, according to a Newsweek report."
"we are planning an expansion..."; "We are entering preliminary negotiations..." Ah -- there's Putin trying to organize some "grand alliance" undergirded by ... what? With the exception of North Korea, none of these people have any long term interest in forming an alliance or even a miliary reproachment with Russia. Vietnam's major regional opponent is China and the Vietnamese are already doing high level conversations and coordination with the US. Cuba can't wait to shake loose from the likes of Russia, and you have to wonder what price tag Brazil will put on its willingness even to be mentioned in this company. And North Korea? Another boat anchor regime for Putin to add to his growing collection... - Nuggetsman.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Training Civilians as Cyber Warriors
The U.S. Army's Next Big Challenge from the National Interest
"The new arms race scrambles for bytes, not bombs. To take and hold the cyber high ground, the armed services (and just about everybody else) want more fingers on keyboards and eyes on screens."
"The new arms race scrambles for bytes, not bombs. To take and hold the cyber high ground, the armed services (and just about everybody else) want more fingers on keyboards and eyes on screens."
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Wars of Choice and the Draft
Bringing Back the Draft Isn’t a “Remedy” For Anything (Daniel Larison) from the American Conservative
"Ending the draft was one of the more significant improvements to modern American life in the last fifty years, and throwing away those gains would be a huge mistake. Especially when the U.S. no longer faces foreign threats comparable to the USSR, a draft would be nothing but an
inexcusable intrusion into the lives of Americans. ... Our wars of choice have been made possible by the possession of a large, well-equipped military that can go to war at the president’s discretion even without Congress’ approval. A draft would not make it harder for the U.S. to blunder into costly conflicts, but rather would increase the resources available to future administrations that they could squander even more easily."
"Ending the draft was one of the more significant improvements to modern American life in the last fifty years, and throwing away those gains would be a huge mistake. Especially when the U.S. no longer faces foreign threats comparable to the USSR, a draft would be nothing but an
inexcusable intrusion into the lives of Americans. ... Our wars of choice have been made possible by the possession of a large, well-equipped military that can go to war at the president’s discretion even without Congress’ approval. A draft would not make it harder for the U.S. to blunder into costly conflicts, but rather would increase the resources available to future administrations that they could squander even more easily."
Friday, January 2, 2015
Taking the Military Seriously -- for a Change
The Tragedy of the American Military (James Fallows) from the Atlantic
"The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win."
Fallows is getting A LOT of response to this piece. Some examples from his site:
"I see in my classmates a total divorce from civilian reality. They live in a rarefied world where they are the only ones who are honest, law abiding, and religious. They totally disdain social welfare programs as they receive health benefits to death, commissary privileges, and pensions. In their view, civilians are not worthy of these programs."
"The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win."
Fallows is getting A LOT of response to this piece. Some examples from his site:
"I see in my classmates a total divorce from civilian reality. They live in a rarefied world where they are the only ones who are honest, law abiding, and religious. They totally disdain social welfare programs as they receive health benefits to death, commissary privileges, and pensions. In their view, civilians are not worthy of these programs."
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
American Military Mistakes: The Big Ones
The Five Biggest Disasters in American Military History from the National Interest
"Nations often linger on their military defeats as long as, or longer than, they do on their successes. The Battle of Kosovo remains the key event of the Serbian story, and devastating military defeats adorn the national narratives of France, Russia and the American South. What are the biggest disasters in American military history, and what effect have they had on the United States?"
"Nations often linger on their military defeats as long as, or longer than, they do on their successes. The Battle of Kosovo remains the key event of the Serbian story, and devastating military defeats adorn the national narratives of France, Russia and the American South. What are the biggest disasters in American military history, and what effect have they had on the United States?"
Thursday, June 26, 2014
On Defense: Europe Needs to Carry More of the Bag
Europe Needs to Get Serious about Its Defense (Zachary Keck) from the National Interest
"America has spent the better part of the post–Cold War era urging its European allies to spend more on their militaries. ... There are two reasons why the Europeans have neglected their own security."
"America has spent the better part of the post–Cold War era urging its European allies to spend more on their militaries. ... There are two reasons why the Europeans have neglected their own security."
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
NeoCons Have One More Undeserved Encore Appearance
'The Past Is Never Dead,' Bill Faulkner Told Us—but He Didn't Know About the Iraq War (James Fallows) from the Atlantic
"Some people have earned the right not to be listened to."
"Some people have earned the right not to be listened to."
Saturday, June 14, 2014
The Iraq Gov't Gets a Serious Vote of "No Confidence"
Maliki and Iraq's Disaster (David Ignatius) from the Washington Post
"The stunning gains this week by Iraq's Sunni insurgents carry a crucial political message: Nouri al-Maliki, the Shiite prime minister of Iraq, is a polarizing sectarian politician who has lost the confidence of his army and nation. He cannot put a splintered Iraq together again, no matter how many weapons the Obama administration sends him."
"The stunning gains this week by Iraq's Sunni insurgents carry a crucial political message: Nouri al-Maliki, the Shiite prime minister of Iraq, is a polarizing sectarian politician who has lost the confidence of his army and nation. He cannot put a splintered Iraq together again, no matter how many weapons the Obama administration sends him."
Sunken Cost Logic Did Not Justify Staying in Iraq and It Doesn't Justify Going Back
America: Stay Out of Iraq (Benjamin H. Friedman) from the National Interest
"The major reason using force to defend Iraq’s government is a bad idea is that it always was. Advocates of going into Iraq, like advocates of staying in Iraq in past years, tend to employ sunk costs logic, where the pursuit of a good idea before somehow makes it sensible now. Invocations of dead and wounded Americans’ sacrifice give such thinking added resonance but do not make it sensible."
"The major reason using force to defend Iraq’s government is a bad idea is that it always was. Advocates of going into Iraq, like advocates of staying in Iraq in past years, tend to employ sunk costs logic, where the pursuit of a good idea before somehow makes it sensible now. Invocations of dead and wounded Americans’ sacrifice give such thinking added resonance but do not make it sensible."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)