is the military broken?

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175602/

By all the usual measuring sticks, the U.S. should be supreme in a historically unprecedented way. And yet it couldn’t be more obvious that it’s not, that despite all the bases, elite forces, private armies, drones, aircraft carriers, wars, conflicts, strikes, interventions, and clandestine operations, despite a labyrinthine intelligence bureaucracy that never seems to stop growing and into which we pour a minimum of $80 billion a year, nothing seems to work out in an imperially satisfying way. It couldn’t be more obvious that this is not a glorious dream, but some kind of ever-expanding imperial nightmare.

$80 billion?

We spend upwards of $700 billion per year on defense alone.

Quote from thikthird : http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175602/ By all the usual measuring sticks, the U.S. should be supreme in a historically unprecedented way. And yet it couldn’t be more obvious that it’s not, that despite all the bases, elite forces, private armies, drones, aircraft carriers, wars, conflicts, strikes, interventions, and clandestine operations, despite a labyrinthine intelligence bureaucracy that never seems to stop growing and into which we pour a minimum of $80 billion a year, nothing seems to work out in an imperially satisfying way. It couldn’t be more obvious that this is not a glorious dream, but some kind of ever-expanding imperial nightmare.

America is not an empire. So that would be why we haven't established a real empire.

Our military is overpowered compared to what we need for national defense, and I think we could go for some very large spending cuts.

Quote from Xygonn : America is not an empire. So that would be why we haven't established a real empire. Our military is overpowered compared to what we need for national defense, and I think we could go for some very large spending cuts.

how are we not an empire?

Quote from thikthird : how are we not an empire?

We don't collect tribute. We just pay and pay and pay and pay other countries money. We do not receive special prices on natural resources or anything. We do not have colonies, or run other countries/add to our ruled territory with our military. We sometimes attempt to establish a friendly governmental regime, but we do not simply put a governor in place at the head of a country. America is not an empire.

Quote from Xygonn : We don't collect tribute. We just pay and pay and pay and pay other countries money. We do not receive special prices on natural resources or anything. We do not have colonies, or run other countries/add to our ruled territory with our military. We sometimes attempt to establish a friendly governmental regime, but we do not simply put a governor in place at the head of a country. America is not an empire.

you're kidding, right? or are you just flatly denying that the puppet states we attempt to set up that serve busienss interests aren't modern colonialism? america is an empire.

Quote from kharvel : $80 billion? We spend upwards of $700 billion per year on defense alone.

Why quibble over insignificant figures......

military isn't broken, our foreign policy is the problem. We need to stop being the world police.

Quote from thikthird : you're kidding, right? or are you just flatly denying that the puppet states we attempt to set up that serve busienss interests aren't modern colonialism? america is an empire.

I welcome an example de facto colony.

Quote from thikthird : http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175602/ By all the usual measuring sticks, the U.S. should be supreme in a historically unprecedented way. And yet it couldn’t be more obvious that it’s not, that despite all the bases, elite forces, private armies, drones, aircraft carriers, wars, conflicts, strikes, interventions, and clandestine operations, despite a labyrinthine intelligence bureaucracy that never seems to stop growing and into which we pour a minimum of $80 billion a year, nothing seems to work out in an imperially satisfying way. It couldn’t be more obvious that this is not a glorious dream, but some kind of ever-expanding imperial nightmare.

I think this is his argument distilled to its purest form:

Quote : One thing seems obvious: a superpower military with unparalleled capabilities for one-way destruction no longer has the more basic ability to impose its will anywhere on the planet. Quite the opposite, U.S. military power has been remarkably discredited globally by the most pitiful of forces.

.. and I couldn't disagree more. The American rules of engagement are unlike anything that's ever been seen before in human history. The American military could effectively fight and almost certainly win wars in both Asia and Europe against each's major power(s). It would be ugly, but barring nukes we could kick the shit out of China and Russia at the same time. That's the easy kind of war.

The choice to not use the force available to us will go down in history as a turning point in human political interaction. We could win in Pakistan and Afghanistan tomorrow. We could simply kill every single human being there and we could do it without nukes. It would be easier, cheaper, and faster than how we're doing it now. But that shift is what makes this remarkable. That's not the easy kind of war. It's hard as hell. We will fail many more times than we succeed. But it's the right way to do it.

Having said all that, the soldier in me f%^#$%^ HATES all war that isn't total. If it isn't total war it's an utter waste of American soldiers and the money that goes into it.

There's a story I've heard that I'm not even sure is true. A British colony was rebelling. The British gathered all the males together in a village and randomly murdered 1 in 10. Then they said that if they have to come back to put down another rebellion, they'd be killing 2 in 10. Etc. Etc. As absolutely grotesque as that is, that's probably the most humane way to fight a war I've ever heard. That seems a helluva lot better to me than killing half the village (including women and children) over the course of a guerrilla war through "accidental" killings.

Quote from loop610bob : I think this is his argument distilled to its purest form: .. and I couldn't disagree more. The American rules of engagement are unlike anything that's ever been seen before in human history. The American military could effectively fight and almost certainly win wars in both Asia and Europe against each's major power(s). It would be ugly, but barring nukes we could kick the shit out of China and Russia at the same time. That's the easy kind of war. The choice to not use the force available to us will go down in history as a turning point in human political interaction. We could win in Pakistan and Afghanistan tomorrow. We could simply kill every single human being there and we could do it without nukes. It would be easier, cheaper, and faster than how we're doing it now. But that shift is what makes this remarkable. That's not the easy kind of war. It's hard as hell. We will fail many more times than we succeed. But it's the right way to do it. Having said all that, the soldier in me f%^#$%^ HATES all war that isn't total. If it isn't total war it's an utter waste of American soldiers and the money that goes into it. There's a story I've heard that I'm not even sure is true. A British colony was rebelling. The British gathered all the males together in a village and randomly murdered 1 in 10. Then they said that if they have to come back to put down another rebellion, they'd be killing 2 in 10. Etc. Etc. As absolutely grotesque as that is, that's probably the most humane way to fight a war I've ever heard. That seems a helluva lot better to me than killing half the village (including women and children) over the course of a guerrilla war through "accidental" killings.

Nice post. I agree 110%.

Quote from joer316 : military isn't broken, our foreign policy is the problem. We need to stop being the world police.

/thread

Quote from Xygonn : I welcome an example de facto colony.

well iraq and afghanistan. and how many other places in the past 20 years or so? haiti? somalia? all failed attempts at modern colonialism via nation building. we're an empire, we're just doing a pretty bad job going about it. "american" corporations are doing a much better job of it via economic imperialism as opposed to military and political imperialism.

Quote from loop610bob : I think this is his argument distilled to its purest form: .. and I couldn't disagree more. The American rules of engagement are unlike anything that's ever been seen before in human history. The American military could effectively fight and almost certainly win wars in both Asia and Europe against each's major power(s). It would be ugly, but barring nukes we could kick the shit out of China and Russia at the same time. That's the easy kind of war. The choice to not use the force available to us will go down in history as a turning point in human political interaction. We could win in Pakistan and Afghanistan tomorrow. We could simply kill every single human being there and we could do it without nukes. It would be easier, cheaper, and faster than how we're doing it now. But that shift is what makes this remarkable. That's not the easy kind of war. It's hard as hell. We will fail many more times than we succeed. But it's the right way to do it. Having said all that, the soldier in me f%^#$%^ HATES all war that isn't total. If it isn't total war it's an utter waste of American soldiers and the money that goes into it. There's a story I've heard that I'm not even sure is true. A British colony was rebelling. The British gathered all the males together in a village and randomly murdered 1 in 10. Then they said that if they have to come back to put down another rebellion, they'd be killing 2 in 10. Etc. Etc. As absolutely grotesque as that is, that's probably the most humane way to fight a war I've ever heard. That seems a helluva lot better to me than killing half the village (including women and children) over the course of a guerrilla war through "accidental" killings.

so killing everyone is winning the war? genocide is the path to victory? not surrender and assimilation?

Quote from Xygonn : I welcome an example de facto colony.

Saudi Arabia