Mightiest military force in history leaves all in its wake

[**DONOTDELETE**]

There was a time I'd have thought this was terrible... Now... well... make's me pretty darn happy!

By Ruprt Cornwell in Washington
08 February 2002


Patriotic, applause-drenched occasions have become routine since 11 September. And what President Bush actually said the other day superficially sounded pretty routine too, as he made the easiest sales pitch imaginable in America – the Pentagon's military budget.</p>


"We will not stop until the threat of global terrorism has been destroyed," he told cheering US servicemen at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, weighing in again against what he terms the "axis of evil", a description Europe denounces as simplistic nonsense. "The message has been made clear to the enemy. It has been made clear to the world. It is being delivered by the finest military ever assembled, the United States military."</p>


But the facts behind the flag-waving are anything but routine. The relative quality of the US fighting man may be a matter of debate. America now accounts for 36 per cent of global defence spending – a share the historian Paul Kennedy, author of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, has pointed out, is the largest portion of global defence spending seen by a single country. Not even the Roman Empire could claim so much.</p>


To put things into perspective, the $48bn (£34bn) increase in the Pentagon's fiscal 2003 budget is close to one and a half times as much as the entire annual defence spending of Britain or France. America's defence spending now exceeds the 15 next-largest military budgets combined.</p>

Read the rest here. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=118856)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

From the article:
"All this is happening as America continues to pour tens of billions of dollars into vast, baroque weapons programmes – the new stealth F-22 fighter, the Comanche helicopter, and the uprated F/A-18E/F fighter, not to mention missile defence."

Hmm, guess he was thinking of EU *broke* weapon programmes, heheh.

"Future foes, perhaps Iraq, will not be so swiftly overcome. China will undoubtedly become a more important military player. But for the foreseeable future the world must live with a Pax Americana, enforced by the mightiest military in history."

Unbelievably stupid. No conventional army in the world can hope to successfully oppose the US today; not China, not Russia, and especially not some two-bit third world shit hole like Iraq, or what is left of it after we pounded it last time.

Where we will get into trouble is when we face unconventional warfare as we are right now as we go against Al Quaida. There is no capitol to capture, not defense industry to destroy. Our high tech actually works against us as we spend huge amounts of money to eliminate cheap and easily replaceable facilities composed of dugouts, tents and mud houses. This is a war of will against will, struggling one against the other to the end.

And it is a safe call to say that our European "allies" are not up to it.

[DesertFox]

America now accounts for 36 per cent of global defence spending ... is the largest portion of global defence spending seen by a single country. Not even the Roman Empire could claim so much.

Good. Now if we can just bump it on up into the 50 percent range ...

[**DONOTDELETE**]

LOL Desert Fox - I could not agree with you more!

We need to re-expand our Army, Navy and Airforce to the cold war era strengh levels.

Many of the PC/leftist crowd try to shame us by saying we are no different than the Roman Empire. Hell, I'd rather we be sort of a Roman Empire where we have some freedom instead of a bunch of slaves in the socialist nightmare they want.

Yes,
- - - - - Roman Empire II.

Sounds like a good movie.

Let's bring it on! Let's start by kicking Russia's ass, whether they need it or not. Let's resume bombing of Hanoi. Let's turn the ROK army lose on the North! Let's give Taiwan a few B-52's laden with nukes and see what good things they can accomplish. Let's give the American-Cubans anything they want to go kick Castro's ass! - - - But first let's mop up the trash in our own country! Let's put the Clinton's on trial for treason! Let's put the NEA, the hollywood and media elite in communist style re-education camps - which is the same treatment the S. Viet survivors got.

Sound like a plot to a good movie Hollywood would never produce?

[RocketScience]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rglencheek:
Where we will get into trouble is when we face unconventional warfare as we are right now as we go against Al Quaida. There is no capitol to capture, not defense industry to destroy. Our high tech actually works against us as we spend huge amounts of money to eliminate cheap and easily replaceable facilities composed of dugouts, tents and mud houses. This is a war of will against will, struggling one against the other to the end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your last point is the most important and represents the least common denominator which governs a military that may well be “the most powerful military force since ancient Rome”. It is also noteworthy that you have described an enemy that, unless concentrated (which it normally is not) is not a force that will be exterminated by overwhelming military force. It will only be successfully opposed by those forces that can get down in the grass with the terrorists.

One can blow up a house to exterminate a pest infestation, but then you have destroyed the abode that was the item you originally intended to protect. When you rebuild the house, members of that pest’s family will soon be around to “do their thing” again. So what have you actually accomplished? That is the problem with asymmetrical warfare the terrorists employ to conduct guerrilla strikes against their enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rglencheek:
Unbelievably stupid. No conventional army in the world can hope to successfully oppose the US today; not China, not Russia, and especially not some two-bit third world shit hole like Iraq, or what is left of it after we pounded it last time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may be right, but if you believe this fact sufficient enough to storm ahead and “kick the door down” anywhere in the world, you would be gravely mistaken. As to Iraq, how do you intend to accomplish an invasion without Saudi Arabian and Turkish bases? A four carrier battlegroup with only onboard fueling capability cannot conduct a serious, robust, and long enduring assault from the distances represented by operations originating from the Arabian Sea.

The Marines can perform an assault against an island or they can represent a portion (a small one at that) of an assault against an entire country, but the 1500 Marines normally embarked on a LHA carrier are totally insufficient to the task of invading a “shit hole” like Iraq. A “rolling” policy to attack a whole series of countries, some the size of Red China, is not one that this country can accomplish. At least not with the character of the current U.S. population, nor with the size of the military today.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rglencheek:
And it is a safe call to say that our European "allies" are not up to it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like it or not, that is not an insignificant consideration. I don’t like it either, but when one considers “small” things such as over-flight rights, its impact on military operations can reach epic proportions.

Rocket