posted
Up until WWI the vast majority of wars resulted in the victor physically claiming new territory.
The US had a strong isolationist policy, so its desire was not to colonize parts of Europe that it acquired.
Since then the idea that any military venture the US gets involved in should have an exit strategy, one where our troops can leave the conquered country back in the hands of its people.
WWII, Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait have all been success at this. Vietnam was never planned as a US state or colony. Korea is still kind of on-going, but again, replacing the troops with a Korean army was our goal--we just haven't reached there yet. Aghanistan and Iraq we are hoping will end with this result. Our troops and our dignity and our expenses do have an end as the goal.
There is a lot of talk about fiscal responsibility in the government. Would creating Exit Strategies for some, most, or all of our expenditures make sense.
Sure some things don't have goals--we are continually training our troops. Protecting our borders is not something we can put an end date on easily. Embassy work in China is not something we can say will be accomplished.
On the other hand, some things should have exit strategies. Farm Subsidies might be a good example. We subsidize milk production until dairy farmers no longer needs the funds, and we create a strategy to get them to that point. Social Security and the Post Office are two examples where, until recently, we created self-financing services. Perhaps others services could be arranged the same way?
Could the term Exit Strategies be the next big political phrase?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes sense, unfortunately I don't think it will happen.
Case in point -- a few years ago, there was a big mine collapse in Utah. The governor appointed a new Mine Safety Commision. Unfortunately, it was a rash implementation, and they were given no power. People have forgotten about them and their inability to regulate. SO . . . what now?
What politician can repeal MINE FREAKIN SAFETY? Who can get rid of farm subsidies? It would be political suicide. Great idea, as we're still spending boats of money for inconsequencial programs from the days of FDR, but there's no one to "take it on the chin".
In a business, leaders will often have to implement change that is extremely unpopular to save the company. Private companies, such as SAS, remain relevant because they can be very forward-looking and make bold decisions without answering to shareholders. Our form of government doesn't enable strong leaders, it avoids them.
Exit Strategies are a great idea. So is a National Referendum.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'ld say American policy in Korea is complete regarding making sure they have a formidable military and in fact by all statistics South Korea is in a better situation militarily than North Korea at least in terms of manpower and access to advanced technology, North Korea's advantages are mostly to do with vast hordes of hardware in storage and on hand and massive numbers of tubes pointed at South Korea.
Assuming you had a government willing to understand how all facets of gov't worked, was willing to use dirigist methods to control and direct national resources and had the political power to get things done than the US could easily within 5 to 10 years get itself back on track and soften the landing of its eventual decline as a superpower second to none.
But you don't have that, you have a gov't divided along partisan bickering, a foreign and domestic policy that gets derailed every 4 years, no sense of ruling by consensus along a long term goal everything is held up over details because of vague ideological contradictions and an inability to rectify an inbalance between your means and your ends abroad and at home.
You need deep budget cuts, the complete overhaul of the military-industrial complex no more of these gold bling chrome plated jet fighters that cost billions more than the last generation, you need to cooperate more with your allies and get some proper burden sharing happening and a massive investment in 21st century infrastructure, nuclear power and other alternate energy sources so that when oil nolonger becomes feasible to run the world wide economy... It won't hurt as much and every american can then still drive to work.
I think the first step would be to make a constitutional admendment to make voting proportional instead of first past the post, allow for third and other parties to acquire seats who as a coalition could serve as an important swing bloc and force cooperation between republicans and democrats.
I'ld say over 15-20 years start racheting back military spending, withdraw from just about 90% of military bases, keep the marines going of course as they'll be needed to hold the fort and rapidly deploy to hot spots in conjunction with the navy but you have to work at how much are Russia and China spending and how are they managing to do for so much more for so much cheaper and try to emulate that partially and improve upon it.
Adopt short service conscription, 2 years regular force, than 5 years in the reserves, then 10 years in the national guard, this way even if you downsize significantly you'll still have a reserve cadre of skilled nco's and officers and technicitians to rapidly expand the service if your invaded or wwiii starts or something.
This way you could probably ratchet everything back down to 200,000 troops, the marines should get most of the land forces funding as they'll be proportionately much more important for "fort holding" and rapid reaction, the airforce should still get about 70 to 90% of what its getting but with a greater emphasis on reserve training and storage and maintanance of hardware (so that in an emergancy you can roll out the planes and still have a "force in being" and not have to wait a year for new planes to roll out of lockhead martin).
Basically say we have a current airforce of 2500 planes and 10,000 personel, reduce it to 250 to 500 active planes and 2000 people with some 2000 cycling in and out of reservist training and cycling through about 250 to 500 planes kept at battle readyness with the remainder kept in storage and properly maintained.
The navy is slightly more difficult to come to grips with as on one hand I'm not sure how important it's current size is to patrolling the sea lanes and keeping them safe and to what degree the UNSC members can take up the slack, this would depend heavily on international cooperation and negotiations and maybe China getting its 3 new fleet carriers online and commissioned.
But 14 fleet carriers is ridiculous spending liability and only justified in a cold war kinda thing or if its REALLY needed to patrol for pirates which i doubt.
Finish building the new Ford class nuclear fleet carriers that are too far along to cancel and scrap the rest and start down sizing to a level that can handle protecting international waters just fine and keep in storage whatever would be useful in a sudden great power war.
Whatever savings that can be garnered from new taxes or revenue sources use it to fund a program to rehabilitate former servicemembers into society and find them secure jobs here or overseas so tat you dont end up with a million unemployed disgruntled people who know how to use heavy weaponry, lower the retirement age and retire senior and older officers who wouldn't have anything to do during this process and give them their pensions.
Someone else with a more detailed grasp of logistics could probably find or come up with more details that I may have overlocked and obviously this is politically impossible to do but the army is pretty much the most bloated part of the federal gov't right now tbh.
At least things like social security or healthcare are constantly used.
IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't mean to derail the thread with a semi-Godwin, but that was a major cause cited by conservatives I knew when they justified going into Iraq. I felt that that WAS something worth doing something about, but that going into a relatively stable country to punish someone for something they did 10 years ago ago when there were plenty of currently wartorn areas at present was a bad use of resources.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those were some of the worst ideas I have ever heard of, and some of them go directly against what we stand for as a country.
While I think every person could benefit from serving in the armed forces, forcing people to do so is the complete opposite of what we want to be.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I think every person could benefit from serving in the armed forces, forcing people to do so is the complete opposite of what we want to be.
Not a fan of most of the ideas, but I do love the idea of mandatory service for a year or two like many countries do. Pacifists could join the Peace Corp or something similar. I think that such a requirement would be personally enriching to people and unite us as a nation in a very powerful way. I think so many people get wrapped up in the concept of "personal freedom" that they don't appreciate that its not an innate right. It's something that we need an infrastructure to protect. I see nothing wrong with requiring people to actively participate in that infrastructure. Further, it would help pay for schooling for anybody who wanted it. Realistically though, I understand that it's not going to happen.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pacifists could join the Peace Corp or something similar
I actually wouldn't particularly mind if I was required to participate in one of a number of institutions, if I got to pick and the options included nonviolent (and helpful) ones.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading is an essential life-skill.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Those were some of the worst ideas I have ever heard of, and some of them go directly against what we stand for as a country.
Thank you Captain Vagueness, excellent way to start a discussion is to not specify at all what makes them "worst" as opposed to mandating that the rich can buy poor children and eat them.
quote: While I think every person could benefit from serving in the armed forces, forcing people to do so is the complete opposite of what we want to be.
You had a draft as a needed and important part of being an American during the Civil War, WWI and WWII.
The selective service regardless of irrelevent drivel such as "principles" has been undoubtably the most effective and efficient way to utilize national resources to achieve goals, Prussia/Germany's successes were all due to 2 things, the Prussian General Staff, and the selective service.
I can see no feasible way to both downsize the manpower in the US forces without at the same time having a method to always able to at short notice acquire trained and qualified persons.
German conscripts under the guidance of skilled NCOs and offiers could within a reasonable amount of time reach the same quality, discipline and professionalism as any highly trained long service volunteer force.
A country that isn't willing to do what it takes to ensure survival is a country that doesn't deserve to live.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would be very effective if the US were able to have very quick engagement in order to show that genocide, terrorism, etc would not be tolerated.
We could reduce the defecit, cut military spending, and still hold a major military presence in the world.
Showing no tolerance for inhumane actions with quick and decisive action would accomplish a lot. I also don't think it will ever happen though There's no reason to occupy a country for decades. If someone needs help, we get in, get out, and let them govern themselves however they choose.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woah, totally need to start reading threads all the way to the end before posting stuff I think is relevant. Apologies.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I think it would be very effective if the US were able to have very quick engagement in order to show that genocide, terrorism, etc would not be tolerated.
We could reduce the defecit, cut military spending, and still hold a major military presence in the world.
Showing no tolerance for inhumane actions with quick and decisive action would accomplish a lot. I also don't think it will ever happen though There's no reason to occupy a country for decades. If someone needs help, we get in, get out, and let them govern themselves however they choose.
You get that those "quick and decisive" actions are also inhumane, right? When we kill people, they are still dead.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any comments relating to my not really relevant tangent should go in the thread I created for it.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Threads evolve, topics change.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
There's no reason to occupy a country for decades. If someone needs help, we get in, get out, and let them govern themselves however they choose.
