Russia's war with Georgia teaches us we must prepare for the next big war

The National Defense Strategy recently released by the Pentagon places an overwhelming emphasis on irregular, unconventional warfare. However, Russia's war with Georgia, I think drives home the point that while these "small wars" and terrorism will be the most common threat, the most serious threat of all may come from countries like Russia and China.

I think with the way Russia chose to handle this situation as well as the incredible punishment they dished out, the American leadership, particularly the next president, needs to think about how we can prepare for the next big war. This is very much an economic issue, but other things are involved as well. As the country and the world moves further and further away from industrialization, the economy's ability to produce the necessary materiel for war decreases. In a major military engagement, the U.S. will need a large stockpile of ammunition, fuel, and spare parts. It will take a long time in order to generate the quantities needed to sustain a major war effort. If the U.S. does not do this, then in a rapidly-unfolding contingency in the Caucasus or the Korean Peninsula (the U.S. can be more deliberate in Iran), then we can expect to see a critical shortage of ammunition and spare parts within a few months. This does not bode well in the face of an aggressor that either exercises more direct control over its economy or is still in a more industrialized era (i.e., China).

Then there's the issue of training. One thing that cannot be denied about our performance in the Persian Gulf War was the skill of our soldiers. That skill and training was something that always stuck with us even after that war ended. The U.S. sustaining protracted war in Afghanistan and Iraq is a result of that. Unfortunately, fighting more capable enemies such as China, North Korea, and Russia will require more. In order to prepare for the next big war, the economy has to be molded so that people can be trained to not just fight, but to also create the things needed to sustain the effort, as well as find ways to incorporate an increasingly service-oriented economy into warfighting. This is something that will take several years.

Hopefully, the next president recognizes this and will take the steps needed to prepare for that next war. If we don't start within a year, we're in a very precarious position.

reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo


No offence but you sound like a PNAC information leaflet or something:

[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia. (iv)

NO.

What the US Needs is good, old-fashioned dose of ISOLATION.
To keep it's nose as far away from other people's business as is possible, so we don't get drawn into more Iraqs, Afghanistans, Irans or Georgias.

Can you not see how counter-productive Bush's Foreign Policy is?

Right, let's not fix the root problem of being involved in multiple theatres of battle constantly.

Instead lets make our ridiculous lifestyle more pleasant and comfortable for ourselves by improving our armed forces.

"Hey instead of not banging my head into a wall repeatedly, I'll wear a helmet and reduce the sideeffects!"

No, I am not a neo-con, I just tend to be realistic about things more than I am idealistic about them.

I am paleoconservative and non-interventionist. However, I also recognize that change does not happen overnight. The fact of the matter is, the U.S. has dug itself a hole we cannot get out of. As long as we're in that hole, we need to be prepared for a long road back home.

Also, my position differs significantly from the neo-con position in that I do not buy into this "full-spectrum dominance" BS and the false idea that the U.S. military is absolutely infalliable under any and all situations. We have all this military power and the limits of that power showed itself when we couldn't intervene in Georgia.

Whatever position we take, a confrontation with China and Russia is in our future.

reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo


Apologies for jumping the gun, I guess I assumed by your profile and what-not you were a die-hard Neo-Con.

I realise you can't just pack up, leave Iraq and Afghanistan and say "I'm not touching that region with a 10ft pole", but I mean really Foreign Policy is the root cause of America's incredible strain on it's military and record defence spending budget.

Forget addressing the military aspects, even fighting on 4 fronts at a time the US military can handle itself what with $500 billion that's being thrown at it every single year... the Army is far from "crisis mode", they've got the numbers and superiority to match all the threats it's currently facing.

We need to address Foreign Policy now not later, otherwise before you know it America will have 10 fronts and 20 enemies to face.

Hopefully the next election addresses this issue once and for all... we shall see.

I wholeheartily agree that we must re-arm and prepare for more aggressive actions from Russia and possible China as well.Isolationism leads to people like Stalin and Hitler grabbing power unopposed.No.We will not allow that to happen again.Already its looking like Putin is the short dictator in Russia.His warning to other states like estonia ,poland ,Latvia and the Ukraine is a warning that needs to be taken seriously by the world.Attack any one of these,and the West will respond with force as per our treaty with Nato and alliances.

An attack upon one is an attack on all.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira


Apologies for jumping the gun, I guess I assumed by your profile and what-not you were a die-hard Neo-Con.

What, only neocons can be ultra-patriotic???

I am utterly appalled by people like William Kristol calling for military confrontation with Russia.

I mean really Foreign Policy is the root cause of America's incredible strain on it's military and record defence spending budget.

You'll get no argument from me there. Prominent paeloconservatives as well as libertarians all argue that war and a neo-militarized America has wrecked American society more than anything else. However, if we want to make this transition smooth, we need to do something other than shock therapy. The Russians tried doing shock therapy in 1993 and the country was in danger of civil war for the entire decade.

Forget addressing the military aspects, even fighting on 4 fronts at a time the US military can handle itself what with $500 billion that's being thrown at it every single year... the Army is far from "crisis mode", they've got the numbers and superiority to match all the threats it's currently facing.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The combat readiness of Army brigade combat teams has been in doubt since 2006. Even if they were, we (nor is any other country) are not prepared for sustained high-intensity warfare, especially not against China, North Korea, or Russia. I guarantee if a big war broke out tomorrow, within a month or two we'd be suffering from a critical shortage of munitions and supplies.

Now, would this be detrimental? The answer is no, but it would certainly ensure there will never be such a thing as a quick, decisive, Desert Storm-esque victory in that war.

We need to address Foreign Policy now not later, otherwise before you know it America will have 10 fronts and 20 enemies to face.

We can effectively address it now by recognizing the threat China and especially Russia pose. Russia was a threat ever since the Cold War ended and we saw what these guys are capable of putting forth. Its unfortunate, but we need to prepare ourselves for the possibility we may be shooting at Russians.

Hopefully the next election addresses this issue once and for all... we shall see.

Hate to say it, but that's next to impossible. If this administration got anything right, its the fact this will be a Long War. We're past the days of having an enemy one day and a different one the next. We're in the days of long-term enemies and these will be indeed generational struggles. Our lives will be defined by this.