To address conspirators thoughts regarding the training and relocation of US troops and equipment:

Given the change in how and where war or regional conflicts are fought, it was obvious sooner or later our military must restructure to fit the need.

I for one do not think there will ever be another world war, at least in my lifetime, only local and regional conflicts and acts of terrorism.

Given the fact the US, along with other world super powers have thrown billions (much wasted in my opinion) at being the world’s police force (many say Zionist aggressors), it has become patently obvious that spending to maintain and transport large units of ground forces is not appropriate to the actual need.

The reduction in funding in the US for the military budget I believe is driven by the realization the US needs only small units specifically equipped and trained to respond accordingly.

Response time being most important in many cases, these troops must be located so as to be readily available and easily transported by the most efficient means, i.e. quick insertion by water or air.

This would then require a complete rethinking of the position of troops on the chess board of the world.

I think this ‘might’ explain confusion regarding the current training and relocation of some of the troops and equipment.

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

Dear OldCurmudgeon,

I'm coming to you for a lesson, for I have nothing to offer your analysis.

You've stated a few times your strong belief that the time of Armies (and maybe even Divisions?) is past, and that the new fighting unit is the Company, Battalion, or Brigade. If Washington sees a reduced need for soldiers in the future, then it looks like your position is supported.

I can't help but wonder if the reduction in the military budget is not a reflection of changed needs in the military, but a desire to get Defense Department dollars for green energy projects, bullet trains, and the extension of unemployment benefits.

I further wonder if there are scenarios that would require large numbers of troops. For instance, there seems to be a straight line running from Libya to Somalia through Sudan. What if that became a front line in a Muslim sweep through Africa? Could we fight in four countries and win?

And perhaps North Korea gets anxious, borrows about 100,000 Chinese soldiers, adds them to their own army and walks into South Korea. I'd hate to try to stop that with drones.

So, as you can see, my question is could we be overlooking some scenario that would require troops which we just wouldn't have under the new doctrine?

With respect,
Charles1952

Hi Charles52,

I grew up watching war movies and listening to my dad and other relatives who were officers and boots on the ground in WWII and Korea.

As I got older, probably due to my interest in hunting, I developed a keen interest in tactics and situational awareness.

I love to read and I enjoyed reading and studying about the ancient Chinese, Babylonians, Egyptians, Turks, Greeks and let us not forget the American Indian. I found their thoughts, plans and tactics fascinating.

Of particularly great interest to me was the Battle of Thermopylae pass when the Greek politician and general Themistocles held more than 100k Persians back in a narrow pass on land. His navy, who was much more successful even though being greatly outnumbered by 25 to 1 I believe, eventually destroyed the Persian fleet in a narrow inlet in the battle of the Salamis Sea.

This battle was obviously intriguing to me due to my theory of small group engagement against far superior numbers.
.
Had Themistocles not been betrayed, I suggest he would have likely repelled and held the Persians by land and after their defeat at sea they would have withdrawn in shame.

I’m not sure our military leaders agree with the cutbacks in military spending and their likely inability to fight a two front war, but the cost of war and the military is always an easy target in budget cuts. I believe, if memory serves my cursory inspection of President Obama’s budget that the $487 billion in military cuts are ear marked for debt reduction?

I feel confident there could be a situation as you pose below where it will become very difficult to successfully engage on multiple fronts. However, I almost see the juncture of Egypt and Jordan as a ‘Thermopylae pass’ which could easily be controlled by sea and air with few if any ground forces involved. Rather a killing zone.

I suspect just as in WWII NATO troops would be forced in your scenario to fight holding actions on one front while actively engaging on another.

Or in the worst possible scenerio, NATO troops will use terrible weapons against the advancing enemy front. Lets hope this never happens.

Honestly, I think your NK scenario where China involves their troops in a direct military confrontation defending RNK is unlikely.

I believe China would only enter NK in an action to protect their border.

Respectfully yours,

OldCurmudgeon

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

Dear OldCurmedgeon,

Thank you for your very informative and "un-Curmudgeonly" response. I don't know why I didn't think of Thermopylae, but now I know who to come to for military wisdom.

Another question, if you don't mind. Would potential adversaries see our policy change as demonstrating weakness? If so would they feel emboldened to cause trouble? I suspect that some of Argentina's aggressive talk concerning the Falklands may be because of the reduction of the UK fleet to 1/3.

Anyway, I appreciate the help. You have a new fan.

With respect,
Charles1952

Charles1952,

I did not teach at the war college and I have only personally studied military history which is of great interest. I have read and studied from ancient times to today. LOL… I feel confident The Joint Chiefs nor any other agency would take my opines seriously and so they would have no interest in my writings or opinions… lol … you are far too kind, but thank you none the less.

In answer to your first question, “Would potential adversaries see our policy change as demonstrating weakness?”

Charles, I assume you mean President Obama attempting to appear softer and align the US more with the world and adversarial countries. This is difficult to determine as I would suggest any policy change is relative and specific to a country, e.g. previous history with the US, location on the map, type of association with our friends or enemies, religion, etc.

In the case of Iran, I think few have a clear understanding of the situation due to the overly complex differences in religion and culture which divides the country of Iran from within and withdraws it from the region and the world.

In answer to your question, yes, I think Iran would see a softening of US policy as a weakness.

To your second question, “If so would they feel emboldened to cause trouble?”

Yes, to a point as I feel the few radical Muslims who wield most of the power in Iran believe all Muslims will react to their actions by a few cowering in a corner and the majority rising up in defense. All who care to learn know their religion creates a culture impossible to negotiate or reason with totally due to their particular belief in death and the afterlife.

However, I would hope and I believe all countries including China, Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc. have seen and learned that throwing thousands of soldiers at an enemy no longer wins the day or a war.

The display of modern weapons employed by US and NATO forces in Iraq have clearly shown that whole brigades and divisions can be destroyed on a front by a flight of airpower carrying multicapibility-munitions.

Iraq was the example to the world as Saddam's military fought WW 2 ½ and was all but obliterated.

Respectfully

The OldCurmudgeon