The Next Threats
New York Post
March 26, 2007
The Next Threats
By Peter Brookes
THE U.S. military has now made over 2 million individual deployments to Iraq and or Afghanistan. The preponderance, of course, has been our "ground-pounding" soldiers and Marines - many on multiple tours.
This high ground-force operational tempo ("ops tempo") has led some to declare our military nearly broken, incapable of handling another major conflict - that is, lacking in what military planners call "strategic depth."
Legit concerns. But we're not at "mission impossible" - yet.
Yes, our active-duty and reserve ground forces are tired - and understandably so. So is their equipment after four years of wear and tear in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker has issued strong warnings to Congress about repeat deployments and their toll on the army's health and welfare. The Marines, ever reluctant to complain, concur.
The Army/Marine ops tempo should give us pause. But that doesn't mean Uncle Sam can't handle another fight if necessary - thanks to the Navy and Air Force.
Sure, it would be tough, but let me explain:
Outside of Iraq/Afghanistan, the three conflicts most likely to involve America are a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, a China-Taiwan dust-up and another Korean-peninsula war.
Not minor military matters, but with the arguable exception of Korea, they could all be fought using heavy doses of sea and air power, which, fortunately, aren't stretched as thin as our ground forces.
Iran: An attack would likely be executed by U.S. air and sea strikes, not ground forces (but don't count out special ops).
Air Force B-2 bombers and F-117, F-15 and F-16 strike fighters would drop GPS-guided JDAM and gravity bombs on Iranian air defenses, nuclear facilities and retaliatory forces such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The Navy would chime in with carrier-based aviation and surface ships orsubmarines in the Persian Gulf and the North Arabian Sea, dropping bombs and firing cruise missiles at Iran's nuclear sites, air defenses and naval assets.
China-Taiwan: While the chance of a conflict across the Taiwan Strait is remote, China's defense buildup and recent Taiwanese rhetoric about "independence" keeps this possibility at the front of war planners' minds.
Fortunately, a Chinese attack on Taiwan must navigate the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait. China doesn't have the air- and sea-lift capability to support a full-scale invasion of Taiwan - so it would have to rely on ballistic missiles and sea and air power.
The U.S. objective would be to protect the political status quo, using air and naval forces to break Chinese naval blockades, counter air or missile strikes and vanquish sea- or airborne invasion forces as they cross the strait.
Korea: A Korean contingency would normally call for significant U.S. ground forces. But the 28,000 American and 650,000 South Korean troops now "in country" could fight a holding action until the U.S. cavalry - forces not deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf - arrived.
South Korea's ground forces alone are more than a match for the North Korean People's Army - which, while still dangerous, is a shell of what it was back in the days when Pyongyang was getting military aid from the Soviet Union. The United States would quickly add naval and air assets to throw the fight in our direction.
Missile defenses are already deployed for dealing with North Korea's long-range missile and nuclear capability. These - and theater missile defenses - are constantly being developed and improved.
But, while the Navy and Air Force can respond, we shouldn't feel comfortable with the way things stand. We're looking down the barrel of a "hollow force" if trends in defense spending and ops tempo for all services don't change.
The Army and Marines are finally adding troops after 1990s cutbacks. But at the same time, the Navy and Air Force are cutting personnel in a "rob Peter to pay Paul" strategy to finance needed weapons systems.
It's hard to believe, but U.S. defense spending remains at historic lows as a percentage of gross domestic product, despite the large budgets since 9/11. This isn't good for our national security - or fair to our fighting men and women. It's encouraging to adversaries.
There's plenty of blame to go around. Finger-pointing makes for good political sport, but fixing the problem instead of assigning blame is what counts. Congress needs to act quickly. Raising and maintaining our armed forces is its constitutional duty. Anything less than giving our military the wherewithal to take on the challenges to our national security in unacceptable - and dangerous.
Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Peter Brookes is a retired Navy Reserve commander and former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
March 26, 2007
The Next Threats
By Peter Brookes
THE U.S. military has now made over 2 million individual deployments to Iraq and or Afghanistan. The preponderance, of course, has been our "ground-pounding" soldiers and Marines - many on multiple tours.
This high ground-force operational tempo ("ops tempo") has led some to declare our military nearly broken, incapable of handling another major conflict - that is, lacking in what military planners call "strategic depth."
Legit concerns. But we're not at "mission impossible" - yet.
Yes, our active-duty and reserve ground forces are tired - and understandably so. So is their equipment after four years of wear and tear in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker has issued strong warnings to Congress about repeat deployments and their toll on the army's health and welfare. The Marines, ever reluctant to complain, concur.
The Army/Marine ops tempo should give us pause. But that doesn't mean Uncle Sam can't handle another fight if necessary - thanks to the Navy and Air Force.
Sure, it would be tough, but let me explain:
Outside of Iraq/Afghanistan, the three conflicts most likely to involve America are a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, a China-Taiwan dust-up and another Korean-peninsula war.
Not minor military matters, but with the arguable exception of Korea, they could all be fought using heavy doses of sea and air power, which, fortunately, aren't stretched as thin as our ground forces.
Iran: An attack would likely be executed by U.S. air and sea strikes, not ground forces (but don't count out special ops).
Air Force B-2 bombers and F-117, F-15 and F-16 strike fighters would drop GPS-guided JDAM and gravity bombs on Iranian air defenses, nuclear facilities and retaliatory forces such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The Navy would chime in with carrier-based aviation and surface ships orsubmarines in the Persian Gulf and the North Arabian Sea, dropping bombs and firing cruise missiles at Iran's nuclear sites, air defenses and naval assets.
China-Taiwan: While the chance of a conflict across the Taiwan Strait is remote, China's defense buildup and recent Taiwanese rhetoric about "independence" keeps this possibility at the front of war planners' minds.
Fortunately, a Chinese attack on Taiwan must navigate the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait. China doesn't have the air- and sea-lift capability to support a full-scale invasion of Taiwan - so it would have to rely on ballistic missiles and sea and air power.
The U.S. objective would be to protect the political status quo, using air and naval forces to break Chinese naval blockades, counter air or missile strikes and vanquish sea- or airborne invasion forces as they cross the strait.
Korea: A Korean contingency would normally call for significant U.S. ground forces. But the 28,000 American and 650,000 South Korean troops now "in country" could fight a holding action until the U.S. cavalry - forces not deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf - arrived.
South Korea's ground forces alone are more than a match for the North Korean People's Army - which, while still dangerous, is a shell of what it was back in the days when Pyongyang was getting military aid from the Soviet Union. The United States would quickly add naval and air assets to throw the fight in our direction.
Missile defenses are already deployed for dealing with North Korea's long-range missile and nuclear capability. These - and theater missile defenses - are constantly being developed and improved.
But, while the Navy and Air Force can respond, we shouldn't feel comfortable with the way things stand. We're looking down the barrel of a "hollow force" if trends in defense spending and ops tempo for all services don't change.
The Army and Marines are finally adding troops after 1990s cutbacks. But at the same time, the Navy and Air Force are cutting personnel in a "rob Peter to pay Paul" strategy to finance needed weapons systems.
It's hard to believe, but U.S. defense spending remains at historic lows as a percentage of gross domestic product, despite the large budgets since 9/11. This isn't good for our national security - or fair to our fighting men and women. It's encouraging to adversaries.
There's plenty of blame to go around. Finger-pointing makes for good political sport, but fixing the problem instead of assigning blame is what counts. Congress needs to act quickly. Raising and maintaining our armed forces is its constitutional duty. Anything less than giving our military the wherewithal to take on the challenges to our national security in unacceptable - and dangerous.
Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Peter Brookes is a retired Navy Reserve commander and former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
0
-
less than 10% of our military is deployed right now. stretched thin ? nope 0 -
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
less than 10% of our military is deployed right now. stretched thin ? nope
HUH [?]0 -
This story implies the US would get involved in a Taiwan war. Didn't Colin Powell say a few years ago that Taiwan belongs to China?
We were THE only big country to recognize Taiwan as a Independent Country. That Democratic Island WILL fall to Communism and the US will not intervene. China would hand the US it's @ss on a platter. They don't need to export to us anymore....we developed their industry and they can get by marketing it everywhere's else. They also could cash in their $1 Trillion in Treasury notes...and reduce our economy to a depression if we stuck our nose in their business.
Our Forces that have been babysitting South Korea for well over 50 years...would not survive the first attack of chemical weapons. North Korea would likely save it's nuclear weapons for it's second barage or a possible strike on Hawaii, Guam, and Japan.
Remember they still have got the USS Pueblo...and we gave that up without a fight.0 -
iran- we would probably make good use of spec ops forces to guide air/naval strikes. note that we made heavy use of them in afghanistan and appreciable use of them in iraq... which are on both sides of iran. as soon as the initial conflict in afghanistan simmered down, spec ops were already rumored to be making lrrp incursions into iran.
china vs. taiwan: china has a large buildup of missiles close to and aimed at taiwan already, yet we think they're going to go across the water to invade? what can they do without invading but using missiles instead? destroy the infrastructure in taiwan and say "who's your daddy now". they would be forced to become reliant on china. end of conflict.
koreans: the north koreans are nutzo. they aren't stupid. they have short range missiles. they would make good strategic use of them to compensate for lack of ground forces. rather quickly that conflict would be resolved with an invasion into north korea, but it always turns out that things weren't as easy as they looked in the beginning. we'd lose a lot more troops than initial estimates would suggest.0 -
North Korea would get backed by China again....they don't want those folk running across their border....here takes these missiles, bullets, and guns and stay on your own dang side.
Taiwan was trying to lease land on Guam for an evacuation point after China attacks....but the US stepped in and said heck no. Taiwan has been giving Palau millions in free money hoping they would help them out....but Palau is greedy and China has made under the table offers of more money for their oil fields...so Taiwan lost out there.
The only ally Taiwan has now is Fiji. They have plans to evacuate there and demand UN help...which will be in vain.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
North Korea would get backed by China again....they don't want those folk running across their border....here takes these missiles, bullets, and guns and stay on your own dang side.
Taiwan was trying to lease land on Guam for an evacuation point after China attacks....but the US stepped in and said heck no. Taiwan has been giving Palau millions in free money hoping they would help them out....but Palau is greedy and China has made under the table offers of more money for their oil fields...so Taiwan lost out there.
The only ally Taiwan has now is Fiji. They have plans to evacuate there and demand UN help...which will be in vain.
I don't think China WOULD back N. Korea. They're pretty pissed at Kim Jong Ill and his ballistic missile program right now, and they've got some very nice trade agreements with the US.0 -
China does not hold $1 Trillion in Treasury notes, or anywhere close to it. Not even in the ballpark. 0 -
Thats funny because it was reported in the paper that China was holding that much in US treasury securitiesquote:Originally posted by dlrjj
China does not hold $1 Trillion in Treasury notes, or anywhere close to it. Not even in the ballpark.0 -
Here's the list from the Treasury Department.
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt[:)]
Make sure you're not confusing any additions of corporate bonds and current account trade deficits. Those are not Treasury.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mogley98
Thats funny because it was reported in the paper that China was holding that much in US treasury securitiesquote:Originally posted by dlrjj
China does not hold $1 Trillion in Treasury notes, or anywhere close to it. Not even in the ballpark.
Since when is information in newspaper stories accurate?? Remember all those stories about law enforcement searching some guy's house and finding an "arsenal" which consisted of an AR and a pistol or two?0 -
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
less than 10% of our military is deployed right now. stretched thin ? nope
anyone care to dispute this ?0 -
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Here's the list from the Treasury Department.
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt[:)]
Make sure you're not confusing any additions of corporate bonds and current account trade deficits. Those are not Treasury.
"" In recent years the People's Republic of China has also become a holder of over $1 trillion in total foreign reserves, of which about $349.6 billion are U.S. Treasury securities.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt
Yep yer right. They hold $1 Trillion in foreign reserves...and only $349 Billion of that in US Reserves. The rest in Euro's?0 -
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
less than 10% of our military is deployed right now. stretched thin ? nope
anyone care to dispute this ?
Yes. Our military always has been in about...100 countries..every year....year after year.
The only country I think they are not in is Mexico.0 -
10% of our military is deployed in combat operations. dispute THAT !!! leave out your avoidance of the question 0 -
There are currently about 400,000 American troops deployed worldwide out of a total force of 1.4 million men and women in uniform. (Regular military - reserves or recruiting age males not included)
Of the 400,000 deployed around the world, here are those that are deployed in combat zones:
Iraq - around 169,000 troops
Afghanistan - around 19,500 troops
Kosovo - around 1,700 troops
That's a total of 189,200 troops deployed which is slightly more than 10%.
I have no idea what percentage of our total combat personnel this represents.0 -
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
10% of our military is deployed in combat operations. dispute THAT !!! leave out your avoidance of the question
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Keep the garbage rolling
Keep the garbage rolling
Bullsnide!
Hey, maybe you could start a thread about how bad the AK 47 is. What do you think about that idea?
(edit for typo)0 -
the united states military has about 1.5 enlisted million personel of which about 180,000 are deployed in combat zones. that is about 10% 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Here's the list from the Treasury Department.
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt[:)]
Make sure you're not confusing any additions of corporate bonds and current account trade deficits. Those are not Treasury.
"" In recent years the People's Republic of China has also become a holder of over $1 trillion in total foreign reserves, of which about $349.6 billion are U.S. Treasury securities.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt
Yep yer right. They hold $1 Trillion in foreign reserves...and only $349 Billion of that in US Reserves. The rest in Euro's?
That is an excellent question and the right one to be asking. About 70% of Chinese holdings are in some form of US instruments but, as noted, not all in Treasury debt.
The Chinese hold large amounts of Fannie May and Freddie Mac bonds, and significant amounts of corporate bonds from the US Bond Exchange. These all have different maturity dates and could not be cashed in all at one time.
About 20% of the total is in Euro's, and about 10% is in Japanese yen and Korean won. A sprinkling of other units are scattered about in there somewhere. [:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
the united states military has about 1.5 enlisted million personel of which about 180,000 are deployed in combat zones. that is about 10%
Don't forget to include the groundskeepers from the domestic bases, and the guys who deliver mail and fuel.
Your numbers are just not relevant, but you know that, and you're just trolling.
BTW, that would be 12%, but still not relevant.[}:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
less than 10% of our military is deployed right now. stretched thin ? nope
anyone care to dispute this ?
Given that the U.S. employs roughly nine rear area types for every man on the line, you bet we're stretched thin.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
10% of our military is deployed in combat operations. dispute THAT !!! leave out your avoidance of the question
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Keep the garbage rolling
Keep the garbage rolling
Bullsnide!
Hey, maybe you could start a thread about how bad the AK 47 is. What do you think about that idea?
(edit for typo)
You're absolutely right ... not worth the effort.0 -
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
less than 10% of our military is deployed right now. stretched thin ? nope
anyone care to dispute this ?
Yes. 27% of our active duty military was deployed overseas during 2003-2004.
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/178614.htm
http://www.comw.org/pda/041022milops.html0 -
quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
less than 10% of our military is deployed right now. stretched thin ? nope
anyone care to dispute this ?
Yes. Our military always has been in about...100 countries..every year....year after year.
The only country I think they are not in is Mexico.
Not true. U.S. military is in San Antonio...0 -
quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
less than 10% of our military is deployed right now. stretched thin ? nope
anyone care to dispute this ?
Yes. Our military always has been in about...100 countries..every year....year after year.
The only country I think they are not in is Mexico.
Not true. U.S. military is in San Antonio...
?Eso es divertido [:D]!0 -
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
less than 10% of our military is deployed right now. stretched thin ? nope
anyone care to dispute this ?
Yes. 27% of our active duty military was deployed overseas during 2003-2004.
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/178614.htm
http://www.comw.org/pda/041022milops.html
I am a contingency and wartime planner (for the 11 last years) and your figures are pretty close to the unclassified numbers. Here's another good source ...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/deploy.htm0 -
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
10% of our military is deployed in combat operations. dispute THAT !!! leave out your avoidance of the question
Heh jack...how many Americans are roaming the 7 seas in nuclear submarines? I count that myself as combat. How about the 30,000 or so Americans in uniform in South Korea? That war NEVER ended and a cease fire is only in efffect. That's deployed.
How about all the Coast Guard, Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force currently engaged in combat in the Pacific....oh that's right....you're not privy to that information as it is not published. There's muslims in the Pacific too.0 -
Also, the Air Force doesn't count.
D.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Also, the Air Force doesn't count.
D.
Per dlrjj ...
Trolling, trolling, trolling
Keep the garbage rolling
Keep the garbage rolling0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
28 comments