A strong US is one with a strong economy and sound financial standing, not as the world's volunteer police and fire department to fight wars we can't afford and start conflicts we don't need.
They are constantly beating the drums to attack some other country or group. In their world, every crisis is Munich, every dictator is Hitler, and anybody who pauses to think before attacking is Chamberlain.
The Neocons promoted Iraq as the war that would end all wars and terrorism. Did the world conclude we were credible when we attacked Iraq, or just stupid? There would be no ISIS without that invasion. How about the 13 years we’ve been in Afghanistan? Credibility or our historical ignorance?
U.S. military involvement in Nigeria, Ukraine, Syria, Mali, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sudan and Iraq (multiple times).
Our track record? Somalia? Iraq? Syria? Libya? Afghanistan?
https://smile.amazon.com/Fools-Errand-Time-End-Afghanistan/dp/1548650218...
1
think of how much destruction these guns do.
Um, that’s the purpose
3
A redleg (artilleryman) here. Thanks for the article- interesting to me, and insightful.
2
Oh and how much would it cost to provide medical care for all transgender troops again? Oh right. $8 million.
from another former artillery officer,the precision rounds offer the most important advantage-to the supported infantry-much greater accuracy and far less chance of a friendly strike. As an artillery battery commander in Vietnam,I worried about firing too close to "friendlies" as much as successfully hitting the enemy. Now with not only Excalibur for the 155mm,but also the precision guided MLRS,the field artillery returns to its rightful place as King of Battle!
James Lincoln Colonel USA Retired
4
That's a lot of artillery shells - 8000 Excaliburs, plus $200MM of other shells. At let's say an average cost of $5K per shell, (assuming that about half are conventional shells) that's 40,000 shells, or about 100 per day.
Given the effectiveness of these shells, and the use of other weapons (planes, missiles) that seems to me like a ramp-up to a big conventional ground war.
That makes no sense, except as a plan by by big arms dealers and their puppets in Congress to pillage the U.S. treasury. The military have always been hoarders; we have arms depots full of munitions that were bought, not for fighting but for the buying.
Very interesting and useful article; how we fight, not why.
2
When one reflects on the various recipients of taxpayer money - for example scientists, students, the sick, the poor, or weapons manufacturers - and then considers which is more likely to contribute to the GOP political machine, it's not difficult to understand why defense spending is such a high priority for Republicans.
1
Think of what these monies could do if applied to improving the VA services, schools, medical research, and a lot of other constructive needs. It seems to remain true that the military is always fighting the last war.
4
This would be wonderful if all of our adversaries would adopt the same philosophy. We can pray for that daily!
4
Are you seriously suggesting that the Army's purpose is to provide VA services and schools? IT'S AN ARMY. IT NEEDS AMMUNITION.
2
None of our adversaries spends anywhere close to what the US spends on defense.
Of course it's possible those other countries get more 'bang for the buck' with their arms manufacturers verses what we get from ours - where our investor class needs to get its 'patriotic' share.
Along the same lines, isn't it interesting how politicians who promote defense spending get people in red states to both vote for them and send a disproportionate share of their young people to fight in the wars that enrich their weapons manufacturer donors?
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-is-not-representative-of-coun...
2