U.S. Military Trends
SEARCH BLOG: MILITARY
Over the past week, a couple of items regarding the military.
The military has become an arm of the State Department. Soldiers are used for "nation building." Many in government believe that is the appropriate way to handle conflict. The old style of "nation destruction" and then look into nation building [e.g., Germany and Japan] has no favor with government thinkers [is that an oxymoron?] these days. Consequently, even small military campaigns become budget-busters in the era of trying to make everyone our "friends." That is a consequence of these other nations not being able to control forces within their borders... or being unwilling to do so. Military response is unfocused, protracted, and expensive. More effective measures are considered inappropriate.
Internally, the military has its own problems with inertia. If you go through all of the time, expense, and manpower to create a program and weapon system, you tend to hold on to it regardless of military needs. As systems become more complex, the real expense lies in the support area not the operational area. Elaborate support and logistics become essential to keep things going. And then something comes along like the new Chinese anti-ship missiles [see link above] that threatens to make your investment worth much less.
The U.S. needs to consider whether the role of the military is to protect the U.S. through application of force or whether it is to be part of the State Department. And, furthermore, the U.S. government needs to rethink its position regarding being the policeman of the world. By that, I do not mean withdrawing into isolationism as some would advocate. But rather, the U.S., if it is to provide military protection services, should also provide a bill for services. Europe can afford it. Japan can afford it. South Korea can afford it. Otherwise the position should be "call us if you need us and we'll see what we can do."
There would be some benefits to our economy other than the direct reduction of the U.S. government budget. As other countries were forced to deal with the realities of their own security, they could choose to stay within the U.S. group of "friends" or simply act in ways that are in their own best interest. Oh, they do that already? Well, in terms of national security, these nations are capable of paying for what they need. That might raise taxes in those countries or simply create a lot of Switzerlands which seems to be the darling of Libertarians.
Of course, the U.S. would have to be prepared for changes in the world order.
- Russia will become more influential in Europe.
- China will become dominant in Asia and Africa. South America will become increasingly a source of problems and markets for the U.S.
- And, finally, trade will become more difficult as our Russian and Chinese competitors pressure potential markets to give them preferential treatment versus the U.S.
- securing our borders.
- ensuring that outer space does not become a threat [no, not from extraterrestrial aliens... aliens from earth]. China and Iran recognize the importance of militarizing high orbit positions and are in the process of developing systems for that purpose. Obviously, China represents the greatest present potential threat in that area. Controlling the high ground is a primary goal for all military forces.
- creating more autonomous [self-sustaining and survivable] systems that can deliver lethal blows on both small and large scale conflicts.
..