Has the mystique of USA military might been damaged beyond

[Bandit]

repair by the bungling of this Administration? It is becoming apparent to the world that the USA is no where near as mighty as the USA would like everyone to think. We have not been able to subdue a small country with virtually no military might at all. Will this Iraqi folly encourage other countries to now venture down paths they would never had thought of before this misadventure in Iraq? Has the USA been exposed as being a paper tiger?

[el_gato]

1. Yes

[cally]

2. For the next few years

We showed our vulnerabilities and the weaknesses in our military mite. We are no longer seen as invulnerable. * has done tremendous damage to the US but also the world. Many will challenge the world community and try to gain power because they see that the world powers are not united. We are fighting each other.

[NewJeffCT]

16. back under Clinton, when our military was respected...

Remember, we sent a few ships to Taiwan when mainland China was making some belligerent threats against Taiwan? China was so cowed by our mere presence there that they backed down.

Now, if China decided to be belligerent again towards Taiwan, they probably would not see us as being nearly so powerful militarily and may not be inclined to back down again.

[LizW]

3. I hope not

but I'm terrified that it might be so. Billions of dollars for supposed military might, year after year after year, and yet we aren't safe from 19 guys with box cutters and mace and nothing to lose. And we can't win a war against a country that has been under sanctions for twelve years?

I'm not so much worried about the perception, but about the truth. What if it's all been a sham? What if the military industrial complex has been siphoning off the military budget for years now, and we haven't really been getting what we're paying for? What if we just DON'T HAVE the biggest and most effective military in the world like we think we do?

[KurtNYC]

4. No - It was a fatally flawed strategy

to think that any amount of arial bombardment would make a country love us. We can't make them love us but we can (for better or worse) inflict serious damage and casualties.

[Cat Atomic]

5. Yes- much like the USSR in Afghanistan.

[MallRat]

6. If we have to level a country without concern for its future, we're OK :-(

As much as our incompetent President has botched things up, the fact remains that our biggest strategic problem, re: the military, is nation-building on a massive scale, such as in Iraq. 140,000 troops on the ground aren't enough to keep the peace or get the job done.

But this does not change the fact that with our air and sea superiority, the US military is still a formidable war force. Say all you want about asymmetric warfare: we're very good at blowing things up from airplanes.

In short- if we have to dismantle nation from the skies, we're numero uno. If we have to rebuild and stabilize the country we dismantled, then we're fucked... unless we have international support.

I pray that Kerry can somehow restore that very kind of support once he takes office.

-MR

[CarolynEC]

7. From 'superpower' to 'chump'

Agree. That's one of the major 'accomplishments' of the Bush administration. We've gone from world's only superpower to all-around chump thanks to Bush and his idiocy.

It's a good point to bring up whenever you encounter one of those misguided flag-wavers leaning toward Bush. They think they're being patriotic, but they're actually lining up behind a president who has brought America nothing but shame.

[paulk]

8. "he has showed the world our backside"

in the words of my father in law, former Air Force.

[htuttle]

9. We still have the most expensive military in the world

There's no denying that. Nobody pays more for toilet seats that we do!

[displacedtexan]

10. Yes. Next time...

we will have to turn a place into glass in order to "restore" our reputation for military might.

Sad, isn't it?

Bush* has now made the same mistake that Rome, France, Germany, and England (among others) made when they tried imperialism. Unless you are willing to stay there and rule indefinitely, it won't work... and even then, that doesn't always work (India).

Once you leave, they always say, "See. We made them leave! We won."

By threatening and then using our military strength, Bush has upped the ante to the unthinkable next move: nukes.

Of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Just my observation.

[Renew Deal]

11. Not beyond repair, but yes overall.

The reason why it's not beyond repair is that the strategy is so politically motivated that it's flawed. We need more troops to do what we are doing. If the US was honest, it would open up the draft and change strategy. A change of strategy will not work without more troops. Either way, you have to get rid of Generalissimo Bush to do that.

[Solon]

12. America's military might is mostly illusionary....

always have been, one thing that is more than obvious is that we usually declare war on nations that couldn't defend themselves in the first place. Look at Iraq, crippled due to sanctions and Saddam's incompetence, yet even there we have difficulty keeping the country in check. If we even attempted to invade either North Korea or Iran, we would get our asses kicked. Back during the Cold War, the only thing keeping the USSR from rolling over all of Western Europe was the threat of Nuclear War.

Part of the problem is our reliance on bleeding edge(pun intended) untested technology that we usually don't fix until lives our lost. Look at how bad Hummers deal with Urban enviroments, or guns that jammed in the Vietnam war, or that waste of money the F-22, which is already outclassed by the newest MIGs and the Joint Strike Fighter. We rely, almost exclusively, on our nuclear deterrence to have clout in the rest of the world. We didn't defeat the USSR, Gorbachev and the liberalization of his own policies did. Our stength is in mobility, not in the amount of arms we have, we can project power in one major theatre only, but where is unlimited, and that's it.

[FighttheFuture]

19. It would be nice if you would provide some links to this horse shit your...

shoveling.

Your references to specific technology is extremely misleading. For example:

Hummers are a tremendous improvement over the jeep, which it replaced. Armored Hummers, which are lacking in Iraq are even better. Still they are not Armored Personal Carriers (e.g. Bradley's).

Jamming guns in Vietnam, the M-16, was initial mismanagement at the Secretary of Defense (McNamara) trying to overcome the inertia if introducing a new weapon to replace the M-1 and M-3 rifles. Once they chromed the barrels and made a few other improvements, the M-16 took off.

Please provide a link regarding the F-22 for these assertions. American technology in air fighters has usually relied on advanced technology and designs which prove themselves in time. The F-4 in Vietnam, The F-108 swing wing bomber, the F14, F15, F16 and now F18 have all been very successful in their roles. I would remind you the the '82 Israeli/Lebanon war the Israeli Air Force decimated the Syrian AF, loosing over 80 planes with none lost by the IAF. The Cobra Attack gunship destroyed T-72 soviet tanks. All as envisioned for European Theater operations.

Also, you make a mistake to say the technology is untested. It is heavily tested. There are times when politics will push it before it is ready (e.g. M-16), yet most of the military equipment is natural outgrowths of proven designs and often works very well for it intended use - to kill and destroy.

A failure in a system does not mean the system is a failure. It usually means improvements are required.

So please... enough with the horse shit about it being illusionary. It is not, which makes it very dangerous in the wrong hands.

[Solon]

23. Actually I agree about the M-16...

political expediency or corporate clout to make money is usually involved in most blunders about military technology. How many times was the Bradley rebuilt again, and how much did it cost? Look at this report about the F-22 and look at how the Pentagon is bungling this as well:

Summary
The Pentagon is rushing to begin production of the F-22 fighter without first meeting all testing requirements imposed by Congress. This report exposes the plan to recommend releasing $2.1 billion for 10 F-22 fighters even though the aircraft has not met as many as five out of 11 testing criteria required to be met before funding is released. This first wave of the production process, known as low-rate initial production, is expected despite Congress' clear directive in the defense budget bills of 2000 and 2001 that F-22 production funding only be released if all 11 testing criteria are met. The Pentagon should not only adhere to these very minimal testing criteria before going into production, it should set a
higher standard requiring that all operational testing be completed, particularly of the avionics (the eyes, ears and brain of the plane) prior to costly buys of new aircraft like the F-22. No greater lesson than this was learned from the "buy before fly" B-1 and B-2 bomber fiascos.

Source: http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-010114-f22.html

As far as other blunders in this type of crap, how many pilots died due to V-22 testing again?

BTW: I stand by my statement on the Hummer in Urban enviroments, it is too damned big for manuvering in tight city streets and are wholly inadequet for urban enviroments because of the ease of insurgents to flank the vehicle. Not to mention the fact that most aren't even Armored against Rifle rounds, they are coffins on wheels without such protection not to mention RPGs. They are an improvement over Jeeps, out in wide spaces they are one of the best vehicles we have, but within closed enviroments they are too damned vunerable to be effective. This is not to say that they are ineffective or flawed from the get go, but the use of them in Urban enviroments is stupid. Similar to using tanks on city streets during World War 2.

[FighttheFuture]

27. I agree with your statement of corporate clout pushing things too fast...

leading to flawed implementation of weapons systems. The anti-missile defense system being built in Alaska is the latest example. Would star wars work at some point, sure, but there will always be counters to it. For now, it is a boondoggle that will profit a certain few and waste resources beyond belief.

It is always important to keep in mind that there is no certain 100% defensive system. That is why diplomacy (not capitulation) with measured responsive capabilities as shown itself to be much more effective in achieving stability.

Thank you for the F22 link.

[FighttheFuture]

13. Yes and no...

It has exposed serious weakness in terms of amounts of troops we can muster as well as logistical supply problems. It has also allowed a partial privatization, small but significant, of certain military functions. That will lead to a bad end.

It is leading now to the development of small (under 1 kiloton) nuclear charges for "bunker busting". These will be very bad as they will be the size of a lunch box and can be used for many things beside bunkers.

It has also shown we can roll over a country and destroy targets with impunity. We still posses an unstoppable nuclear deterrent which is not forgotten. In the end, a ruler has been removed form a sovereign nation that struck a certianmaount of fear in the region. For better or worse, no one forgets who accomplished that.

[rinsd]

14. Paper tiger? I don't think so....

No, what has been enforced is that guerilla tactics can demoralize and survive even the largest most technically proficient armed forces. See also Revolutionary War, Vietnam(both French & US), Afganistan (both US & USSR)most South American conflicts etc etc.

Do you think anyone wants to take us on conventionally?

[Jacobin]

15. Vietnam was a start

This IraqNam thing could end up making us a laughing stock for stupidity, hubris, arrogance and silliness for decades to come.

Unless you are a nation state with fixed targets to shoot at, you have little to fear from BushCo. Osama roaming free for almost 3 years after attacking the U.S. says it all

[Strelnikov_]

17. Iraq Has Reveled The Inherent Weakness In Our Force Structure

That is, a shortage of manpower ('boots on the ground') to occupy even a small nation.

The United States military was designed to project the threat of mutually assured destruction to the Kremlin. As such, it was designed around the concept of maneuver warfare (or Air-Land, Blitzkrieg, or whatever they are calling it this week). Highly mobile, 'high-tech', well trained forces, supported by ground attack aircraft made possible through air superiority, would slash into the rear of Soviet formations, breaking up the attack of a much larger force.

The problem with our military is that most of the advantages our military has as a maneuver warfare force are lost during urban combat or occupation. As we have witnessed in Iraq, the modern assault rifle and RPG-7 can counter U.S. forces once they leave the maneuver field, and the firepower of the U.S. can be a two-edged sword when trying to win the 'hearts and minds' of the occupied. It appears that even with our great advantage in maneuver warfare, when the missions degenerates to occupation traditional force level estimates still govern (I have seen figures of 500,000 for the Iraq occupation).

Another concern I have had for years is the cost and complexity of our military. Again, our military was designed for a short, high intensity war against the Soviets. We are now using these high cost, complex weapons for occupation. Due to the time and cost required to replace these systems, have we jeopardized our short term security?

However, my biggest concern is that Iraq has highlighted the inherent weaknesses of our military to potentially hostile nations. Before Iraq, the implied threat of U.S. military action could probably help defuse most crises at the diplomatic level. I am afraid that the 'stick' now looks a lot smaller. While our military is more than adequate for defense and 'protecting our interests', it is nowhere near large enough for a jihad of mideast conquest.

[kentuck]

18. No. I don't think a "paper tiger"...

However, much of hte invincibility is gone. The thugs in Baghdad have seen that they can kill with carbombs, roadside devices, snipers, etc and most of the time with impunity. So they become more emboldened with time, I think. We have been weakened in that respect. But, they also realize that we have weaponry that can destroy them with computer precision, many of them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Still swatting mosquitoes with a tire-iron.

Too big, too expensive, too ineffecive, too top heavy, and way too glorified.

Trying to rely on the military to deal with what are essentially political/economic/social problems is a terrific way for empires to collapse.

[tabasco]

21. It just shows we can't impose a government anywhere we want.

We can conquer other countries, we just can't get them to like us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Let's hope so.

The glorification of the military is nauseating.

[tom_paine]

24. Yes, and that can never be regained.

The Paper Tiger has Feet of Clay.

However, Imperial Amerika will be awfully good at rounding up Enemies of the State, domestic spying, NewSpeak, and attacking the weak and powerless, and more which indicates that we are becoming more like the Nazi Germans than them Free Men and Women who defeated them.

[jayfish]

25. Article By Col. David Hackworth For Your Perusal

Hackworth: Sack Em and Rack Em

<SNIP>
The mighty sword that Rumsfeld and Myers inherited four years ago - the finest military force in the world - is now chipped and dulled. And the word is that it will take at least a decade to get our overextended, bone-tired soldiers and Marines and their worn-out gear back in shape.
<SNIP>


Jay

[lebkuchen]

28. I like this part

Rumsfeld treated this courageous soldier - who left half a foot in the Vietnam Delta - like a leper for telling a truth that was obviously contrary to party lockstep. And Shinseki's spot-on troop estimate was discredited and ridiculed by senior Pentagon chicken hawks like Paul Wolfowitz, a man who dodged the draft during Vietnam and wouldn't know a tank from a Toyota.

[DemoTex]

26. George H. W. Bu$h crowed about the end of the nation's "Vietnam Syndrome."

Operation Desert Storm coalition forces defeated Iraq in a little more than a month in early 1991. A nation grateful at feeling the end of the “Vietnam syndrome” gave the president an 89% approval rating. He squandered the approval. His vapid son has now squandered the post-9/11 goodwill of the world and rekindled (to a roaring inferno) the "Vietnam syndrome" in his playpen in Iraq.

[Zhade]

29. The empire is doomed.

We will fall, eventually. The rape of Iraq has only sped up that process - though I do feel our economics are more likely to cause our collapse.