Posted on Nov 13, 2015
This article is a fantastic look at how America fights its wars. What are your thoughts?
3.28K
9
11
6
6
0
Written by Aaron Bazin, an Army strategist, this article is a phenomenal way of looking at how America has fought its wars. He poses and answers visually seven questions:
1) How Many Years In Its History Has America Been at War?
2) Where Has America Fought?
3) Why Has America Fought?
4) How Does America Fight ?
5) Who Are America’s Formal Defense Partners?
6) Why Is the American Military So Attracted to Technology?
7) How Much Does It All Cost?
1) How Many Years In Its History Has America Been at War?
2) Where Has America Fought?
3) Why Has America Fought?
4) How Does America Fight ?
5) Who Are America’s Formal Defense Partners?
6) Why Is the American Military So Attracted to Technology?
7) How Much Does It All Cost?
Warfare
Strategy
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
So technically ... we never actually in a Declared war for ... very long time?
(2)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
COL Sam Russell - So all those are the use of military force ... but not even a war? (technically)
bad words almost fly out of my mouth ....
bad words almost fly out of my mouth ....
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
GySgt John Olson - I'd argue that the Legislative Branch politicians have chosen not to regain that power because it's politically convenient for them. If the conflict appears to be a no-brainer (like for the Gulf War or against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan), they'll quickly support it. If the conflict appears to be politically charged, and/or the outcome is uncertain, they'll back away (like right now when Congress won't vote on an AUMF in the Middle East). They simply don't want the political risk of having their vote blow up in their faces. So, it's a political calculation that has led Congress to cede that power.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
GySgt John Olson - I think they could take the power back fairly easily through Congressional action, especially if it's at a level that would override any filibuster and a potential veto. Of course, having the political guts to do that is another issue entirely. Today's politicians only seem to think from election-to-election.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
GySgt John Olson - I agree. The hypocrisy amazes me on both sides of the aisle. When their preferred politician is in the White House, they don't like the restrictions in the War Powers Act. When the opposition is in the White House, they like those restrictions. Geez, just be consistent, and then maybe I could trust your rhetoric as being legitimately in our country's best interests.
(0)
(0)
I know Aaron very well; he was in my small group during ILE. I just sent him a note about this thread on Facebook.
That's an interesting article. The only things I'd add as a critique/discussion is that he didn't fully answer question #1 and I'd be interested in an expanded discussion on #4 and #7.
Regarding #1, instead of addressing how many years we've been at war, he addressed the time periods where Congress has sanctioned war (either through a formal declaration or through an approval process). The years that fall under "no Congressional authorization" include times of peace and times of conflict. A conservative interpretation is that we've only been at war for 21 years of our existence (only during a formally declared war). A liberal interpretation is that we've been at war (meaning any form of major conflict) much more than that, but you can't determine the number of years with what is presented.
Regarding #4, I'd like to see him compare/contrast between what is presented (a notional way that America designs its operations) with what has actually happened, at least in recent conflicts (how America has actually designed and conducted its operations). Heck, an entire article could be devoted to that for a single conflict.
Regarding #7, the article and the sources that were provided are unclear on the total overall cost. The sources provided refer to defense spending, but they don't clarify whether that spending is the baseline budgets, or includes the additional funding for war activities that fall outside of the baseline budget. Additionally, a tremendous amount of spending on national defense now occurs outside of the military (most notably within the DHS, DOE, and DOJ, and arguably the Department of State). Include those expenditures and the picture could change quite a bit.
The big takeaway I have from the article is that "America" really hasn't been at "war" for a long, long time. A small segment of our country has fought numerous conflicts on behalf of our politicians (and their ideas of our "national interests"). However, we have not fully engaged our entire country, meaning everybody feels a little bit of the pain (implementation of a draft, nationalization of critical industries, rationing, etc.), in multiple generations now. We've funded our conflicts primarily through debt, primarily on the backs of a smaller and smaller segment of our population, and private industry has profited greatly. In my opinion, when the country goes to war, the entire country should go to war. If we were to do that, I'd be willing to bet that a) we'd fight in fewer conflicts and b) when we do....we'd kick some serious butt in those conflicts.
That's an interesting article. The only things I'd add as a critique/discussion is that he didn't fully answer question #1 and I'd be interested in an expanded discussion on #4 and #7.
Regarding #1, instead of addressing how many years we've been at war, he addressed the time periods where Congress has sanctioned war (either through a formal declaration or through an approval process). The years that fall under "no Congressional authorization" include times of peace and times of conflict. A conservative interpretation is that we've only been at war for 21 years of our existence (only during a formally declared war). A liberal interpretation is that we've been at war (meaning any form of major conflict) much more than that, but you can't determine the number of years with what is presented.
Regarding #4, I'd like to see him compare/contrast between what is presented (a notional way that America designs its operations) with what has actually happened, at least in recent conflicts (how America has actually designed and conducted its operations). Heck, an entire article could be devoted to that for a single conflict.
Regarding #7, the article and the sources that were provided are unclear on the total overall cost. The sources provided refer to defense spending, but they don't clarify whether that spending is the baseline budgets, or includes the additional funding for war activities that fall outside of the baseline budget. Additionally, a tremendous amount of spending on national defense now occurs outside of the military (most notably within the DHS, DOE, and DOJ, and arguably the Department of State). Include those expenditures and the picture could change quite a bit.
The big takeaway I have from the article is that "America" really hasn't been at "war" for a long, long time. A small segment of our country has fought numerous conflicts on behalf of our politicians (and their ideas of our "national interests"). However, we have not fully engaged our entire country, meaning everybody feels a little bit of the pain (implementation of a draft, nationalization of critical industries, rationing, etc.), in multiple generations now. We've funded our conflicts primarily through debt, primarily on the backs of a smaller and smaller segment of our population, and private industry has profited greatly. In my opinion, when the country goes to war, the entire country should go to war. If we were to do that, I'd be willing to bet that a) we'd fight in fewer conflicts and b) when we do....we'd kick some serious butt in those conflicts.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Thanks Kevin, I just realized it has been about 10 years since ILE, boy does time fly.
You are of course right with the financial impacts of war. It is much more complex, the U.S. economy has changed a great deal since WWII. There really needs to be a whole set of charts to even begin to explain all of the nuances of our financial system, and I am by no means the expert. I thought this chart was interesting because it shines some light on what happened when America was "all-in."
And raises the question, are we really "all-in" today?
You are of course right with the financial impacts of war. It is much more complex, the U.S. economy has changed a great deal since WWII. There really needs to be a whole set of charts to even begin to explain all of the nuances of our financial system, and I am by no means the expert. I thought this chart was interesting because it shines some light on what happened when America was "all-in."
And raises the question, are we really "all-in" today?
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
LTC (Join to see) - A decade? Ouch. The older I get, the faster time flies right on by.
I don't think we are anywhere close to being "all-in". I think our measure of "in" is simply based on what level of political risk our elected officials are willing to bear. The professional political class is really one of our country's biggest problems. It hasn't always been that way, and it certainly doesn't need to remain that way.
I don't think we are anywhere close to being "all-in". I think our measure of "in" is simply based on what level of political risk our elected officials are willing to bear. The professional political class is really one of our country's biggest problems. It hasn't always been that way, and it certainly doesn't need to remain that way.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Thanks for all the comments. Especially in light of the events in Paris, I think that there is something to be said for declaring war and seeking an unconditional surrender.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google