5
5
0
There is so much good stuff in this article, you need to give it a look if you don't like how things are going with ISIS.
"Even though Washington may try whenever possible to avoid large-scale ground combat, relying on air power (including drones) and elite Special Operations forces to do the actual killing, post-conflict pacification promises to be a manpower intensive activity. Certainly, this ranks as one of the most obvious lessons to emerge from World War IV’s preliminary phases: when the initial fight ends, the real work begins.
U.S. forces committed to asserting control over Iraq after the invasion of 2003 topped out at roughly 180,000. In Afghanistan, during the Obama presidency, the presence peaked at 110,000. In a historical context, these are not especially large numbers. At the height of the Vietnam War, for example, U.S. troop strength in Southeast Asia exceeded 500,000.
In hindsight, the Army general who, before the invasion of 2003, publicly suggested that pacifying postwar Iraq would require “several hundred thousand troops” had it right. A similar estimate applies to Afghanistan. In other words, those two occupations together could easily have absorbed 600,000 to 800,000 troops on an ongoing basis. Given the Pentagon’s standard three-to-one rotation policy, which assumes that for every unit in-country, a second is just back, and a third is preparing to deploy, you’re talking about a minimum requirement of between 1.8 and 2.4 million troops to sustain just two medium-sized campaigns -- a figure that wouldn’t include some number of additional troops kept in reserve for the unexpected.
In other words, waging World War IV would require at least a five-fold increase in the current size of the U.S. Army -- and not as an emergency measure but a permanent one. Such numbers may appear large, but as Cohen would be the first to point out, they are actually modest when compared to previous world wars. In 1968, in the middle of World War III, the Army had more than 1.5 million active duty soldiers on its rolls -- this at a time when the total American population was less than two-thirds what it is today and when gender discrimination largely excluded women from military service. If it chose to do so, the United States today could easily field an army of two million or more soldiers."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-bacevich/beyond-isis_b_8708726.html
"Even though Washington may try whenever possible to avoid large-scale ground combat, relying on air power (including drones) and elite Special Operations forces to do the actual killing, post-conflict pacification promises to be a manpower intensive activity. Certainly, this ranks as one of the most obvious lessons to emerge from World War IV’s preliminary phases: when the initial fight ends, the real work begins.
U.S. forces committed to asserting control over Iraq after the invasion of 2003 topped out at roughly 180,000. In Afghanistan, during the Obama presidency, the presence peaked at 110,000. In a historical context, these are not especially large numbers. At the height of the Vietnam War, for example, U.S. troop strength in Southeast Asia exceeded 500,000.
In hindsight, the Army general who, before the invasion of 2003, publicly suggested that pacifying postwar Iraq would require “several hundred thousand troops” had it right. A similar estimate applies to Afghanistan. In other words, those two occupations together could easily have absorbed 600,000 to 800,000 troops on an ongoing basis. Given the Pentagon’s standard three-to-one rotation policy, which assumes that for every unit in-country, a second is just back, and a third is preparing to deploy, you’re talking about a minimum requirement of between 1.8 and 2.4 million troops to sustain just two medium-sized campaigns -- a figure that wouldn’t include some number of additional troops kept in reserve for the unexpected.
In other words, waging World War IV would require at least a five-fold increase in the current size of the U.S. Army -- and not as an emergency measure but a permanent one. Such numbers may appear large, but as Cohen would be the first to point out, they are actually modest when compared to previous world wars. In 1968, in the middle of World War III, the Army had more than 1.5 million active duty soldiers on its rolls -- this at a time when the total American population was less than two-thirds what it is today and when gender discrimination largely excluded women from military service. If it chose to do so, the United States today could easily field an army of two million or more soldiers."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-bacevich/beyond-isis_b_8708726.html
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
2
2
0
We can get to WWIV right after WWIII. Then a better assessment can be made by Huffington Post and their war experts.
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
MCPO Roger Collins - WW IV is a different animal. ISIS doesn't care about capitalism. You are an idiot.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(1)
MCPO Roger Collins
Sure sounded like a personal attack. But since you have been given so many passes, you will probably be ignored again.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
MCPO Roger Collins - The key for you is to not act like an idiot and then you won't get called an idiot.
Basic Capitalism? What on earth are you talking about?
Walt
Basic Capitalism? What on earth are you talking about?
Walt
(1)
(1)
MCPO Roger Collins
If you want to debate an issue or want further explanation, say so. My rank was achieved in record time when the promotion rate was 3%. Idiots do not achieve that. The mods May give you a pass, but I will use the block method, since you continue with the personal insults. I'm sure you are familiar with that.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
"Indeed, the very existence of the Islamic State (ISIS) today renders a definitive verdict on the Iraq wars over which the Presidents Bush presided, each abetted by a Democratic successor. A de facto collaboration of four successive administrations succeeded in reducing Iraq to what it is today: a dysfunctional quasi-state unable to control its borders or territory while serving as a magnet and inspiration for terrorists.
The United States bears a profound moral responsibility for having made such a hash of things there. Were it not for the reckless American decision to invade and occupy a nation that, whatever its crimes, had nothing to do with 9/11, the Islamic State would not exist. Per the famous Pottery Barn Rule attributed to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, having smashed Iraq to bits a decade ago, we can now hardly deny owning ISIS.
That the United States possesses sufficient military power to make short work of that “caliphate” is also the case. True, in both Syria and Iraq the Islamic State has demonstrated a disturbing ability to capture and hold large stretches of desert, along with several population centers. It has, however, achieved these successes against poorly motivated local forces of, at best, indifferent quality.
In that regard, the glibly bellicose editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol, is surely correct in suggesting that a well-armed contingent of 50,000 U.S. troops, supported by ample quantities of air power, would make mincemeat of ISIS in a toe-to-toe contest. Liberation of the various ISIS strongholds like Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq and Palmyra and Raqqa, its “capital,” in Syria would undoubtedly follow in short order.
In the wake of the recent attacks in Paris, the American mood is strongly trending in favor of this sort of escalation. Just about anyone who is anyone -- the current occupant of the Oval Office partially excepted -- favors intensifying the U.S. military campaign against ISIS. And why not? What could possibly go wrong? As Kristol puts it, "I don’t think there’s much in the way of unanticipated side effects that are going to be bad there."
It’s an alluring prospect. In the face of a sustained assault by the greatest military the world has ever seen, ISIS foolishly (and therefore improbably) chooses to make an Alamo-like stand. Whammo! We win. They lose. Mission accomplished.
Of course, that phrase recalls the euphoric early reactions to Operations Desert Storm in 1991, Enduring Freedom in 2001, Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and Odyssey Dawn, the Libyan intervention of 2011. Time and again the unanticipated side effects of U.S. military action turned out to be very bad indeed. In Kabul, Baghdad, or Tripoli, the Alamo fell, but the enemy dispersed or reinvented itself and the conflict continued. Assurances offered by Kristol that this time things will surely be different deserve to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Pass the whole shaker."
The United States bears a profound moral responsibility for having made such a hash of things there. Were it not for the reckless American decision to invade and occupy a nation that, whatever its crimes, had nothing to do with 9/11, the Islamic State would not exist. Per the famous Pottery Barn Rule attributed to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, having smashed Iraq to bits a decade ago, we can now hardly deny owning ISIS.
That the United States possesses sufficient military power to make short work of that “caliphate” is also the case. True, in both Syria and Iraq the Islamic State has demonstrated a disturbing ability to capture and hold large stretches of desert, along with several population centers. It has, however, achieved these successes against poorly motivated local forces of, at best, indifferent quality.
In that regard, the glibly bellicose editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol, is surely correct in suggesting that a well-armed contingent of 50,000 U.S. troops, supported by ample quantities of air power, would make mincemeat of ISIS in a toe-to-toe contest. Liberation of the various ISIS strongholds like Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq and Palmyra and Raqqa, its “capital,” in Syria would undoubtedly follow in short order.
In the wake of the recent attacks in Paris, the American mood is strongly trending in favor of this sort of escalation. Just about anyone who is anyone -- the current occupant of the Oval Office partially excepted -- favors intensifying the U.S. military campaign against ISIS. And why not? What could possibly go wrong? As Kristol puts it, "I don’t think there’s much in the way of unanticipated side effects that are going to be bad there."
It’s an alluring prospect. In the face of a sustained assault by the greatest military the world has ever seen, ISIS foolishly (and therefore improbably) chooses to make an Alamo-like stand. Whammo! We win. They lose. Mission accomplished.
Of course, that phrase recalls the euphoric early reactions to Operations Desert Storm in 1991, Enduring Freedom in 2001, Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and Odyssey Dawn, the Libyan intervention of 2011. Time and again the unanticipated side effects of U.S. military action turned out to be very bad indeed. In Kabul, Baghdad, or Tripoli, the Alamo fell, but the enemy dispersed or reinvented itself and the conflict continued. Assurances offered by Kristol that this time things will surely be different deserve to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Pass the whole shaker."
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
What happens when you have no choice but to go after them? We talk about his like we simply get to chose whether we fight them or not. They are already coming after us. Forget the why, it isn't relevant at this point. How many cells have to unleash murderous rampage before we decide that is unacceptable and go after them where they live?
The real questions we have to ask and answer are: Is ISIS a threat to the safety of Americans both here and abroad? Is ISIS able and willing to attack us at every opportunity both here and abroad? Do they have the will and capacity/capability to do so? If the answers to those questions are yes then I think we need to do whatever it takes to eliminate them. How many western cities and towns have to have a bloodbath in them before we've had enough?
Part of the problem with long winded theoretical tomes is that they miss the essence because they are too busy trying to show you how sophisticated they are in their musings.
The real questions we have to ask and answer are: Is ISIS a threat to the safety of Americans both here and abroad? Is ISIS able and willing to attack us at every opportunity both here and abroad? Do they have the will and capacity/capability to do so? If the answers to those questions are yes then I think we need to do whatever it takes to eliminate them. How many western cities and towns have to have a bloodbath in them before we've had enough?
Part of the problem with long winded theoretical tomes is that they miss the essence because they are too busy trying to show you how sophisticated they are in their musings.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Good points.
And part of the appeal of ISIS to those it would proselytize is that is -is- thumbing its noses at many national governments, has its own territory and all that
Do I read that Turkey is helping ISIS? If we wanted to put a bunch of brigade combat teams back into that area, how does that look? Can we use Kuwait again? With a crappy SOFA from an Iraq now in Iran's back pocket? Go through Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Turkey?
From WWII, there is a story. CNO Admiral King came out of a meeting with General Marshall and other Army guys:
"I don't know what this logistics Marshall keeps talking about is, but we might want to get some."
Walt
And part of the appeal of ISIS to those it would proselytize is that is -is- thumbing its noses at many national governments, has its own territory and all that
Do I read that Turkey is helping ISIS? If we wanted to put a bunch of brigade combat teams back into that area, how does that look? Can we use Kuwait again? With a crappy SOFA from an Iraq now in Iran's back pocket? Go through Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Turkey?
From WWII, there is a story. CNO Admiral King came out of a meeting with General Marshall and other Army guys:
"I don't know what this logistics Marshall keeps talking about is, but we might want to get some."
Walt
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google