Rumsfeld's strategy can be basically described as more cool toys like they have in those neato sci-fi movies.

Iraq is a perfect illustration of what happens when idiotic fantasies slam into reality. You don't need more cool gizmos. You need cops to bring order, engineers to repair power plants, managers to actually plan your occupation.

Rumsfeld is succeeding in rapidly weakening the US military despite spending billions more on it.

Plus, the people in the Pentagon hate him and all his cronies.

"My quick, subject-to-instant-revision first impression: Rumsfeld & Co. are focusing more on China than they are on Osama."

Good.

Shame that they didn't twig on that earlier before they f**ked all our diplomatic capital and the system of international law and custom that could have been used to reduce China's freedom of action during and after its rise to hegemonic status.

Serious question: if, God forbid, the US ever faces a situation where a draft is absolutely necessary, could draftees be trained rapidly enough to be inserted into the high-tech positions encompassed by Rumsfeld's "transformed" military?

The greatest threat to the GWOT, to the extent it exists, and the greatest threat to our national security is Donald Rumsfeld.

Second in line for greatest threat are his conservative lemming defenders who promote this incompetent as the "greatest Sec Def" ever.

How can we focus on China aren't we into them for close to 700 billion dollars. We would have to get a loan from Bejing before we could attack them.

I suspect that much of this situation is the result of pressure from those industries, politicians and their constituents that have a lot invested in "big" military procurement projects. I remember the hell Rumsfeld went through cancelling the Crusader howitzer. Almost every similar weapons system has powerful defenders in Congress.

We need to enlarge the number of troops in the military, although this implies "regime change" operations more than it does destroying an enemy's capacity to make war. Is that the direction we're going? Troops are for taking and holding ground. We didn't need a lot of troops for Bosnia.

We also need the kind of systems that can be used for basing operations, like aircraft carriers. There are other new systems that could be useful. But not all of them.

Working with NASA over the years, I know how it works. A project that will employ a lot of voters is going to impress Congress a lot more than something that doesn't. A project that requires massive new research and development does this. Something off-the-shelf does not.

There's a strong constituency for almost every dime that goes into the military-industrial complex. Look what happens when you try to close a base. In its present form, military spending is as much an employment program as anything else.

Liberal military analysts ought to be latching on to this big time.

Who? There aren't any who are worth a damn.

A sure sign that the DoD is not engaged on the issue of China would be the size of our Navy--it's currently too small and will not grow enough in the next few years to counter the growth of the Chinese Navy, which is rapidly expanding.

More money for whizbang fighter jets and expensive programs, less money to achieve the reality of giving our troops the right gear for the right job.

The recent cancellation of the Aerial Common Sensor is one area where the current DoD planning falls dramatically short of what is needed to provide the proper intel for the warfighter. ACS was designed to replace platforms that have been in use for far too long and cannot get the intel to the commanders on the ground fast enough. ACS was also designed to replace the propeller-powered aircraft--the Guardrail and the ARL--that have been laterally compromised by the gear seized by the Chinese when the EP-3 was taken in 2001.

Of course, the ACS grew out of the realization that we didn't have the right gear in 1991 during Gulf War I. Then, it became bloated, went of the rails, and was finally cancelled. So it shouldn't surprise anyone we're still trying to find gear that should have been in place fifteen years ago...

"Transformation" is still a project designed to make us better at fighting a conventional war against a conventional enemy"
I think your wrong here kevin, the "transformation" is designed to make us better at fighting ANY war, however it makes us incompetent when conducting an occupation, since i don't think we should be occupying anybody, it still makes sense to me.

morg, they'd probably give us the loan. After all, with Bush running things we'd probably invade Japan by mistake.

Went to a speaker who spend a lot of time on this issue - CRS person I think - and from what I can remember this China focus dovetails nicely with what he said. According to him, (and if I remember correctly) China is enemy the Pentagon wants. It is a known state which is easier to prepare for (and fight against if need be) as opposed to a fluid group(s) that change and are harder prepare for much less fight.

The full "Inside Defense" articles and excerpts seem to be behind a subcription wall, unfortunately.

tbrosz: In its present form, military spending is as much an employment program as anything else.

In its present form, military spending is a money laundering service that funnels taxpayer dollars to wealthy GOP contributors and ultimately to the GOP itself.

I heard that in order to combat the bird flu Bush has just ordered a pre-emptive strike on the Canary Islands!

In its present form, military spending is as much an employment program as anything else.

Oh no, something else that Tom and I agree on! My world view is melting....

I feel better now MJ I can get back to the Jerry Springer show now.

> the **propeller-powered aircraft **-

Propellers are not necessarily inferior to high-bypass turbofan jets. The P-3, based on the 1960 Lockheed Electra, has many points where it beats the 737-derivative that is going to replace it (and many where it does not, of course) in that mission. In fact I believe Lockheed proposed reopening the P-3 production line for that project, propellers and all.

Cranky

The emerging low-tech guerilla fighting is at least as olod as the American Revolution. What is unique to our times is the types of weapons, not the tactic.

Pale Rider: A sure sign that the DoD is not engaged on the issue of China would be the size of our Navy--it's currently too small and will not grow enough in the next few years to counter the growth of the Chinese Navy, which is rapidly expanding.

Any links or other info on this? I thought our Navy beat anything else around. Of course in an Asian conflict, we'd need our blue water navy while China could operate closer to home. We also have global requirements.

If China didn't exist, the Pentagon would have to invent one to justify their large pet projects.

And I do think it is possible to 'go to the right of Bush' on defense. Two things -
1. Propose that the National Guard be used exclusively for beefing up homeland security - to inspect ports, fly on planes, run airport security, etc.
2. Advocate that the military increase its special forces and use them more aggressively to hunt terrorists in 'friendly' countries like Pakistan, Syria, Indonesia, etc

Propellers are not necessarily inferior to high-bypass turbofan jets.

No, but the equipment that does the intel work on the Guardrail and the ARL is quite inferior right now, and then there's the issue of speed on the battlefield, manueverability, defense against SAMs and flight time.

Propeller driven aircraft are fine, I have no beef with them. They don't work anymore for aerial surveillance or recon. Many of our platforms are now based out of larger aircraft that can fly above most SAMs.

If there is truth to this theory, it would make a degree of sense - China is a growing economic and military power, with great access to resources (except oil), a massive supply of bodies for the military (more so with the one-child rule which has led to an excess of males) and a keen sense of wishing to restore its place as a dominant power.

So this is likely a confrontation to be prepared for in the future.

What Bushco has done is doing everything they can to give the edge to China, so that they may be the world's superpower (barring nuclear war) by 2030 rather than 2055. We have squandered our military resources, our economy is in hock to them, and no longer are a country with the moral authority to buttress other lessened reasons for China's neighbors to ally with us.

I have often wondered whether Bin Laden/Al Quaida might have China's support, including shelter now. He has done wonders to distract the US. make us less a threat to China in the future, and turn many of China's neighbors against us.

If this is what Rumsfeld is thinking, he's absolutely right. Failed states, terrorists, etc are not very important. They're not a serious threat to the US. China could be, in a decade or two, if it so decides.

Of course, this means that the whole idea of blowing a few huncred billion on Iraq was ludicrous, but most people know that by now.

It seems to me that the American people want too many contradictory things:
1) A big muscular Army that can take on any other in the world face-to-face and win, up to and including China.
2) Lots of flexible, resourceful special forces that can go anywhere and do anything, Rambo style
3) Logistics and transport capacity to support the above
4) Spare logistics and transport capacity to take on any humanitarian mission that might arise while 1 and 2 are fully occupied
5) Shiny toys for airshows and PC wallpaper

and the do NOT want
6) taxes to pay for it
7) a Harry Truman to actually do something about war profiteers (K Street Project involved there probably)

I can't see that actually being Rumsfeld's fault. And if you have (1), the big Army, you can fake the rest, so the person at the top really can't let the big ticket/big battalions go.

Cranky

Cranky Observer: Propellers are not necessarily inferior to high-bypass turbofan jets.

Where's Michele when you need him.

I'm curious, why have turbofans replaced turboprops then? While I'm at it, why did it take so long for turbofans to replace turbojets? What was the tech problem (basic physics of it is ancient).

"This has long struck me as a serious weak point in George Bush's approach to the military,"

Unlike body armor and clean water -- which are strong suits of W's.

alex,

Here you go:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

Here's a snippet of that report:

Submarines. China’s submarine modernization effort has attracted substantial attention and concern.18 The effort currently involves the simultaneous acquisition of at least five classes of submarines, making it, in terms of number of
designs involved, one of the more ambitious submarine-acquisition efforts on record
by any country. China is taking delivery on eight Russian-made Kilo-class nonnuclear-
powered attack submarines (SSs) that are in addition to four Kilos that China
purchased from Russia in the 1990s,19 and is building four other classes of
submarines, including the following:

--a new nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) design
called the Type 094;
--a new nuclear powered attack submarine (SSN) design called the
Shang class or Type 093;
--a new SS design called the Yuan class or Type 041; and
--another (and also fairly new) SS design called the Song class or
Type 039/039G.

These five classes of submarines are expected to be much more modern and capable than China’s aging older-generation submarines.
----

US Navy: 278 ships in the battle force

Aircraft Carriers 12
Ballistic Missile Submarines 14
Guided Missile Submarines 4
Surface Combatants 91
Nuclear Attack Submarines 53
Amphibious Warfare Ships 35
Combat Logistics Ships 29
Support/Mine Warfare Ships 25
Active Reserves 15
Strategic Sealift 72
Other 1

Good policy, yes. But good politics? A can see people's eyes glazing over already. Sounds like terrible politics to me.

First of all, when all you have (or know how to build) is a hammer, you're going to go looking for nails.

Secondly, there may be no military solution to the threat of terrorists. Nah, let me change that. There IS no military solution.

The problem is not that we don't have enough guns. The problem is...well, I'm not sure what the problem is, but killing the people we ahve defined as terrorists in Iraq doesn't seem to be reducing their numbers, does it?

So if we didn't want the oil that lies under the ground that a large numbers of Muslims live on, would terrorism be a problem, or as much of a potential problem as it is? Clearly, not.

So where's the military solution, other than attempted intimidation (as we're doing in Iraq), or wiping out the entire Muslim world with nuclear weapons? The first isn't working (due, I think, to incompetence), and the second won't work at all (radioactive oil kinda sucks).

So again, no military solution. The military threat is from China, if it's from anywhere.

What's interesting to me about China is the fact that they are doing everything they can to be energy independent. Could that be due to the fact that they don't have oilmen running their country, and can actually make intelligent long-term decisions about what oil dependence causes?

> hy have turbofans replaced turboprops then?

Turboprops are more efficient at low(er) altitudes and for up-and-down (in fact, gasoline powered radial engines driving propellers are the most efficient for very low level up-and-down). Turbofans are more efficient at high altitudes, particularly for steady-state cruise (LA-NYC). Having a turbofan do short-range up-and-down (e.g. the 50 seat regional jets) burns a LOT of fuel.

The other factor is that the jet marketeers did their job too well in the 1960s; passengers flat out don't like or trust anything with a propeller and actually avoid such aircraft.

> While I'm at it, why did it take so long for
> turbofans to replace turbojets? What was the
> tech problem (basic physics of it is ancient).

Materials science. Turbojets are horribly inefficient, but the metallurgy was not there to build the large 1st and 2nd stage fan blades (the 1st stage is the one you see at the front of the engine). Every advance in jet size since the C-5/747 has been due to fan blade metallurgy.

Cranky

morg: How can we focus on China aren't we into them for close to 700 billion dollars. We would have to get a loan from Bejing before we could attack them.

hopeless pedant: What Bushco has done is doing everything they can to give the edge to China, so that they may be the world's superpower (barring nuclear war) by 2030 rather than 2055. We have squandered our military resources, our economy is in hock to them, and no longer are a country with the moral authority to buttress other lessened reasons for China's neighbors to ally with us.

This is one of the bizarre contradictions of the current regime. One hand wants to prepare for a possible war with China, and the other hand wants to give them the money and technology to wage it. I think the buzzword for this dual approach is "lanes", which seems like a strange way to spell schizophrenia.

How can we focus on China aren't we into them for close to 700 billion dollars. We would have to get a loan from Bejing before we could attack them.

How can we focus on China aren't we into them for close to 700 billion dollars. We would have to get a loan from Bejing before we could attack them.

This is all part of our cunning plan. First, we borrow more money than exists in the universe. Then, we default! Bingo, China is broke! Fantastic plan.

Of course, the Chinese may have some US Senators working on a bankruptcy bill that means we'll be slaves to China forever, but hey, that's lobbying for you, eh?

craigie: This is all part of our cunning plan. First, we borrow more money than exists in the universe. Then, we default! Bingo, China is broke! Fantastic plan.

You say it as a joke, but there are True Believers (eg rdw) that seriously believe this is a good plan. Even aside from the military aspects, our trade with China and the rest of the world is economic suicide. I miss the days when the GOP believed in economic responsibility.

I miss the days when the GOP believed in economic responsibility.

Economic responsibility doesn't win elections.

Cranky Observer: Materials science. Turbojets are horribly inefficient, but the metallurgy was not there to build the large 1st and 2nd stage fan blades

Thanks, I've wondered about that for a while. Do you work in aerospace?

But criticizing the QDR as hostage to moldy old Cold War thinking while doing too little to address the modern threat of terrorism is both good policy and good politics

Only if credibly done.

Get Wesley Clark in charge of a crew to give it a good going over. Follow Clark's lead. Anything less is just politics and losing politics at that.

The other factor is that the jet marketeers did their job too well in the 1960s; passengers flat out don't like or trust anything with a propeller and actually avoid such aircraft.

You'd have to throw vibration in there as a big deficit on props. Says me who flew one for 10+ years. Anybody seen a tooth filling?

China needs energy outside their land, and they want Taiwan, and if you read translations of their military journals you'll know who they see as a their chief protagonist going into the future.

Excellent synopisis of China writings...
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2000_2003/pdfs/strat.pdf

And a whole pile of stuff...
http://www.comw.org/cmp/index.html

Pale Rider,

Interesting about China's sub program. I'd heard of it but didn't know it was so big.

BTW, a while back there was a navy guy at sftt.org arguing that in some circumstances modern non-nuclear subs (eg Stirling cycle) actually beat our nukes. Apparently they're smaller (important for coastal work?) and quieter. He mentioned that in several fleet exercises they not only defeated our ASW to take out surface ships, but sometimes took out our nuclear attack subs. They can be built for a fraction the price of nukes.

Another point we are rapidly deindustrializing. Just yesterday Ford annouced job cuts of 30000. We are also losing our skill base. Soon no one will remember how to build the stuff.

1. Propose that the National Guard be used exclusively for beefing up homeland security - to inspect ports, fly on planes, run airport security, etc.
2. Advocate that the military increase its special forces and use them more aggressively to hunt terrorists in 'friendly' countries like Pakistan, Syria, Indonesia, etc Posted by: tinfoil on January 24, 2006 at 3:16 PM

I whole-heartedly agree with number 1 there.

The National Guard should never leave American soil.

However, I'm not so sure about item number 2. There's the temptation to use those forces for other purposes as well.

Since the US has a long sorted history of backing local strongmen around the world (Saddam Hussain, for example), I can easly see your second point being abused by having these Special Forces go after groups who simply wish to through off the yoke of the US friendly despot. I mean, every tin-plated dictator would be happy to report his opponents as "terrorists" (and they typically do), especially if he could get the US military to hunt them down and defeat them for him.

morg: Another point we are rapidly deindustrializing. Just yesterday Ford annouced job cuts of 30000. We are also losing our skill base. Soon no one will remember how to build the stuff.

Oh come on morg, this is a new economic era! Haven't you heard about "dark matter"? China and the rest of the world will happily give us stuff forever, there's no need to sell them anything in return.

BTW, if this subject interests you see

http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/setser/

for a serious dose of common sense.

I can't believe I'm writing this. tbrosz is spot on in this issue. The military industrial complex is driving most of the defense decisions. Little or nothing is being driven by a legitimate estimate of what this country needs for protection.

Terrorism is a perfect example. You don't need more battle cruisers. You need good police capabilities, and a lot of allies who can help you out. (And yes, we aren't doing well in either way right now...)

And the China deal is stunning. On one hand the administration is planning a war with this power, and on the other they've put us directly in hock to it. Quite simply - if China were threatened military, they could turnaround and dump $700 billion dollars on the world market and watch the US economy collapse.

If the Chinese figure out a way to protect their own economy to some extent from any blow-back from doing this, then they can blackmail the US whenever they want.

Simply put - a bankrupt empire cannot last for long. It's beyond stupid to borrow recklessly and pour money into a military.

Your right Alex as charter members of "The New World Order" version 3.0 bathing in the warm glow of globalism we shouldn't even need or want a military. And yes dark matter is great. Angry Bear has alot of good posts on it.

Simply put - a bankrupt empire cannot last for long.

But it's ok. Because once the US has been reduced to a hollow shell, and history has moved on, we will take comfort in knowing that all of this will be blamed on the liberals, who controlled nothing and decided nothing. I'm ashamed already.

This is such a serious conversation, and it is clear that some people on this thread know a lot about this topic.

So I'll just observe that personally, I am more frightened by the prospect of a military stand-off against a Communist China with one billion citizens, a portfolio of our IOUs, and oil-independence than I am by the prospect of an Iran with nuclear capacity. Terrorists are scary, especially terrorists with nuclear capacity, but if we just did the opposite of everything GWB proposes, we could defuse that threat.

Of course doing the opposite of everything Bushco proposes might defuse the Chinese threat as well. Why would the Chinese want to go head-to-head in a war when they can own us lock, stock and barrel? Why go to war?

It's as if the much-lauded Reagan strategy of bankrupting the USSR is being applied against us.

I wish I had been born is Sweden or Botswana, so I would not have to worry about being King Kong with a hydrogen bomb and how to remain in that state of being forever.

Cue the Kinks...

I'm King Kong and I'm ten feet long,
Got a big six gun and everybody is scared.
I'm King Kong, got a hydrogen bomb,
I can blow up your houses so you better beware.

No,no, no, the future economy is a service economy!

Bushco is preparing us to ask, "Do you want Freedom Fries&trade with that?"

"Liberal military analysts"

LOL! An oxymoron if there ever was one!

Ummmm, Kevin, the QDR is part of the backlash from the military against Rumsfuck and friends. In case you haven't caught it yet, the Army positively HATES him, and they are throwing every barrier possible in his way to keep him from fucking things up too much.

Don't believe me? Take a look at NSPS- the new personnel system which was supposed to take effect starting this year (And boy, is it a darling of Rumsfeld's). Last word we got, the whole system is 'temporarily' delayed (Just like implementation has been 'delayed' for the past few years. It was originally supposed to go into effect in '02, if I remember correctly). Watch for that temporary delay to magically turn into a permanent one on Jan. 20, 2009, unless Rumsfeld disappears sooner.

The military isn't taking his shit laying down. They are using every tool possible to delay his 'improvements' until he can be removed, and sensible decisions can again be made.

"How can we focus on China aren't we into them for close to 700 billion dollars. We would have to get a loan from Bejing before we could attack them."

It's a strategic system to create an anti-ballistic missile defense. As long as we're in hock to them, China can't use its nukes on us 'cos it'd lose the principal on its loans. We run a deficit, to finance it we have to sell foreigners US assets. That means those foreign owned assets are now in US soil, under our control.

Ha ha! And you thought those huge deficits were 'cos of GOP mismanagement, when in fact they were part of dear leaders visionary defense strategy to protect the US.

I propose we rename the national debt to "The Ronald Reagan Strategic Defense Debt Reserve".

"Chickenhawks bawkkkkk hiding behind their keyboards bawk bawkkkkkk"

"A sure sign that the DoD is not engaged on the issue of China would be the size of our Navy--it's currently too small and will not grow enough in the next few years to counter the growth of the Chinese Navy, which is rapidly expanding."

China has a navy? Do you know what you are talking about? If there was ever a topic liberals are totally clueless on, it's the military.

> I wish I had been born is Sweden or Botswana, so I
> would not have to worry about being King Kong
> with a hydrogen bomb and how to remain in that
> state of being forever.

Funny you pick Sweden: they are one of the nations that have built nuclear technology from scratch and have their own nuclear fuel cycle, so they are on the list of nations that could if they wished develop a nuclear explosive (if not a weapon) in fairly short order. Others on the list: Canada, Japan, Germany, South Korea.

Cranky

There is no WAR ON TERROR. It is only a police action. The Republic and our way of life are not threatened by Terrorists. It is only threatened by those cowardly idiots (they aren't all Republicans) that would give away our freedom for the illusion of security.

Rumsfeld is right. A war with China would threaten us big time.

Years ago I graded a weeklong littoral waters multi-country exercise that included both diesel and nuclear-powered attack subs. Diesels gave the nukes hell. Loss rate tradeoff was about 2 nukes per diesel. With diesels at $200M (in those days) and nukes at $800M, investment in diesels was definitely worthwhile for that battle scenario. Of course, the results were played down big time and a short time afterward a "reanalysis" was done that "proved" the nukes actuall won. After all, no one wanted to go back to buying diesels.

Freedom Fighter has spoken. China has no navy. And a great fighter like him would know.

Question for the miltech geeks: What is a "Stirling cycle" sub? Is that powered by a Stirling engine? I remember vaguely Popular Mechanics talk of it during the 70s energy crises. Don't know how it works, but it can allegedly burn anything. Anybody got a thumbnail on it or a link, I'd be obliged.

Kevin:

> I hear a lot of bloviating about "running to Bush's
> right" on terrorism, most of which is little short
> of idiotic (what are we going to do, start screaming
> that he's not invading Iran fast enough?).

Thank you. Americanist, are you listening?

tbrosz:

> There's a strong constituency for almost every dime that goes
> into the military-industrial complex. Look what happens when
> you try to close a base. In its present form, military spending
> is as much an employment program as anything else.

Hey, they don't call it Sunbelt Bolshevism fer nuthin' :)

And funnily enough -- military base culture is most entrenched in
the reddest of red states. So much for small government ideology.

Urinated:

> I propose we rename the national debt to "The
> Ronald Reagan Strategic Defense Debt Reserve".

ROTFL ! How about just Strategic Debt? :)

Bob

rmck1: What is a "Stirling cycle" sub? Is that powered by a Stirling engine?

Yup. The Swedes have 'em. See

http://www.stirlingengines.org.uk/manufact/manf/misc/subm.html

China is no military threat.. even with the addition of the Kilo subs (which replaced their subs from the 1950s), our military is far superior to anything they can field. Compared to our military spending, as a percentage of our budget, they spend far less. By the time China has developed a credible military and is able to threaten against us (in 10 years), quite possibly China will become democratized. As it stands now, China has basically a free market, and it stands to reason that their citizens will demand more rights as their middle class grows. Once again, Rumsfeld is probably 100% wrong.

Stirling cycle is an external combustion engine, so you burn whatever (bra, if member of NOW) and the engine uses the heat (hot air emanating from DC) in a clever way to turn the shaft.

They burn (while underwater) liquid oxygen and diesel. They dissolve the exhaust in seawater to get rid of it. Thermal energy systems are far more efficient than battery systems as far as space goes. And they can stay under for weeks.

Funny, Bill Clinton suggested exactly the same topic for conversation during the Dem primaries and none of the candidates followed his advice.

Andy: By the time China has developed a credible military and is able to threaten against us (in 10 years), quite possibly China will become democratized.

That would be nice, but I wouldn't bet the farm on wishful thinking.

As it stands now, China has basically a free market

It does? That Chinese widget you bought yesterday may well have been made in a factory owned by the PLA. Is the PBoC spending 15%/GDP on currency manipulation part of a free market?

it stands to reason that their citizens will demand more rights as their middle class grows

The USSR had a strong middle class for years. Not up to Western standards, but a hell of a lot better off than Chinese peasants. How well did that theory work for them?

The military (unlike their ideologue civilian bosses) is more interested in winning our nations wars, not skirmishing with a bunch of Jihadi nut-jobs. The bread and butter of warfighting is boots on the ground, tonnage in the sea, and wings in the air.

The "war" on terror isn't a war at all, its a police effort, and that rubs Military grunts the wrong way. They understand what needs to be done in order to stabilize Iraq, but they are feeling increasingly frustrated because the out-of-touch political leadership has put them up to an impossible task; insufficient/diminishing troop strength (read: November reductions) and diminishing public support.

Morale is already on its way down, because the thing that military Grunts identify with is toughing it out, doing the job that everyone else is scared to do, and completing the mission. The Administration has done a brilliant job of publicly "supporting the troops" yet in reality, set them up to fail. Grunts know this, and the Brass does too. Bush says he give the troops "everything they ask for," but that’s utter bull sh*t.

Rumsfield has the brass by the balls because he makes every general report to him before he/she gets promoted. This was criticized when he first took the Secretariat because it would politicize the military. After Schinseki was sacked the Brass got the message. Rumsfield's been running roughshod over the dead soldiers ever since.

As a former soldier, I find it the height of arrogance, that the men who lead this nation to "war" are a bunch of coddled ideologues who have no idea what it means to sacrifice for the greater good with a true and honorable heart. These are the same people who wear purple-heart band-aids and claim "other priorities" when their name is on the draft list. Their claims of honoring the ultimate sacrifice are as hollow as the "last throes" and "dead enders."

Every four years, the military is supposed to take stock of the way things are going. I hope that Congress, a la John Murtha, supports our troops when they say how much the Bush Administration has f*cked up the Armed services.

Tbroz and others are right - the QDR has less to do with what really needs to be done than what plans and programs are already in the works or have already been sold to the senior brass and top civilian leadership.

When I get together with former and retired officers I served with who are in the DoD contracting game the conversation inevitably turns to which "threat scenarios" and "economic benefits" need to be identified and emphasized in order to generate support for their products. Threat scenarios are pushed to military planners, economic benefits are pushed to Congress and it staffers.

Once a product is "in," the threat and economics rationales are spun and respun as needed to keep the product on the acquisition track. The product may be modified and remodified with each change in threat scenario or defense emphasis.

Once a product achieves "go" momentum, it is easier to add new features and capabilities in response to changes in threats and needs than it is to start over with a new product. Each new feature or capability increases the price, makes the product more and more like a bigger and bigger swiss army knife and makes it harder for competing single purpose products to get added to the purchasing stream.

But, until the thing has to actually get used in combat, everyone is happy: Congress members get federal dollars and jobs for their districts, contractors get sales and profits, military gets whiz-bang toys to play with.

China has a navy? Do you know what you are talking about?

Yes, they do. And yes, I do.

Alex:

It's not wishful thinking - we can kick China's ass in the forseeable future. We don't need to ratchet up our military spending significantly to be able to handle the "Chinese threat." We still need to keep an eye on them, but the idea that China is the new bogeyman a la the USSR is ridiculous. For one thing, they have a significant interest in not upsetting the status quo because they're such a large trading partner.
That Chinese widget may be made by the PLA, but if that widget is defective, then WalMart will no longer use their services, and find another PLA company to manufacture them, until only the very best PLA company survives. That's free markets. Besides, if the PLA is involved in so much manufacturing, (which is less and less the case), then they're diverting all their resources towards making widgets, and not making their army better, which again supports my idea.

If you consider the PBoC spending 15%/GDP on currency manipulation not free markets, then neither is the Bank of Japan, or the US Feds setting interest rates. China is less free than most Western countries, but they do "basically" (that's the word I used) have defact free markets, government intervention notwithstanding (which happens in democracries too).

No, the USSR didn't have a middle class, not in the sense that the US and China do now. It's true that China also has a large peasant class, but their middle class is "growing," and it does stand to reason that they will demand more rights. Look at Taiwan, S. Korean, and Hong Kong as examples.

Since my knowledge of military afairs is mostly related to aircraft so most of what I'm going to say will be confined to that area.

The good: Extending F-22 production out to 2010. Even though many deride it as an over expensive fighter designed to duel with Soviet fighters, out of all of the future aircraft we're looking to buy it's actually the most adaptable to the GWOT (god I hate using that term). It's stealthy enough to defeat the ultra advanced SAMs that would eviscerate our current planes (and are being sold dirt cheap by the Russians and the Chinese). More importantly it can be loaded to the gills with Small Diameter Bombs and perform air support missions for special forces in even heavily defended environments (similar to what B-52s did in the undefended air space over Afganistan).

The bad: cutting the J-UCAS (Joint Unmanned Combat Aircraft system) the C-17 while upping the number of F-35 Joint strike fighters. Even though the F-35 has a newer pedigree than the F-22 it's alot more of a throwback to an older generation of aircraft than the F-22. It is essentially a stealthy F-16 with a better autopilot. Its not as fast or stealthy as the F-22 (which means it can't avoid high powered SAMs as easily or get help to troops in need as fast) and it doesn't have the range of the F-22 (which means we'd have to rely on more tin pot dictators for basing rights). The JSF's job could be done much better and much cheaper by a combination of J-UCAS's (which just got cancelled) and new build F-16s or F/A-18s. The C-17 cuts were just stupid we're short on cargo aircraft as it is why would we want to cut thier numbers now?

I have to agree with Alex. It's just wishful thinking that China will become more democratic simply because they have a larger or more wealthy middle class.

I mean we've got plenty of Americans who would gladly give up their rights and their much better off than the vast majority of Chinese.

Rumsfeld's transformation project goes forward, current needs be damned. It will take many years to know if his big bet will pay off. This is not about the usual military industrial complex, although that is of course a part of it. It is an attempt to guess the capabilities of the next opponent. SOF are being expanded while heavy divisions are being axed. You will not find "peacekeeping troops" anywhere, although that is what we would like to have now. Rumsfeld was very telling with his statement about going to war with the army you have. He is trying to make sure we have the "right" army for the next war, not the last one. Only time will tell if he was right.

"Yes, they do. And yes, I do."

Did you list that link to prove my point? Japan had a more potent Navy in WWII. Having a liberal talking about military issues is akin to a Republican talking about post modern reductionist theories, a Moslem talking about democracy, or Affirmative Action candidate talking about engineering.

"Liberal Military Analysts?" What's the point of that? I should think one would want "best military analysts."

Do you want "liberal firefighters" if your house burns? Or maybe a "liberal plumber" if your plumbing leaks?

While it's true that things military are an extension of politics, once the shooting starts you want gunfighters, not policy wonks. And then the real question is "which assets can be a subset of the other?" Meaning this: Which is the biggest threat, and can the assets required for that be used on the lesser threat?

I should think that if we were to gear up for China, we would have enough (broadly stated) for the terror war. The reverse is probably not true.

I vote for China too, although at this point in Bush's tenure the pooch is already economically, diplomatically, and maybe even militarily screwed.

But criticizing the QDR as hostage to moldy old Cold War thinking while doing too little to address the modern threat of terrorism is both good policy and good politics. Liberal military analysts ought to be latching on to this big time.

Speaking of Cold War thinking, did you notice that Mao isn't around any more? China now is more of a military threat than ever before. As John Kerry noted, terrorism is a low-level but persistent threat like organized crime (or did you forget that?) The DoD needs to be prepared mostly for large-scale threats like the emerging maritime and air power of China. Unless, possibly, you think it ought to be re-organized to serve humanitarian missions like the relief of Darfur and the liberation of Tibet.

Gomez Addams, you would be wrong. Any war with China is likely to come down to stopping them crossing the Taiwan straits, which will come down to submarines, ships, and aircraft - and the more of them, and the more sophisticated, the better.

Dealing with failed states requires army personnel, mainly equipped with light weapons, and probably more importantly equipped with the skills to make allies of the locals.

...it can be loaded to the gills with Small Diameter Bombs and perform air support missions for special forces in even heavily defended environments (similar to what B-52s did in the undefended air space over Afganistan).

Good for weddings and all other family events.

War Pigs! Americans are fucking War Pigs!

Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh lord, yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.

Time will tell on their power minds,
making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
wait till their judgement day comes, yeah.

Now in darkness world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, God is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh lord, yeah!

Andy: It's not wishful thinking - we can kick China's ass in the forseeable future.

The wishful thinking part is that increased prosperity will necessarily lead to democracy in 10 years.

That Chinese widget may be made by the PLA, but if that widget is defective, then WalMart will no longer use their services, and find another PLA company to manufacture them, until only the very best PLA company survives. That's free markets.

Only the best SoE's will survive? That's an interesting definition of free market.

But if you really want to stretch "free" market, let's talk labor.

Besides, if the PLA is involved in so much manufacturing ... then they're diverting all their resources towards making widgets, and not making their army better

Or using the profits (and technology) to make the army better.

If you consider the PBoC spending 15%/GDP on currency manipulation not free markets, then neither is the Bank of Japan

No they're not, but the BoJ never spent anywhere near that much GDP on currency manipulation. They also stopped building their reserve almost a year ago.

or the US Feds setting interest rates

Setting interest rates is not currency manipulation. Although it can have side effects on exchange rates, its primary purpose is to heat up or cool down the domestic economy in an even handed way.

No, the USSR didn't have a middle class

They certainly did according to the Russian expats I know. For instance an engineer could have an apartment, food on the table, good schools for his kids, free college education, TV set, the occasional vacation in Crimea, and maybe even a car. Again, not up to Western standards of housing or food, silly shortages and long lines, crappy car, etc., but hardly poor.

it does stand to reason that they will demand more rights. Look at Taiwan, S. Korean, and Hong Kong as examples.

Taiwan started towards democracy shortly after Chiang's death. Chinese progress since Mao's death has been far less impressive. S. Korea has been back and forth between autocracy and democracy ever since 1945. China has been far more consistent. Hong Kong was a British colony until they became a special economic zone. In short none of your examples are good analogies.

Still, I would love it if China moved towards democracy. It could happen, but it's far from an historical inevitability. Not good enough to bet the farm on.

Samuel Knight wrote: The military industrial complex is driving most of the defense decisions.

It's the military-industrial-petroleum complex now.

It's the military-industrial-petroleum complex now.

We need oil to fight wars. We fight wars for oil so we can fight more wars!

It is kind of like an old anti-cocaine commercial: work more to afford more coke in order to work more. Unfortunately, oil execs and butt fucking generals do not die of heart attacks when they turn fifty (like the TV and studio execs of the Eighties did).

Allow me to throw some cold water on all this (and some red meat to SecularAnimist):

If (when?) a billion chinese people get what they really want, which is a first world, Western lifestyle, we're all fucked.

There just aren't the resources for another 2 billion cars and 1 billion refrigerators, not to mention the water and topsoil and other waste from all those new cattle...

If you want to save the world, start there.

I hear a lot of bloviating about "running to Bush's right" on terrorism, most of which is little short of idiotic (what are we going to do, start screaming that he's not invading Iran fast enough?).

You know, Kevin, this a mighty strange argument for someone like you who seemed to think that the Iraq war was a good idea for an awfully long time.

In fact, Iran was always the greater real threat in terms of its nuclear potential, and connections to terrorism. Most people realized this full well even before the Iraq war, which made them seriously question the wisdom of any war against Iraq.

You might ask yourself just what sort of principles would have made it legitimate to attack Iraq, which you supported until the very end, but make it "idiotic" to think of doing the like with Iran. I'd especially like to see some account for why you think Iraq, for which there was NO evidence it was pursuing nuclear weapons, is, in your mind, a greater threat than Iran.

And, yes, it's NOT hard to "go to the right" of Bush on Iran, because Bush has tied up our military in the woolly, foolish, softheaded goal of "spreading democracy". He can't push even the threat of invasion of Iran because he doesn't have the army to do it, and because his good friends, the Shiites in Iraq, won't let him do it. But why should Americans fundamentally care more about the interests of the Shiites than about whether Iran has nuclear weapons?

The basic fact is that Bush can't invade Iran, or even threaten to, for all kinds of compelling political reasons. He has backed himself into a corner with his adventure in Iraq, and his post hoc "justification" for it, the brainless "spreading democracy" thing.

If Democrats advocate that we drop the idea that "spreading democracy" is something our military should be doing, then the military can revert to doing what it does do remarkably well, presenting a credible threat to a country like Iran which has announced its nuclear ambitions loud and clear.

It would be awfully nice Kevin, if you'd try for some consistency here, but I'm not exactly expecting it.

craigie: If (when?) a billion chinese people get what they really want, which is a first world, Western lifestyle, we're all fucked.

It's 1.3B, and you're forgetting the 1B in India.

There just aren't the resources for another 2 billion cars and 1 billion refrigerators, not to mention the water and topsoil and other waste from all those new cattle...

It's a challenge, but defeatism will get you nowhere. Remember the millions that were supposed to die in the 1960's from starvation? Thankfully the Green Revolution kept them fed.

Instead of generalities about not enough resources, you have to look at specific problems. Global climate change is a biggie - gotta cut CO2 by 40-70%. Oil is running out. But iron? We've got loads. Cow shit is more a local problem than a global one. You might be right about cars, but I doubt that refigerators are an insurmountable problem.

One other point.

Nothing could be more simple minded than to imagine that Bush is going to "hold off" from being aggressive toward Iran if only Democrats don't advocate for it.

Bush will, almost for a certainty, do the most aggressive thing he CAN do, given the political realities of his current situation. If he feels he can pull off an invasion of Iran, or a credible threat thereof, that is what he will do.

The only open question is whether Democrats will look as if they are leading the way, or as if they havebeen dragged kicking and screaming into whatever aggression Bush has in store.

In fact, Democrats will do themselves great service by taking a principled stand, wholly consistent with their votes for the Iraq resolution, which was to pose a credible threat to Iraq, and advocate that we attempt to do the same toward Iran.

If we are unable to do so for an extended period of time, then they should quite rightly blame Bush for his foolish adventure in Iraq, his bungling thereof, and his phony post hoc justification of "spreading democracy".

The

If Democrats didn't learn that flogging the GOP for not "getting" Osama wasn't a credible grand strategy in the so-called war on terror in 2004, perhaps they'll learn that lesson in 2006.

For the American people, the prospect of being blown up in one's place of work is not (like the Cold War) a threat to be managed and contained, but radically diminished; that is why they sided with Mr. Bush in the last presidential election, and with the Republicans in 2002.

The GOP's hopeful message of liberty and democracy in the Arab-Muslim world was an electoral winner, whether or not it is strategicaly successful. But if the war in Iraq becomes a full fledged civil war, and the prospect of regional democracy fades, Democrats are foolish to believe that the American people will be willing to embrace their "real war on terror."

As the great military historian Martin Van Creveld (whose work is required reading for our brass) pointed out, failure in Iraq has the potential to do to America what failure in Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union, which is say lead to a general crisis of the state. In a worst case scenario, America may not exist in its current form twenty years from now; no one should discount that possibility. Regardless, there will be no return to normal.

Just to remind all: Freedom Fighter is the guy who was exposed here a few months back impersonating a soldier in Iraq in his posts. In reality, by his own admission, he is a teenager who still lives at home. Seriously. So take his comments with a grain of salt. Uh, actually check that: Take them with a freaking salt mine.

Don't be defeatist, just help me push over this first domino.

The Blue Nomad: As the great military historian Martin Van Creveld (whose work is required reading for our brass) pointed out, failure in Iraq has the potential to do to America what failure in Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union, which is say lead to a general crisis of the state. In a worst case scenario, America may not exist in its current form twenty years from now; no one should discount that possibility.

Sounds like what some folks said about Vietnam, but the USA is still here. It is however unfortunate that the so-called Powell doctrine was ignored so quickly.

Afghanistan was another nail in the coffin for the USSR, but hardly the reason it fell.

And another point.

If Democrats "go to the right of" Bush on Iran, and advocate that we attempt to pose a credible threat to Iran, and invade if necessary, then it is ONLY because Bush himself has changed his underlying rationale, NOT because the Democrats have changed (at least those who voted for the Iraq war resolution).

Democrats would remain perfectly consistent in their underlying foreign policy: pose credible threats to unfriendly countries with nuclear ambitions whenever feasible. All that is necessary is for these Democrats to stick to their guns.

That Bush can't pose such a threat, or at least not for a very long time, is entirely due to his own politically expedient change of rationales for going into Iraq. He's really being hoist on his own petard here, because he must now deliver on the "democracy" spin he has been so loudly promoting for years now with regard to Iraq.

We all knew that it was simply a rationalization; and, simply by being consistent themselves to their underlying principles, Democrats can both look more aggressive in the pursuit of American national security than Bush, and expose the phoniness of his current excuse for invading Iraq.

Sorry Blue Nomad, there was no "hopeful message" from the GOP, only fear-mongering and lies. See, if Americans really understood that the real threat from terrorism is smaller than the threat from automobiles then there would be no "War On Terror." But thanks to non-stop propaganda from Republicans, a sensationalist media, and Democrats too cowed by the first two, Americans don't know that one small fact. Okay, some Democrats are too stupid to know that fact either, but they should be removed from office with the Republicans who are either lying or stupid when they tell us otherwise.

Let us consider the differences between the USSR and the Taliban - each at the height of their power.

USSR: massive army
Taliban: ragtag bunch of misfits hiding in the desert

USSR: nuclear warheads on intercontinental ballistic missile
Taliban: no nuclear weapons at all

USSR: client states all over the world
Taliban: controls one minor nation

USSR: Nuclear weapons deterred by Mutually Assured Destruction
Taliban: Still no nuclear weapons.

Remember too, the Taliban was the height of the organized Al Queda movement. One lucky strike does not a threat to our existence make.

But you seem to be suggesting that Rummy has a pre 9/11 mindset... How could that be allowed?

Bulletin: Mao is dead.

As I recall, in the last presidential campaign, John Kerry said that he would enlarge the Army by adding two more divisions and ramping up the number of Special Forces personnel.

The main military threat the Chinese currently pose is their ability to use local superiority in numbers for limited ends. I would not want to be commanding the US naval forces in the Taiwan Strait should the Chinese decide to forcibly bring Taiwan back into the fold. The other frightening aspect of China's military is that the current regime may convince itself that a "Splendid Little War" might unite an otherwise discontented and disclocated population.

Heavy Where have you come from ? A sensible assessment of the relative importance of terrorism : friggin' amazing.
If less was spun about bogus "War on Terror", "War on Drugs","Danger of Illegal Immigration" and the rest of the crap that is being thrown around, observers might think someone in power was capable of critical analysis instead of being solely concerned with serving domestic audiences "Spin of the Week".

Charles wrote this: What's interesting to me about China is the fact that they are doing everything they can to be energy independent. Could that be due to the fact that they don't have oilmen running their country, and can actually make intelligent long-term decisions about what oil dependence causes?

China imports more energy year-by-year. The US is making small steps toward energy independence, though those steps are thwarted somewhat by opponents of the Bush administration.

Red State Mike: They burn (while underwater) liquid oxygen and diesel. They dissolve the exhaust in seawater to get rid of it.

Are you sure of the second part? CO2 does not dissolve well in water (better under pressure and cold, but still not so good), and exporting CO2 to water sounds "loud".

Freedom fighter: Japan had a more potent Navy in WWII.

That needs qualification. Japan had a more potent Pacific Fleet at the start of the war than the US had. The US had greater capacity to construct new ships and aircraft and to train new men, and by mid 1942 already had a more powerful navy.

China's huge manpower base and expanding industrial capacity make it a serious threat in the near future. If a war were to be fought 20 years hence, it would be fought with weapons not yet built. Whoever can build them faster and train more men to use them well has the advantage.

If (when?) a billion chinese people get what they really want, which is a first world, Western lifestyle, we're all fucked.
.....
If you want to save the world, start there.

Posted by: craigie on January 24, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

So what's your solution? Genocide or permanent economic slavery. Gee, I'm glad China's a security council member and a nuclear power.

China is definitely arming up. Its economy is growing 10% per year so its defense budget grows at least that fast.

But its optimized for a move on Taiwan and nearby countries - nothing else. Without carriers, it needs to stay within range of its land based air to do much.

There's a question on how long it can develop without assuming some characteristics of a modern society.... However it doesn't mean that it might not end up like France. Modern, democratic but a rival to the US anyway.

Note its economy just passed France. When you have 25 times more people - that helps.

Alex:

My definition of "middle class" means a class possessing skilled labor, which historically arose from the guilds in the middle ages, and not strictly possessing a certain level of material wealth. This is different from the Soviet Union, as I understood it, where a factory worker made basically the same as an engineer. In that sense, using your definition, 99% of the USSR was middle class, because they all had the same salary.

The Feds setting interest rates is intervention - they are trying to manipulate the economy to achieve certain things - which is the same rationale as China. However, I know this is splitting hairs. In China now, salaries are basically paid to what the market can bear. Someone in China buying a PC or a car will chose the one which suits him most, at the price he's most comfortable with. This is unlike the Soviet Union, which had a few limited government specified products. For all intents and purposes, free markets. I don't see how you can argue against that. Sure, there are tariffs, but a lot of that has been decreased since China's entry into the WTO.

I agree there are differences with regards to Taiwan/S. Korea/Hong Kong, but Taiwan and S. Korea both were under autocratic regimes. As their middle class grew, and as their economies prospered, they started demanding more rights. Even in the case of Hong Kong, where they really didn't have a democracy under British rule, because they have achieved a certain free market sophistication, they have demonstrated desire for democracy.

I'll agree it's not inevitable, and no, we shouldn't bet the farm on it, but I just don't think it's likely that we'll face China militarily in the future.

However, I do remember a quote which I think was attributed to Napolean. At the time, France was the world's superpower, more powerful than China, and speaking of a war with China, he said: On the first day, we will kill 1 million Chinese. On the second day, we will kill 2 million Chinese. On the third day, we will kill 3 million Chinese. And on the fourth day, the Chinese will be in Paris.

Freedom Fighter is a teenager??? There where does all the hate come from - "Having a liberal talking about military issues is akin to ... (an) Affirmative Action candidate talking about engineering."

I was hoping this bozo was a part of the dying pre-boomers. Are there really two more generations ready to fill their shoes?

It is worth noting that in 2001, Rumsfeld's QDR recommended reductions in U.S. force levels only weeks before 9/11.

For more, see:
"Cognitive Dissonance, Terrorism and 9/11"

Rumsfeld's strategy can be basically described as more cool toys like they have in those neato sci-fi movies.

No. Rumsfeld's strategy is more stock options and bonuses and kickbacks for him and his cronies, and retiring as an expatriate on some carribean island when China takes over the US because of the trillions of taxpayer dollars he and his ilk have misspent. Spreadsheet jockeys should not be fighting wars. Innovators and fighters should.

And on the fourth day, the Chinese will be in Paris.

Posted by: Andy on January 24, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

And share Paris with the Muslim migrants! Why would a culture that rarely drinks and is largely lactose intolerant want France. The wine and cheese? I have to admit the brand name goods are sexy but not quite worth a war.

If China went to war it would be:

1. Taiwan

2. Philippines or the Spratlys for off-shore oil

3. Siberia for resources

4. Muslim neighbours for sheltering separatists

5. Vietnam and Korea just to settle old scores and unite dissent around a pointless nationalist war.

6. And if it was really bored...a long-long war through Afghanistan and all the way to Iran for oil. It worked for Genghiz!

BTW- F-22's and the Destroyers are a counter to China's growing airforce and submarines. The marines, special forces, Osprey and marine amphibious vehicle are actually peacekeeping/war on terror stuff.

Here's the smart play. Surrender. I know the Shiek is a hard man to find ( and a hard man is good to find, Jeff Guckert ) but you could do it online.

Whats he gonna do anyways?

Turn the place over to a bunch of bigoted lunar right wing religious nutcases?...oh wait.

Then when thats all over and prayers are done you can do the ' haj' to Beijing and hand over the football.

What are they gonna do?

Create a massive gulag of one million prisoners?
Spy on the entire society and censor the net?
Enforce an insane 19th century ideology?

...oh wait.

Look surrender was painfull for Germany and Japan but now they are doing reasonably well. A lot of them even stopped being brainwashed so it's worth a shot isn't it?

Personally I can't wait till the Sheik finishes off the worlds largest bureaucratic behemoth AND nukes at least one of yr shitty cities as well.

You have to pay, not just for the 100,000 but all the millions before that who died to make you the insufferable fat arrogant swine you so patently are.

Good riddance and good night.