Mullen's Mission
By Steve Hynd Tuesday Nov 18, 2008 4:30pm
Today, a friend sent me a PDF copy of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen unclassified new "CJCS strategic guidance" for 2008-09. It makes interesting reading.
Some first thoughts:
"We have the most combat-hardened forces in history."
That's hyperbole, right? Even if you just restrict it to American forces.
"Our Navy and Airforce are unmatched, although our advantage could easily slip."
Slip to who and over what period of time? There isn't a nation on Earth spends a fraction of what the U.S. does on the military, and the next three biggest spenders are all ostensibly allies (France, Britain, Japan). The US could cut its military budget by two thirds and still outspend all of its possible threats combined.
Mullen's version of the objective in Iraq and Afghanistan:
"...a representative, stable, independent Iraq that is an ally and regional leader, and a representative, stable Afghanistan and Pakistan that are allies and cooperative members of the international community..."
Is this in fact doable at any price America is willing to pay and over any forseeable timeline? And why don't Afghanistan - and Pakistan! - have to be "independent" too?
"In the near term, Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan are the probable source of a terrorist attack on the homeland.
So Mullen agrees with Hayden that Pakistan is the true central front in the so-called "War On Terror" (and one the US isn't actually at war in). Is the reason that Pakistan doesn't need to be independent contained therein, for the warmongers? That'll be why we invaded Iraq and sent Pakistan billions in military aid while helping prop up the people in Pakistan's military and intelligence services enabling those Al Qaeda safe havens. That makes perfect sense.
"The pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from training for the full spectrum of operations and impacts our ability to be ready to counter future threats...The imbalance between our readiness for future global missions and the wars we are fighting today limits our capacity to respond to future contingencies, and offers potential adversaries, both state and non-state, the incentive to act. "
Huh? I guess Mullen just parted company with his current boss, Bob Gates, about what the military should be arming and training to fight right now. "Full spectrum of operations" means tank battles in the Fulda gap and naval action off Taiwan. Russia and China are not credible "potential adversaries" for the forseeable future. I mean, seriously, what "potential adversaries" are there other than counter-insurgency and 4GW ones? This is all about the coming Pentagon budget turf-battles in the Obama administration, folks - laying out the fearmongering stall often and early. That's Mullens biggest mission right now.
Here's a link to a copy so you can read it for yourself:
Login or Register to post comments.
"We have the most combat-hardened forces in history."
Ok that's gotta be pep-talk for the troops cause its the biggest load of hooey.
Thousands dead, tens of thousands injured for a war of choice that was based on lie because the president was worried his daddy's dick was bigger than his? Ya, I don't think 'combat-hardened' is the word you want to go with. 'used' would be good.
Thank you.
I promise.
:<[)
I can almost hear it. Somewhere out there is a Russian WW2 vet thinking "we had to walk to war through snow over our heads and mud to our necks, against the Nazis and with Stalin's dogs at our backs, for four years and no respite or leave, 12 million dead...talk to me about combat hardened".
We order you to prove your independence by doing whatever we say!
Mullen's still suggesting that withdrawal be "condition based", even with the deal inked.
France is an an ally? From the way the Right Wing nutbags talk, you could have fooled me...
Certainly there were some really tough battles in other wars, in which we suffered far more casualties than any individual battle in Iraq or Afghanistan.
But it possible that we have more active soldiers now who have spent more time actually under fire than at any point in our history - even if the "fire" has been less intense.
Not that that's a good thing.
Military madness is killing our country
The first thing Obama needs to do after being sworn in is fire this flaming douch bag!
under the new mismanagement of the comeing obama administration , the tip of the spear will blunt its self out going against the steep hills of afganistan, take the high ground and hold it will be a hollow phrase,
the Khyber Pass has undone so many it is a graveyard of empires.
Who's gonna man the Capital One Mastercard phone lines, if Obama and the NEW Military Industrial Complex keeps bombing Pakistan.
http://www.weeklyradioaddress.com/WRA20080412...
Katrina vanden Heuvel (The Nation): Smart Defense
In related news, Barney Frank's family is desparately searching for him since his disappearance tomorrow. Foul play is not suspected. LOL.
let them hold a bake sale.
would be better then thier torn open guts~
The 761st Tank Battalion served on the front lines of WWII for six months without a break. They suffered 50% casualty rate and were chroniclly short of personnel and equipment the idea that our current forces are more battle hardened than those men is beyond insulting.
Well, the truth is the spending frenzy and orgy of expenses being funneled into the military industrial complex is only going to increase rather than decrease, as wonder weapons, unmanned drones, and other robotic warriors take to the front lines. After decimating the ranks through 6 years of attrition in Iraq, we are only hanging around to test the latest technical advances and discoveries in a target rich environment of our own making.
This is the true cause of death, destruction, fear and terrorism in the world, this artificial creation and sustainability of an enduring external threat.
Afghanistan was long ago lost, throwing more troops into that country will accomplish nothing but the impression we are fighting the terrorists "over there"
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/STEVEN...
Begich now leads by 3,724 votes with only 2,500 votes left to count.
and Pakistani mountains brought the USSR to it knees. Osama Bin Ladin Knew that if he attacked the US Financial Heart (WTC) he could drag the US into Ruin. WE might have had a success there, but unfortunately for us Bush and the PNAC group distracted the US from the war they should have fought and brought the USA into a War of Lies in Iraq, thus fulfilling Bin Ladin dreams.
Bin Ladin is Free, America isn't. Our Freedom was taken from us while we were distracted in Iraq fighting a falsehood. Our Government has been sold to the Corporate Leaders of the Big Three Industries. Oil, Military and Finance.
Barack Obama has a lot on his plate, more than anyone should have for a first term, But I believe in him more than any of the rest in government.
We need to watch closely now to see if Bush does a Blanket Pardon as he leaves office (which would be a virtual admittance of his own guilt. If he does, and America doesn't take to the streets in protest all over the country, then America is lost.
Sound Grim? Well look around folks.
NPR is reporting that Ted Stevens has lost in Alaska.
This just confirms my thoughts after turning off in disgust an Afgahanistan Report on NPR today. The so-called expert who works for some think tank and was invited to Afghanistan by the military says the only solution to resolve the problem is to beef up the military and the Bush Administration failed because they didn't put the U.S. in an "at war" status. His solution is for Obama to do that very thing. NPR is shameless when they let these hacks speak without being cross-questioned. After reading this analysis, I can see clearly that the spin and propaganda is starting. It's best to stick to the internet and steer clear of MSM news sources.
thier was no eye lost on the ball in afganistan , the plan was first to get a foothold in afganistan under the pretex of revenge for 911 the second was to attack iraq disable the oil flow and increase the price of a barrel of oil then control the areas where the oil and gas pipeline would be constructed there , heartbreak ridge!
there being afganistan
You wrote: Slip to who and over what period of time? There isn't a nation on Earth spends a fraction of what the U.S. does on the military, and the next three biggest spenders are all ostensibly allies (France, Britain, Japan). The US could cut its military budget by two thirds and still outspend all of its possible threats combined.
In response to that... you should think a little more.
1. The US government is not nearly as efficient at spending as the Chinese. Our budget includes cleaning ladies, golf course grounds keepers, single soldier dorm rooms, gyms with saunas and volleyball courts. Not that I'm complaining. We treat our soldiers great and we should. China... not so much. Those guys are sleeping in a bay of 50.
2. We buy an 137 million dollar F-22 when we could buy 4 F-15s for the same cost or maintain a lot more. We waste money on bidding out contracts and being "fair". They tell a company to make something and they make it and then they pay them. We pay them, get results that may or may not work and then pay them anyway.
Military spending is in no way related to military capability.
You wrote, if we cut our spending by 2/3rds we would still outspend our possible enemies combined. That would mean we are spending under 150 billion... Russia (70B), China (90B), and Iran (7B) would outspend us if combined. ... If you said 1/3rd cut... your argument might stand... but are we spending it well?
It wouldn't take much for our military to slip... and over a short period of time.
We need to fix the way they spend the money and then cut the budget for it. Not cut the budget for it and risk the results.
last I saw was announced as $45 billion. It's generally agreed it is more but $90 b? That's the US rightwing's figure, so maybe not. I'd believe $65b. Russia's announced budget for 2009 is $50 billion. Again, it looks like you got your figure from a neocon-inflated estimate.
The US budget on defense is $522b, including Iraq and Afghanistan($195b) it is over $700b. A third is $233 billion - that's plenty.
Regards, C
What I was referring to was the fact that military capability is not defined by spending. The numbers can be played with or argued all day. In the end it comes down to the capability. I can buy 1 Lambo for 3 million. You can buy a massive fleet of Geo Metros for 1 million. Whose capability is greater when it comes time to deliver the pizzas?
"Our Navy and Airforce [sic] are unmatched, although our advantage could easily slip."
Notice how he left out Army and Marines. Our ground forces are matched and probably beaten by China. We may have nicer tanks... but they got a helluva lot more of them.
(The 90B estimate is the low end if of the Defense Intelligence Agency estimate. If I was a righty nutball I would have used the upper end. China publicly releases a low budget which doesn't account for a lot of items/programs. They are smarter at global politics than the US.)
As difficult as his presidency is going to be, as devoted a family man as he is, as private a person, as addicted to Blackberry, cigarettes, and freedom of movement, is it possible Obama has never had any intention of running in 2012?
The Pentagon war machine must be fed, at any cost. Perpetual war will continue unless we all fight this. But just today I am getting reports of high schools in California's Central Valley firing career counselors because of ...budget cuts...and, guess what, military recruiters moving in to do their jobs without any charge to the local district.
Of course, that effort too, is part of the Pentagon budget, inching methodically towards a cool trillion $$ a year.
"We have the most combat-hardened forces in history."
What we have is the saddest suicide rate, troops coming home seriously head-f*cked, the lowest BAR ever set for enlistment in RECENT history, and troops surviving hellish wounds they would have died from in the Vietnam war era, wounds that leave them with no life, in a lot of cases.
What does "most combat-hardened forces in history" mean? Where does Mullin get that from? I guess he means that the ones who survived 3 tours to be deployed for a 4th and 5th and 6th, in wars that are not scheduled to end, EVER (Oceana vs Eastasia), yeah, that DOES make the most combat-hardened troops in history.
Well, hell, pilgrim, we're the bomb. Let's war!
the new recruit selling point is sonny and girrly , wouldnt you like to join up go see new places meet new people AND KILL THEM?
They don't do that. I've listened to countless recruiters (oh well, 3 recruiters, then). They promise a lot of down time, college, get to drive a Stryker, fire a hellfire missile, build a career in the military or out of it, have lots of LEAVE in foreign lands, and oh yeah, 2 years ago, all recruits were promised a LAPTOP. Right now, recruiters are promising girls and boys they will never have to deploy to Iraq now that Obama has won. A lie, like everything else the Recruiter Man says.
I know a young soldier who was talked into signing up for a 6 months' extension on the promise that he could go right away to Germany during Oktoberfest for a month, with a minimum of 2 four-day weekends assured, on a little training mission with Canadians, Brits, and Aussies. On his return, he could go to college and never have to report for work at all, until deployment to Iraq (for the 2nd time) come August, 2009. The only hitch was that if any kind of training arose, the soldier would have to quit classes and attend the training.
The soldier signed up for the extension, knowing that if he didn't, he'd be stop-lossed anyway, and get nothing. A BUNCH of soldiers signed up. They all went to Germany, and there they rotted in grubby jobs, never leaving the base (they might as well have been on the moon) despite Oktoberfest going on somewhere outside the walls, finally getting 8 hours of leave on the last day, a leave in which they were forced to spend half of the day hanging around Dacau, breathing in the history of the place. Soldier told me there is nothing left of Dacau to breathe in, it was mostly dismantled in the 50's.
Back home, the soldier (and his fellows) were immediately ordered to another training mission, making any hope of attending any classes (as promised) a joke.
These are soldiers who served in Iraq and will have to go back and may die or be wounded so severely that their lives would be effectively over. This is the thanks and respect they get from their superiors.
Support the troops? The military doesn't. The chickenhawks don't. We are really the only people who do.
Oh yeah, also, the Soldier told me the Brits, Canadians, and Aussies are proud, fit, happy troops. They are exceedingly well-trained, and they are allowed to leave the military any time they want to. (But AMERICA is the greatest country in the world ANYWAY.)
"The pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from training for the full spectrum of operations and impacts our ability to be ready to counter future threats...The imbalance between our readiness for future global missions and the wars we are fighting today limits our capacity to respond to future contingencies, and offers potential adversaries, both state and non-state, the incentive to act."
I guess we see what we want to see, because to me this says "End the war in Iraq, bring all the troops home from everywhere now!"
Wouldn't it be sweet if the Dems in power interpreted it that way and pressed forward? Would Mullins be chagrined?
... that we've forgotten where we went in.
All-out invasion and conventional warfare was never a "rational" response to 9/11 - if one starts with the concept of serving American National Interests, and the interests of the American People as a whole.
However, if one views Americans as the vassals in eternal servitude to the Kingdom of the Oil Giants, then it begins to make perfect sense - as does the invasion of Iraq.
Any discussion of military planning that fails to trace back to the place we went off the tracks is going to be "irrational" by definition.
This country's military is too big. It needs to be cut down to size. In this economy and with these deficits we can no longer afford the size of our military, particularly given the limited number of true military threats (most terrorism is an intelligence and police action). The wars must also end, if for no other reason that we can no longer afford them. They serve no useful purpose and do more harm than good. The military's party or free ride is over.
It sounds like he took a report that had been created after WW2 and just changed the words a little.
(My intials are C.J.C. so I thought the term CJCS was funny) "CJCS strategic guidance" for 2008-09. It makes interesting reading.
Some first thoughts:
"We have the most combat-hardened forces in history."
If I look at things from a PURELY OBJECTIVE standpoint, I'd have to say that it was the atheist commies in WW2 that were the most combat-hardened. From what I understand, the USSR lost MILLIONS fighting off Hitler. I don't have the figures, but I'm 100% sure it was way more than we (USA) lost in WW2. And to say there are no atheists in foxholes.
Login or Register to post comments.