Benghazi is begining to stink.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:32 pm

I take it then, you're justifying ignoring the core story as reported by Reuters?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:37 pm

Diogenes wrote:
GIThruster wrote:another interesting theory:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50586
That a Chicago Mafioso would resort to using evil and deadly tactics

(Sending Chemical Weapons into Syria to make it look like the Assad government was using them on opponents to generate world wide Animosity against the Assad government)

would not surprise me at all. Hope! Change!

The same old same old actually. When politically convenient (or necessary to fund black ops) the US Government will move (or protect) drug shipments for "friends". Ollie North was in the thick of that. And of course these days it is opium. And to make the whole machine work we need a war on users. Very convenient all around. Except for the users.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:47 pm

I take it then, you're justifying ignoring the core story as reported by Reuters?

They themselves have been reporting contradicting stuff...

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:54 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:MSimon,
At what point do you think we should start meddling everywhere, as we are now, to prevent this worried repeat of WWII? As it is we have assumed the roll of world Nanny and we are now stuck like Braer Rabbit. Moreover, it looks like up to this point all we have done is made matters much worse.

Once you start this world protector role of perfect Nanny, how are you going to find this perfect director of meddling? Sounds like a progressive Plato, but I can be schooled to see the error of my thinking, please help me here.

A Navy has to meddle everywhere. Now whose Navy do you want guarding the sea lanes? The Russian Navy? The Chinese Perhaps? How about the pirate navy.

When the Roman Navy stopped guarding the sea lanes of its time it took 1,000 years for commerce to recover. It might only last a hundred years in our age. You up for it?

If you want to understand the problem look into Naval Logistics. Ladajo can probably school you on that.

There is no perfect director. They all make mistakes. Some are better than others. The hope being that our opponents make more mistakes than we do. So far true for about 70 years.

You want a perfect world. I'm sorry to tell you it is not on offer. There is only worse and much worse.

I wised up to the situation by working as a contractor for a lot of companies. Almost all were badly managed. Some very badly. In the very few well managed ones there were bad departments. The whole world is like that. And yet it functions.

You see how badly things are done and throw up your hands. I consider "it could be worse" and all too often is.

But I do believe that people with your opinion are ascendent. The experiment will be done. Expect this war to start atomically. I assume if you live through it the ugliness will cure you. The cure is very expensive.

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:33 am

Sorry, I didn't think you were talking guarding sea lanes such as in the Mediterranean to stop pirates. It was starting to sound like you were talking about some open ended undefined world busybody nanny role such as what we have been doing in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, etc. Or Pakistan and India border issues, or Japan and China island disputes? I suspect you are not suggesting we stabilize Greece's finances, subsidize European socialism and rescue them from bankruptcy, etc. To me meddling, which we have been doing includes all that. I am sure you are not proposing world government where drugs and firearms are controlled, but someone else would be sure to add that. Then there are women's rights, culture changes, child labor laws? Or perhaps CO2 regulation and world taxes. It would be helpful if you could provide some principles to what you are really thinking.

As example, some principles might be to provide security for free trade. If you are just proposing patrolling sea lanes to protect shipping, that is a simple and easy task to outline. If it is more, and you have time and thought it out, please be clear about what that is, as at this point I have no idea.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:27 am

We've been playing world police for 60 years now. It's not just all the incidents you note. We provided the vast bulk of security forces throughout the cold war all across Europe too. Everyone has gotten used to the US paying the bills for security. All through the cold war, the US provided the vast majority of the Western forces in Europe. We still maintain thousands of tanks when most countries have just a few hundred and much smaller and less capable. Despite this service to our allies, they certainly do not consider themselves in our debt. It wasn't a year after we began closing down our bases in Germany to reduce spending that the Germans began considering the US neutral rather than a partner.

We need to get a clue. We cannot buy partners in security. Nations are faithless. They all want our money and it is because we are willing to provide the security of others that they don't feel the need to invest in it themselves. Personally, I'm glad OBama nixed the missiles in Europe. Let the Europeans pay for their own missiles if they want them.

The original point I was making however was about our Navy. We have as many carriers as the rest of the world combined (11) and most of those others are owned by our supposed allies. None of the carriers owned by other nations are nearly the size and capability of any of our 11 carriers. They are generally about 2/5 the size. When you count our amphibious assault ships--what passes for a carrier when owned by another nation, another 8 ships--it starts to become obvious that our standing naval forces are vastly superior to anything that could possibly be used against them. These are ships designed for symmetrical warfare, but there will never be that sort of war again. The rational for such an enormous standing navy is that we need to be able to generate overwhelming force anywhere in the word at a moment's notice. This is the issue. Do we really NEED to be able to do this?

And just to clarify about the historic parallel with Rome that Simon contends about above--Rome had an empire that circled the Mediterranean. They had the one lake to keep tabs on and that's what their ships did. Perfectly reasonable. They didn't send their ships to the Pacific. You can make all sorts of observations about "well the US has oceans on both sides" or "we have oil interests overseas" but these don't justify hunting Somali pirates. If the US stops playing world police, it won't take long for ports around the world to adjust to the fact ships of all sorts need to carry their own arms to repel boarders. In fact, one can make the case that it is specifically because the US plays world police that almost no ships carry defensive weapons. Without doing a careful study I'd hate to make this claim, but it seems to me very likely that the US contributes to the world piracy problem because it gives ports around the world an excuse to deny ships in harbor if they have weapons aboard. What we need is a reasonable standard for what is an acceptable weapons cash to deter pirates, and expect all legitimate shipping to carry such weapons. Wouldn't take much given how pirates usually hunt.

Just saying, I love the military. I've been through 9 of the 10 hours of that Carrier series now and loving it. But with 16 trillion dollars of debt and the economic warfare that is being waged against us by the Chinese, we really do need to fight smarter and prioritize better. I don't know where is the very best place to cut. The Ford class has so many significant advantages over the Nimitz class that I'd love to see us continue to build a new Ford class every 5 years, but if we do that, we'll have far more ships than we need. These things are expected to have century long lifespans, folks. Do we really need to build a new one every 5 years, or could we cut that back to one every 8 years and save a bundle? What about refitting the Nimitz class ships with the new Ford class systems and reducing the number of ships to 7? Keep the same number of people working in the shipyards for now, but downsize the navy deliberately over time. In that way we could probably have a fleet of Ford class up and running sooner. Couldn't we cut the F-35, and all the America class, and save trillions over the next few decades? You don't HAVE to keep your marines on the same ships as their MV-22's. We don't HAVE to build assault ships and surely if we're going to, they ought to have the new reactors so they don't need to be fueled for 50 years. The America class is a bad idea. Better would be refit the Nimitz class to carry more marines and transports.

Surely, if we're going to rationalize cutting entitlements at all, we have to cut defense somewhere. So where?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:38 am

There are only going to be two "America" class. And IMO that is two too many. Once again, idiots meddling in what they do not know of resulted in an amphibious warship with only air capability.
The follow on hulls will be built more akin to Makin Island and be able to support air and surface movement.

As a side note to the un-informed. We actually need 11 Big Deck Amphibs (LHA/D). In order to do a MEB level assault, it takes all 11 ARGs. It will be a while before we get back to 11 ARGs due to budget stupidity.

The problem with Defense spending is focused squarely on aquisitions. We can do great things if we can slay the dragon. The corruption and stupidity is what is killing us, not the purchase of "things we don't need". We really do need them, we just have our hands tied by the politicians and are forced to pay too much for them.

Here is a good example:
Why is the military forced to pay contract air fares to US carriers when the military could be purchasing tickets at non-contract prices and saving a bundle on travel?
There are many other examples of congressionally mandated stupidity.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:45 am

ladajo wrote:The problem with Defense spending is focused squarely on aquisitions. We can do great things if we can slay the dragon. The corruption and stupidity is what is killing us, not the purchase of "things we don't need". We really do need them. . .

Why do we "need" twice as much navy as the rest of the world combined?

We don't, unless you think we "need" to play world police. We could easily cut our navy in half and still have the most formidable fighting machine humanity has ever seen.

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:02 am

We don't, unless you think we "need" to play world police. We could easily cut our navy in half and still have the most formidable fighting machine humanity has ever seen.

This is typically the line used by those who have no idea how power works in the world. Stunningly both Liberal and Conservatives tend to fall back to this one, kinda funny that one of the things they agree on is the thing they don't understand.

To answer your question I'll propose another question. If not the USA playing "world police" who would you have do it? Currently there are two other nations that are capable of producing the military might requires, Russia and China. In theory if the EU were to revoke the sovereignty of it's member nations and create a single nation / military force, then they could also field a large enough force to "police the world".

The obvious answer you'll throw is "why does anyone have to police the world", and the answer to that question is the same as "why doesn't anyone have to police a street / city / country / region". Power abhors a vacuum, and if there is no one to act as Police then someone somewhere will eventually do it. And that someone may or may not be friendly, democratic or even a recognized state. Would you like Taliban being the policemen in your country? (Could be any militaristic non-state entity). Would you like China dictating to you what your country will and won't do? Any attempts at fighting them being met with harsh retribution.

Don't believe me? China already declared the South China Sea as it's sovereign territory and that it had rights to police it. All the nations in this region made a whole lot of noise and protest against that claim as the South China Sea is a heavily trafficked sea lane that fuels much world economic activity. The US's response was to order the USS George Washington and it's accompanying battle group into the middle of that area and conduct "training drills". The Chinese were pissed, but they haven't attempted to police the lane.

Without a powerful navy no nation can project power into any region beyond it's borders. Without the rest of the Armed Forces to go with that Navy (Airforce / Army) a nations ability to sustain it's power projection is limited.

So tell us oh great and wise one, who would you like to rule your world? Chose wise because once chosen it may not be so easy to change your mind later.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:19 am

That's about as deluded as any answer could be.

There is absolutely no need for the US or any other country to pretend to police the world, and just because the US reduces its forces doesn't mean someone will usurp its place. Rather, if we continue to spend the way we do we will run off a financial cliff and suddenly, we will not be able to afford to field even half the navy we now have.

This is what happened with the USSR, and it is going to happen to the US unless we can find a way to manage our finances in an adult and responsible manner. We cannot so manage our finances while we continually spend more than we take in. The spending needs to be cut drastically, the deficit needs to end and we need to pay off our debts so a huge percentage of each taxpayer's money doesn't go to pay for us to live on credit. We cannot do this while we pay sailors to sail the south China sea and perform "training drills" in what certainly is the farthest part of the globe from our interests. Doing what we're doing is the shortest path to becoming globally impotent, the way Russia is today.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:23 am

There is a difference between protecting the interests of your country in the world via the means of your military and playing world police.
The thing is that usually, you wont get thanked for it anyway and sometimes it turns our the US chose the wrong side for their allies.
The ungreatfulness in particular is why I think the US should stop playing world police unless there is a clear UN mandate and only protect their own interests where necessary. Would be cheaper too.

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:25 am

Pallidin,
Your China Sea case makes sense to me. However, a trillion in nation building does not, not that you are suggesting it. On the other hand, unless we used the military, it would be hard for countries to believe appearance of capability translates to real world. Desert Storm was a case in point, when the media (I remember being up all night when it was in progress) did not believe it could possibly result in such low American losses as it did. In fact, I thought it was on the level of a miracle.

Real world and believable capability does not come cheap, but keeps the peace. I would not deny that. Those that know what goes into that have to call the shots, then the price managed well.

I don't understand how giving arms covertly to Al Qaeda to overthrow Assad in Syria makes any sense. Oh well.

PS The UN is pure BS.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:50 am

McCain is pressing to see the video from the drones. Should be interesting to see how the administration responds. This could drag out right up to election day if POTUS doesn't find a way to nip it. Just how much can the media ignore the issue now that McCain is involved? He's a Navy combat vet and a pair of SEALs just died. He's the ranking member of the Senate's Armed Services Committee, so I can't see how the FBI can deny him the ability to view the tapes and know whether the drones were armed. If they were and OBama let our people die without returning fire, I'd say that's the end of his presidency. In any case, the fact we had drones and knew there were no riots is going to be front and center through the election.

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:30 am

mvanwink5 wrote:Pallidin,
Your China Sea case makes sense to me. However, a trillion in nation building does not, not that you are suggesting it. On the other hand, unless we used the military, it would be hard for countries to believe appearance of capability translates to real world. Desert Storm was a case in point, when the media (I remember being up all night when it was in progress) did not believe it could possibly result in such low American losses as it did. In fact, I thought it was on the level of a miracle.

Real world and believable capability does not come cheap, but keeps the peace. I would not deny that. Those that know what goes into that have to call the shots, then the price managed well.

I don't understand how giving arms covertly to Al Qaeda to overthrow Assad in Syria makes any sense. Oh well.

PS The UN is pure BS.

I agree that the US should not be nation building, ever. The role of a military is to pursue the national interests of it's country, these tend to revolve around defense. In the US's case it is in the best interest of the USA for there not to be another large world reaching war, especially now that nuclear and biological weapons exist. To accomplish this the end the USA ensures that it has such a large disparity in military power that no other nation would attempt an armed conflict. In layman's terms you want to walk around with a stick so big that the bully's decide to avoid you all together. The best weapons system is the one that doesn't need to be used for it to be effective.

Of course people who have no clue how geopolitical power works will find this ludicrous. Their under the false belief that if the USA turtles up and ignores everyone else, that no other nation will take that opportunity to expand their influence and invade smaller nearby nations. And that even if they invade those nations it's not the US's place to ensure they don't decide to make things difficult for the USA. After all Iraq never invaded Kuwait or Saudi and it was all a lie .. right.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:49 am

palladin9479 wrote:In the US's case it is in the best interest of the USA for there not to be another large world reaching war, especially now that nuclear and biological weapons exist. To accomplish this the end the USA ensures that it has such a large disparity in military power that no other nation would attempt an armed conflict.

Irrelevant. The US could accomplish this with a Navy 1/5 its current size.