The Military/War Thread

[Dak]

Nothing on my commentary?

It was interesting. I think that it makes a lot of sense given the losses. A decimated and demoralized population was no longer under even the remotest sway of the glorious stories from the Prussian days.

Not long ago, in the middle of June. There wasn't a lot of fanfare about it in part because we didn't have the time, money, or interest in a classic wedding. I never planned on marrying, but I also never thought I'd marry a non-US citizen with something other than English serving as the primary language of the relationship and household. For her part, she's a bit of an Anglophile who likes living in small cities, so getting caught up with an 'Ami' and moving to NYC was the last thing she expected. Everything clicked though, so we pulled the trigger. Her visa almost fell through a few weeks ago after we were promised one months ago. If it had, we'd have faced the prospect of living apart for two years instead of just one to apply for a green card, as it takes a while to get married in Germany and a spousal visa in the US doesn't Grant her a right to work, thus striking it off as a possibility.

I almost mentioned it yesterday after her teaching exchange visa sponsorship forms were finally, but didn't because we were the immediately thrown into the latest nightmare visa/bureaucracy hell in trying to secure an interview appointment at the consulate before our flight in, uh, two weeks Worst case scenario, we'll be out $650 for her flight ticket and she won't get to meet my family before my brother's marriage at the end of October. The whole thing has been a god damned nightmare with multiple approvals and denials since she was first approved in March, but thankfully she won't have to stay in Germany for a year as we twice been convinced, the first as I was boarding a plane to visit Georgetown and the second the day before our wedding.

Otherwise, it's great and we're really looking forward to what comes next. We haven't decided which country will be homebase after my PhD, but we're both open minded.

Your German ought to be pretty amazing at least. I'm sure the visa stuff is a PITA to deal with, on top of other legal documentation that just goes with being married. Why NYC though? Georgetown is in DC.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

It was interesting. I think that it makes a lot of sense given the losses. A decimated and demoralized population was no longer under even the remotest sway of the glorious stories from the Prussian days.

That's what I found really interesting about the tone in the first plaque. It's a plaque that was erected in Prussia by Prussians after successively winning numerous wars, the last of which the plaque commemorated united Germany (albeit one that excluded Austria). There was still quite a dramatic Prussian/non-Prussian divide after the 1870/71 war, the tension of which became even worse after Bismarck took steps in chipping away at the civil liberties of Catholics, which is literally all of south Germany. Yet, the nationalist, more so jingoistic language or even inference is absent. It was, I suspect, the experience of WWI which nationalized the Prussian glory stories. It wasn't possible after WWII in large part because the decimation in both population and urban infrastructure, but also partly because Prussia was dissected. The only time you really see mentioned of Prussia nowadays are with a few soccer teams thanks to lingering remnants of history, or from neo-Nazis who use Prussian symbolism as stand-in Nazi memorabilia, as Nazi symbols are banned.

Your German ought to be pretty amazing at least. I'm sure the visa stuff is a PITA to deal with, on top of other legal documentation that just goes with being married. Why NYC though? Georgetown is in DC.

I do pretty well. Casual conversation is a breeze, and I can debate about politics to some extent, though not nearly at the level I can in English of course. With academic texts, I do pretty well with secondary literature, depending on the writer. Stuff like Kant is a bitch, but students here always joke with me, 'well native speakers can't understand either.'

The choice was between Georgetown and Columbia, which of course my future career path played into as well. I visited both campuses since the universities covered the costs. I figured that with Columbia, I can find something outside of academia if I decide to pursue a different career, but it would be harder to get a position with a PhD from Georgetown if I stuck with academia. I would have been in a dual program there with the School of Foreign Service fully funded and was of course really into the idea, but I still really confident in the choice of Columbia. My adviser at Georgetown would have been wonderful too and we got along really well, but I'll be working with the big cheese instead, fighting for his attention over tweeting, trips to Davos, and forums with World Bank members.The other factor was that my wife got a job in NYC, whereas in DC the school there wouldn't sponsor an exchange visa. Of course, that 'other factor' was a easy balance tipper.

 

[Dak]

https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2019/7/9/quantifying-lethality-on-the-back-of-a-napkin

We argue lethality can, and should be, defined, so it can be methodically improved. As Peter Drucker, widely hailed as the father of modern management, observed, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.”

The idea of lethality, and the drive to increase it, is being used in strategic documents to drive policy on how the Department of Defense recruits, trains, equips, and fights. It is imperative the United States has an objective metric for lethality that can be applied to quantitatively assess and compare the results of ongoing efforts in modeling, simulation, training exercises, and wargames. This same metric could also be applied to quantify lethality after actual conflicts, allowing an objective assessment of current tactics, technology, and training, as well as a means for comparison modeled or simulated alternatives.
.................
In short, the objective metric for lethality developed here is simply the average of the destruction inflicted on the enemy force and the survival of the friendly force and any civilians in the engagement area.

 

[Dak]

https://warontherocks.com/2019/08/the-myth-of-american-military-dominance/

Unfortunately, the first Gulf War was not a strong indicator of American military power compared to other major powers. The conflict was heavily balanced towards the United States and its allies. The Iraqi military fought mostly in open terrain where the American military could use its technology far more effectively than in cities or forests.
...........
The same factors were in play during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003.

Been saying this since I spent time in Iraq.

 

[rms]

Is that quote the point? Doesn't really make sense

 

[Dak]

Is that quote the point? Doesn't really make sense

It's one of many points in the article, but it's an important one. I can't help you if you can't see why desert fighting is easier than jungle fighting for conventional forces.

 

[The Ozzman]

Is that quote the point? Doesn't really make sense

Vietnam proves that quote correct tbh

 

[rms]

Vietnam proves that massive military power isn't cool when lots of normal people die

Idk you link an article with one quote, usually implying this is a fast and best takeaway. Glad I didn't read the article if the point is desert terrain is easier to fight in than jungle..
.

 

[Dak]

Vietnam proves that massive military power isn't cool when lots of normal people die

Idk you link an article with one quote, usually implying this is a fast and best takeaway. Glad I didn't read the article if the point is desert terrain is easier to fight in than jungle..
.

No, I referenced it as something that I noted a long time ago as a major factor. The article goes a lot more in depth, but you don't seem that interested in learning, so you do you.

 

[The Ozzman]

Vietnam proves that massive military power isn't cool when lots of normal people die

Lmao ok

 

[Dak]

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-apparently-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-war-games-2019-3

Not surprised at all, but the little bit they gloss over is that the unsustainable spread of bases near other countries is what is at risk. Not the United States itself. Shut them bases down and bring the boys home. Problem solved. It's not 1970 anymore.

 

[rms]

No, I referenced it as something that I noted a long time ago as a major factor. The article goes a lot more in depth, but you don't seem that interested in learning, so you do you.

Sounds like a dumbass article?

Lmao ok

Get woke, son

 

[The Ozzman]

Get woke, son

Given the state of the Army these days, it's not surprising you consider that point of view 'woke'

 

[rms]

https://warontherocks.com/2019/08/the-myth-of-american-military-dominance/



Been saying this since I spent time in Iraq.

I finally read this and I can't believe how it just ignores logistics in all parts of defining military strength. Attributing Soviet strength to defeating Nazi and Japanese army screams of some RT level spin. Hilarious

Let's ignore the Jewish theater, three front mistake the Nazis made and the colossal mistake the Japanese engaged in both in and around China and against us and simply state Soviet prowess.

Then his argument about a stalemate in Korea when in reality Americans surged past the parallel and stopped at the parallel. When the war started for us in damn Busan. after realizing the limitations of a distant war , yet again, has to wonder why someone so interested in writing about the myth of American military prowess can ignore the "quieter" side of war.

This was a stupid article and should've been rewritten of a thesis that American military strength is backed by a manufacturing dominance rather than some strange military esque myth.

And of course the idea that no one wants to engage a war with us is ignored because ...


Blah

 

[Dak]

I finally read this and I can't believe how it just ignores logistics in all parts of defining military strength. Attributing Soviet strength to defeating Nazi and Japanese army screams of some RT level spin. Hilarious

Let's ignore the Jewish theater, three front mistake the Nazis made and the colossal mistake the Japanese engaged in both in and around China and against us and simply state Soviet prowess.

Then his argument about a stalemate in Korea when in reality Americans surged past the parallel and stopped at the parallel. When the war started for us in damn Busan. after realizing the limitations of a distant war , yet again, has to wonder why someone so interested in writing about the myth of American military prowess can ignore the "quieter" side of war.

This was a stupid article and should've been rewritten of a thesis that American military strength is backed by a manufacturing dominance rather than some strange military esque myth.

And of course the idea that no one wants to engage a war with us is ignored because ...


Blah

It's like you still didn't read the article, and failed to even address the point that I highlighted. Yes, logistics matter. The bottom line is that the US is a sea-power, not a land power, and that projecting and defending supply lines into landmasses, especially when populated by enemy forces, is difficult. Fighting in the desert is somewhat like fighting on the sea. Clear lines of sight (at least from the air), and the US strategy depends on aerial supremacy. Jungle and mountain terrain significantly degrade the effectiveness of aerial support, even when aerial supremacy is achieved. Enemy powers don't currently want to pick a fight with the US because to do so requires eliminating US naval supremacy. MAD is also at play. But the US cannot, other than nuking China, expect to win a sustained war with China due to insufficient manpower and inability to project sufficient land-based forces into China. The US looks dominant when it picks on failed states. It does not when it attempts to direct civilian affairs (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam) and wouldn't if it were to be in conflict with a near-peer.

 

[Dak]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/magazine/woman-war-gaming.html

This narcissistic bitch will, if she hasn't already, get good men (and, at this point in the integration story, women) killed. I don't like the use of the word cunt generally speaking, but fuck this navel gazing cunt.

One of the biggest takeaways for the high school students who participated in the war game was that they realized for the first time that they weren’t alone, that there were other young women equally interested in national security.

High school students = women, big slip up there, but I bet she slips up a lot. Nothing about this entire article suggests she has any equal interest in national security compared to men. Her desire is to make fun safe space full of women, not national security, not figuring out how to "make that other poor bastard die for his country." China is laughing.

 

[Caecius]

The bottom line is that the US is a sea-power, not a land power...

The U.S is an air-power, no?

 

[CiG]

lol

 

[Dak]

The U.S is an air-power, no?

The US relies on air power for near force projection and as part of its strategic nuclear force (not to mention unmanned surveillance). However, the sea power vs land power distinction is an old distinction and speaks not only about actual power but the general theory and orientation of the military and national geopolitics. The US has no national land-based enemy worth considering. The UA Navy is the main global force projection. Russia and China are currently and have been land or continental powers (China is trying to change this, but notice they are trying to do it by mostly creating more *land* in near-territorial waters). They aren't worried about maritime invasions nearly as much as they are land based invasions.

 

[Dak]

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...-increasing-demands-may-bring-back-the-draft/

For those reasons, the panel members see a measured way of reinstating the draft as the best option for getting Americans reacquainted with such service that previous generations took as the norm.

“We need to start,” Wilkerson said. “We need to have at least a small bit of conscription.”

The suggested method was laid out in Laich’s book and remains his summarized recommendation.

A national no-deferral lottery system for men and women.

If selected, the person would have the option of three choices — serving two years on active duty following basic training and job training; serving in either the Guard or Reserve for six years after the same training but if deployed for one year or more, service obligation would be considered satisfied; if the selected person wants instead to attend college then they would participate in the Reserve Officer Training Corps and serve a commission. If they fail to gain a commission then they revert to option one or two.

The larger effect, forum members hope, is to engage citizens in how the country uses its military.

I don't see this happening. If it did happen, I see it being a disaster without a complete engagement of the entire Cathedral on its behalf.