The true danger of the Bush/Rumsfeld transformation of the military to fight terrorism

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The problems are two-fold. First of all, the risk in that Rumsfeld will suceed in creating a light, nimble force experted equiped and trained to fight terrorism. Great, unless and until we have to fight a more conventional enemy like China. Who by the way must be watching with amazement right now as we tear down the military as the world's preeminent example of a force designed to fight the standing army of another nation-state (the pupose armies have historically served since the nation-state came into being) and recreate it as a weapon to use against terrorist organizations. Ironically enough, Five years ago, China couldn't dream of having military forces capable as ours, yet five years hence it might be a very real possibility since we've turned ours into jihadist busters.

Secondly is the threat the proposed Rumsfeld transformation itself poses to the strategic concept of war the U.S. employs. A good (if long) article on this follows to explain it better than I ever could:

"A sound military transformation would proceed exactly the opposite way (than what Rumsfeld is advocating)."
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I haven't read the article yet, so maybe I'll change my mind after I do, but anti-terrorism training is in addition to any training normally received by the military. I'm not sure why we would be any less effective fighting another army than we were two years ago. If anything, now our boys are equipped to deal with more diverse situations. Even the guys playing policeman in Iraq right now still train regularly.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
I am wondering why I got so much crap when I said China could be serious competition in 20 years.

Go figure.
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
Hey Gl;enn1, guess how many aircraft carriers China has.

Z E R O
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Jadow
Hey Gl;enn1, guess how many aircraft carriers China has.

Z E R O

China could probably put 100,000,000 bodies in harms way, if there was a need for that sort of thing.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
After reading the article, I've got to say that the author isn't terribly familiar with the state of military research. :D
 

Rhin0

Senior member
Nov 15, 2004
967
0
0
And guess how much force China can project? (Non-nuclear)

Z E R O

lol


China isn't even a real threat and they probably never will be. Economically they will be #1 over all other countries here sometime and the are going to gobble more resource than the U.S. x100. That could cause supply problems for resources which could lead to war but I doubt it. Nation state wars are over, I doubt there will even be a squabble with them. If there is it will probably go nuclear eventually so in the end it doesn't matter anyways. Good thing about China is that communism is going to die, again this is a double edged sword. McDonalds, KFC, Walmart will destroy communism (good thing) but their capitalist explosion will devour huge amounts of resource and catapult their economic power.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Rhin0
And guess how much force China can project? (Non-nuclear)

Z E R O

lol


China isn't even a real threat and they probably never will be. Economically they will be #1 over all other countries here sometime and the are going to gobble more resource than the U.S. x100. That could cause supply problems for resources which could lead to war but I doubt it. Nation state wars are over, I doubt there will even be a squabble with them. If there is it will probably go nuclear eventually so in the end it doesn't matter anyways. Good thing about China is that communism is going to die, again this is a double edged sword. McDonalds, KFC, Walmart will destroy communism (good thing) but their capitalist explosion will devour huge amounts of resource and catapult their economic power.

We're so knee-deep in their economy that that can only help/hurt us. We're in it together.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Dari
We're so knee-deep in their economy that that can only help/hurt us. We're in it together.
Hopelessly intertwined. It's probably a good thing, really.

One of my friends from India today told me his brother lost his job - it got outsourced from India to China. I guess the prevailing wage in China is still that much lower, despite the closing gap in the two nations' populations.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I am wondering why I got so much crap when I said China could be serious competition in 20 years.

Go figure.
We are Americans . . . we either fear the truth (so we strike out at it) or ignore the truth.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I am wondering why I got so much crap when I said China could be serious competition in 20 years.

Go figure.
We are Americans . . . we either fear the truth (so we strike out at it) or ignore the truth.

speak for yourself. I embrace the truth, then manipulate it when it suits me.;)
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: glenn1
The problems are two-fold. First of all, the risk in that Rumsfeld will suceed in creating a light, nimble force experted equiped and trained to fight terrorism. Great, unless and until we have to fight a more conventional enemy like China. Who by the way must be watching with amazement right now as we tear down the military as the world's preeminent example of a force designed to fight the standing army of another nation-state (the pupose armies have historically served since the nation-state came into being) and recreate it as a weapon to use against terrorist organizations. Ironically enough, Five years ago, China couldn't dream of having military forces capable as ours, yet five years hence it might be a very real possibility since we've turned ours into jihadist busters.

Secondly is the threat the proposed Rumsfeld transformation itself poses to the strategic concept of war the U.S. employs. A good (if long) article on this follows to explain it better than I ever could:

"A sound military transformation would proceed exactly the opposite way (than what Rumsfeld is advocating)."


are you in the military.....if not...WTF would you know?

DON"t belive what you read, that article is TOTALLY not accurate....

The M1?s defensive characteristics have also made it invaluable for a range of missions its designers had not foreseen. In peacekeeping operations in dangerous areas such as Bosnia and Iraq, the M1?s virtual invulnerability has been important in deterring attacks and keeping critical areas secure. The Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle has also proved invaluable in this regard. It is no accident that almost all of the casualties American forces in Iraq have taken (apart from friendly-fire incidents) were to soldiers who were either dismounted or riding in trucks or Humvees.

wrong wrong wrong... we are getting rid of the m1 becuase it wieghs in at over 70 tons...and has to be sent by bought to a theater of operations which takes AT LEAST 30 days.... new strkyer tnaks can be placed any where i nthe world in 24 hrs...

old division movement time (heavy div) 30 days plsu
rumsfiled new concept with lighter vehicles, heavy armored DIVISION (16,000 troops + vehicles 48 hrs)

rumsfield is improving a military that has been in neglect and left to cold war tactics for the past 12 years.... he is making it a modern mobile miltary.... i can see it from the insiders perspective...

some trying to bash the man, especially on a subject you know nothing about...the military
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: glenn1
The problems are two-fold. First of all, the risk in that Rumsfeld will suceed in creating a light, nimble force experted equiped and trained to fight terrorism. Great, unless and until we have to fight a more conventional enemy like China. Who by the way must be watching with amazement right now as we tear down the military as the world's preeminent example of a force designed to fight the standing army of another nation-state (the pupose armies have historically served since the nation-state came into being) and recreate it as a weapon to use against terrorist organizations. Ironically enough, Five years ago, China couldn't dream of having military forces capable as ours, yet five years hence it might be a very real possibility since we've turned ours into jihadist busters.

Secondly is the threat the proposed Rumsfeld transformation itself poses to the strategic concept of war the U.S. employs. A good (if long) article on this follows to explain it better than I ever could:

"A sound military transformation would proceed exactly the opposite way (than what Rumsfeld is advocating)."


are you in the military.....if not...WTF would you know?

DON"t belive what you read, that article is TOTALLY not accurate....


Do you have to be in the military in order to know anything about overall military strategy? Donald Rumsfeld is not in the military, neither is the commander in chief of the entire armed forces!
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: glenn1
The problems are two-fold. First of all, the risk in that Rumsfeld will suceed in creating a light, nimble force experted equiped and trained to fight terrorism. Great, unless and until we have to fight a more conventional enemy like China. Who by the way must be watching with amazement right now as we tear down the military as the world's preeminent example of a force designed to fight the standing army of another nation-state (the pupose armies have historically served since the nation-state came into being) and recreate it as a weapon to use against terrorist organizations. Ironically enough, Five years ago, China couldn't dream of having military forces capable as ours, yet five years hence it might be a very real possibility since we've turned ours into jihadist busters.

Secondly is the threat the proposed Rumsfeld transformation itself poses to the strategic concept of war the U.S. employs. A good (if long) article on this follows to explain it better than I ever could:

"A sound military transformation would proceed exactly the opposite way (than what Rumsfeld is advocating)."


are you in the military.....if not...WTF would you know?

DON"t belive what you read, that article is TOTALLY not accurate....


Do you have to be in the military in order to know anything about overall military strategy? Donald Rumsfeld is not in the military, neither is the commander in chief of the entire armed forces!

no but he has been creating doctirns and strategies for over 30 years, he has worked for DOD for 20, and in the civilian military sector for 20 yrs, he also was defense sec 3 times now, i think he knwos WTF he is doing....

 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
I haven't read the article either yet (will in the morning) but I do remember Rumsfeld's visions about a lighter, faster more maneuverable army that can respond to anyplace in the world in lightning time. To me, that sounds like less armor & limited resources available to soldiers in terms of variety of equipment. And it looks like thats true with the way some soldiers have complained in Iraq. This strategy would probably better fit a country which has more "expendable" troops like China, not our country which invests heavily into training each soldier. Our soldiers are probably the best trained and most expensive in the world, so our military doctrines should always put their survivability at the top of the list of priorities.

But I don't claim to be a military expert, just my $0.02.
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
was he? i meani m just saying, im seeing the great things the new doctrine is doing right in front of my eyes, im telling you its, good, were traied better, and more rpepared more diff situations than just fighting the ruskies....and the chinese....hahahah please..... they couldn't sink a sailboat....
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
I always thought it would be great to turn the Canadian armed forces into a rapid deployment force kind of dealie. We're now scrapping out ancient main battle tanks for LAVs so maybe it'll actually happen too.
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: lozina
I haven't read the article either yet (will in the morning) but I do remember Rumsfeld's visions about a lighter, faster more maneuverable army that can respond to anyplace in the world in lightning time. To me, that sounds like less armor & limited resources available to soldiers in terms of variety of equipment. And it looks like thats true with the way some soldiers have complained in Iraq. This strategy would probably better fit a country which has more "expendable" troops like China, not our country which invests heavily into training each soldier. Our soldiers are probably the best trained and most expensive in the world, so our military doctrines should always put their survivability at the top of the list of priorities.

But I don't claim to be a military expert, just my $0.02.

lighter doesnt mean less armor....

and the complaing in iraq is stagged by reprots, they find pissed off guys and get them to ask the questions.... my unit took the armor off the humvee's... less surface area is less area for an RPG to hit.... this way it can fly right through (asuuming its lucky yo miss you) cause that armor isnt stopping rpg's anyway...the armor blows...its a false sense of security....

70 ton tanks are uselss.... we will still keep some, but move most of the division to strkers, which, are AWESOME, faster more agile...a t80 can barley target it its so manuverable...... plusi t stil lhas 110 mounted on it, which can blow away a t80
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Deptacon

no but he has been creating doctirns and strategies for over 30 years, he has worked for DOD for 20, and in the civilian military sector for 20 yrs, he also was defense sec 3 times now, i think he knwos WTF he is doing....

Ok, but does that mean he can never be wrong? Even the greatest military minds have made mistakes throughout history.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Uh Rumsfeld has been a pivotal force in who many successful wars . . . how about failed ones? You think he knows WTF he's doing b/c you WANT him to know. Bush and his ilk are poster children for "belief without evidence". It's no wonder that the alleged architect/manager of Bush War 2003-???? remains Secretary of Defense.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: lozina
I haven't read the article either yet (will in the morning) but I do remember Rumsfeld's visions about a lighter, faster more maneuverable army that can respond to anyplace in the world in lightning time. To me, that sounds like less armor & limited resources available to soldiers in terms of variety of equipment. And it looks like thats true with the way some soldiers have complained in Iraq. This strategy would probably better fit a country which has more "expendable" troops like China, not our country which invests heavily into training each soldier. Our soldiers are probably the best trained and most expensive in the world, so our military doctrines should always put their survivability at the top of the list of priorities.

But I don't claim to be a military expert, just my $0.02.
Most of the complaining in Iraq is due to the media - the armor our troops had going in was better than anything else in the world. After the recent shenanigans about the troops complaining about insufficient body armor, new armor was literally invented and shipped out without being tested at all at the last minute and at great expense. It sounds like the credits of a Monty Python movie, but body armor isn't something you want to test first when one of your troops takes a bullet.

By 'lighter', I think he's talking about less tanks, more light vehicles. Who wants to have a tank battle against us now? The same people that want to get into dogfights with our Air Force - no one. Tanks will be useful in certain rolls, but we don't really need entire divisions of them anymore. At least, that's how I interpret his comments.
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
rumy worked in DOD, orchistrated panaman, and grenada, 2 flawless campagins, Sec of Defense under Bush senior, Gulf war 1, that went good.... so what are you tlaking about?
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Deptacon
rumy worked in DOD, orchistrated panaman, and grenada, 2 flawless campagins, Sec of Defense under Bush senior, Gulf war 1, that went good.... so what are you tlaking about?


The fvcked up Iraq invasion that we're stuck in with no exit strategy (not that those at the top really want one anyway).
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: lozina
I haven't read the article either yet (will in the morning) but I do remember Rumsfeld's visions about a lighter, faster more maneuverable army that can respond to anyplace in the world in lightning time. To me, that sounds like less armor & limited resources available to soldiers in terms of variety of equipment. And it looks like thats true with the way some soldiers have complained in Iraq. This strategy would probably better fit a country which has more "expendable" troops like China, not our country which invests heavily into training each soldier. Our soldiers are probably the best trained and most expensive in the world, so our military doctrines should always put their survivability at the top of the list of priorities.

But I don't claim to be a military expert, just my $0.02.
Most of the complaining in Iraq is due to the media - the armor our troops had going in was better than anything else in the world. After the recent shenanigans about the troops complaining about insufficient body armor, new armor was literally invented and shipped out without being tested at all at the last minute and at great expense. It sounds like the credits of a Monty Python movie, but body armor isn't something you want to test first when one of your troops takes a bullet.

By 'lighter', I think he's talking about less tanks, more light vehicles. Who wants to have a tank battle against us now? The same people that want to get into dogfights with our Air Force - no one. Tanks will be useful in certain rolls, but we don't really need entire divisions of them anymore. At least, that's how I interpret his comments.


yes... and lighter means same amount of amror, just not steel, compsosite materials.... lighter and faster... if you think we were kcik as the last 20 yrs military,wait for the enxt 20 yrs, the toys we are getting are AWESOME....

ever see that james bond movie with the invislbe BMW, the camera mirrios technique, well the army is devloping that, and they say its about 10 yrs out.....whats better than a fast agile tank on the battlefield, how about one you can't see....