US military advantage has eroded, study says

[Peter1469]

US military advantage has eroded, study says

The article seems to confuse the issues associated with war and potential casualties. Of course the US military has been run down by almost two decades of low intensity conflict in the Middle East. We have had few casualties considering the time we have been at war. But our training goals have degraded our ability to fight a major conventional war while the op-tempo has also harmed the readiness of our war fighting systems (equipment of all types).

If we got into a war with Russia or China we would take heavy losses- as it typical for conventional warfare. However, whether we would win or lose depends on the nature of the conflict- if we fight in Russia or China, victory is not likely; if we fight elsewhere, it is likely.

The United States has lost its military edge to a dangerous degree and could potentially lose a war against China or Russia, according to a report released Wednesday by a bipartisan commission that Congress created to evaluate the Trump administration's defense strategy.

The National Defense Strategy Commission, comprised of former top Republican and Democratic officials selected by Congress, evaluated the Trump administration's 2018 National Defense Strategy, which ordered a vast reshaping of the U.S. military to compete with Beijing and Moscow in an era of renewed great-power competition.






While endorsing the strategy's aims, the commission warned that Washington isn't moving fast enough or investing sufficiently to put the vision into practice, risking a further erosion of American military dominance that could become a national security emergency.

At the same time, according to the commission, China and Russia are seeking dominance in their regions and the ability to project military power globally, as their authoritarian governments pursue defense buildups aimed squarely at the United States.


"There is a strong fear of complacency, that people have become so used to the United States achieving what it wants in the world, to include militarily, that it isn't heeding the warning signs," said Kathleen Hicks, a former top Pentagon official during the Obama administration and one of the commissioners. "It's the flashing red that we are trying to relay."


The picture of the national security landscape that the 12-person commission sketched is a bleak one, in which an American military that has enjoyed undisputed dominance for decades is failing to receive the resources, innovation and prioritization its leaders need to outmuscle China and Russia in a race for military might reminiscent of the Cold War.

Read the entire article at the link.

[Tahuyaman]

The decline in the military is mostly at the senior leadership levels. General officers have lost the ability to think or plan strategically. They are concentrating on tactics. Plus they are micromanaging their subordinate commanders. This micromanagement filters down to all levels of command.


There is no doubt in my mind that just as it's been in every war from Vietnam to the current conflicts, if the US went to war with anyone, we would win the tactical battles handily, but would not win strategically.


Today's military leadership and the civilian leadership has no idea how to conduct operations after a military victory has been achieved. They think the strategic planning should be left up to someone else. Compound that with the civilian leadership being unable to develop and communicate a long term strategic goal and you have chaos.


The last two wars in the Middle East prove that. They were overwhelming military victories, but strategic failures. The generals running those wars were only interested in tactical success. They've only been trained to achieve tactical success and the civilian leadership isn't any different. They turned military tactical victories into managed chaos.

[Tahuyaman]

The condition of non strategic thinking is a result of the Korean War and Vietnam. Even WWII.


In each each of those wars, American military forces were largely unprepared for battle and suffered humiliating defeats early in those wars. Modern generals ad the civilian leadership are now focused on overwhelming tactical victories in our first engagements with an enemy force.

One of the biggest strategic blunders of all time was how Gen Norman Schwartzkopf negotiated the surrender of Iraq during the first gulf war. Had he been something more than a tactician, the next invasion of Iraq would have never happened. He demonstrated that he had no ability to think beyond the tactical battlefield. He was essentially a battalion commander leading an army. Schwartzkopf essentially handed the Iraqi's the ability to claim victory.

General Colin Powell was not much better. His focus was going along to get along with the political leaders. That is his legacy though. Throughout his career both militarily and politically, he was a "go along to get along" guy. He would not be willing to deliver a message to the president or political leaders a message he knew they didn't want to hear. That's what destroyed his reputation as Bush's Secretary of State.