An Obsolescent Military: Bombing Everything, Gaining Nothing

 

What, precisely, is the US military for, and what, precisely, can it do? In practical terms, how powerful is it? On paper, it is formidable, huge, with carrier battle groups, advanced technology, remarkable submarines, satellites, and so on. What does this translate to?

Military power does not exist independently, but only in relation to specific circumstances. Comparing technical specifications of the T-14 to those of the M1A2, or Su-34 to F-15, or numbers of this to numbers of that, is an interesting intellectual exercise. It means little without reference to specific circumstances.

For example, America is vastly superior militarily to North Korea in every category of arms–but the North has nuclear bombs. It can’t deliver them to the US, but probably can to Seoul. Even without nuclear weapons, it has a large army and large numbers of artillery tubes within range of Seoul. It has an unpredictable government. As Gordon Liddy said, if your responses to provocation are wildly out of proportion to those  provocations, and unpredictable, nobody will provoke  you.

An American attack by air on the North, the only attack possible short of a preemptive nuclear strike, would offer a high probability of a peninsular war, devastation of Seoul, paralysis of an important trading partner–think Samsung–and an uncertain final outcome.  The United States hasn’t the means of getting troops to Korea rapidly in any numbers, and the domestic political results of  lots of GIs killed by a serious enemy would be politically grave. The probable cost far exceeds any possible benefit. In practical terms, Washington’s military superiority means nothing with regard to North Korea. Pyongyang knows it.

Or consider the Ukraine. On paper, US forces overall are superior to Russian. Locally, they are not. Russia borders on  the Ukraine and could overrun it quickly. The US cannot rapidly bring force to bear except a degree of air power. Air power hasn’t worked against defenseless peasants in many countries. Russia is not a defenseless peasant. Europe, usually docile and obedient to America, is unlikely to engage in a shooting war with Moscow for the benefit of Washington. Europeans are aware that Russia borders  on Eastern Europe, which borders on Western Europe. For Washington, fighting Russia in the Ukraine would require a huge effort with seaborne logistics and a national mobilization. Serious wars with nuclear powers do not represent the height of judgement.

Again, Washington’s military superiority means nothing.

Or consider Washington’s dispute with China in the Pacific. China cannot begin to match American naval power. It doesn’t have to. Beijing has focused on anti-ship missiles–read “carrier-killer”–such as the JD21 ballistic missile. How well it works I do not know, but the Chinese are not stupid. Is the risk of finding out worth it? Fast, stealthed, sea-skimming cruise missiles are very cheap compared to carriers, and America’s admirals know that lots of them arriving simultaneously would not have a happy ending.

Having a fleet disabled by China would be intolerable to Washington, but its possible responses would be unappealing. Would it tart a conventional war with China with the ghastly global economic consequences?  This would not generate allies. Cut China’s oil lanes to the Mid-East and push Beijing toward nuclear war? Destroy the Three Gorges Dam and drown god knows how many people? If China used the war as a pretext for annexing bordering counties? What would Russia do?

The consequences both probable and assured make the adventure unattractive, especially since likely pretexts for a war with China–a few rocks in the Pacific, for example–are too trivial to be worth the certain costs and uncertain outcome.  Again, military superiority doesn’t mean much.

We live  in a  military world fundamentally different from that of the last century. All-out wars between major powers, which is to say nuclear powers, are unlikely since they would last about an hour after they became all-out, and everyone knows it. In WWII Germany could convince itself, reasonably and almost correctly, that Russia would fall in a summer, or the Japanese that a Depression-ridden, unarmed America might decide not to fight. Now, no. Threaten something that a nuclear power regards as vital and you risk frying. So nobody does.

At any rate, nobody has. Fools abound in DC and New York.

What then, in today’s world, is the point of huge conventional forces?

The American military is an upgraded World War II military, designed to fight other militarizes like itself in a world like that which existed during World War II. The Soviet Union was that kind of military. Today there are no such militaries for America to fight. We are not in the same world. Washington seems not to have noticed.

A World War II military is intended to destroy point targets of high value—aircraft, ships, factories, tanks—and to capture crucial territory, such as the enemy’s country. When you have destroyed the Wehrmacht’s heavy weaponry and occupied Germany, you have won. This is the sort of war that militaries have always relished, having much sound and fury and clear goals.

It doesn’t work that way today. Since Korea, half-organized peasant militias have baffled the Pentagon by not having targets of high value or crucial territory. In Afghanistan for example goatherds with rifles could simply disperse, providing no point targets at all, and certainly not of high value. No territory was crucial to them. If the US mounted a huge operation to take Province A, the resistance could just fade into the population or move to Province B. The US would always be victorious but never win anything. Sooner or later America would go away. The world understands this.

Further, the underlying nature of conflict has changed. For most of history until the Soviet Union evaporated, empires expanded by military conquest. In today’s world, countries have not lost their imperial ambitions, but the approach is no longer military. China seems intent on bringing Eurasia under its hegemony, and advances toward doing it, but its approach is economic, not martial. The Chinese are not warm and fuzzy. They are, however, smart.  It is much cheaper and safer to expand commercially than militarily, and wiser to sidestep martial confrontation—in a word, to ignore America. More correctly it is sidestepping the Pentagon.

Military and diplomatic power spring from economic power, and China is proving successful economically. Using commercial clout, she is expanding her influence, but in ways not easily bombed. She is pushing the BRICS alliance, from which the US is excluded. She is enlarging the SCO, from which America is excluded. Perhaps most importantly, she has set up the AIIB, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, which does not include the US but includes Washington’s European allies. These organizations will probably trade mostly not in dollars, a serious threat to Washington’s economic hegemony.

What is the relevance of the Pentagon? How do you bomb a trade agreement?

China enjoys solvency, and hegemonizes enthusiastically with it. Thus in Pakistan it has built the Karakoram Highway from Xian Jiang to Karachi, which will increase trade between the two. It is putting in the two power reactors near Karachi. It is investing in Afghan resources, increasing trade with Iran. . When the US finally leaves, China, without firing a shot, will be predominant in the region.

What is the relevance of aircraft carriers?

Beijing is talking seriously about building more rail lines, including high-speed rail, from itself to Europe, accompanied by fiber-optic lines and so on. This is not just talk. China has the money and a very large network of high-speed rail domestically. (The US has not a single mile.) Google “China-Europe Rail lines.”

What is the Pentagon going to do? Bomb the tracks?

As trade and ease of travel from Berlin to Beijing increase, and as China prospers and wants more European goods, European businessmen will want to cuddle up to that fabulously large market—which will loosen Washington’s grip on the throat of Europe. Say it three times slowly: Eur-asia. Eur-asia. Eur-asia. I promise it is what the Chinese are saying.

What is the Pentagon’s trillion-dollar military going to bomb? Europe? Railways across Kazakhstan? BMW plants?

All of which is to say that while the US military looks formidable, it isn’t particularly useful, and aids China by bankrupting the US. Repeatedly it has demonstrated that it cannot defeat campesinos armed with those most formidable weapons, the AK, the RPG, and the IED. The US does not have the land forces to fight a major or semi-major enemy. It could bomb Iran, with unpredictable consequences, but couldn’t possibly conquer it.

The wars in the Mid-East illustrate the principle nicely. Iraq didn’t work. Libya didn’t work. Iran didn’t back down. ISIS and related curiosities? The Pentagon is again bombing an enemy that can’t fight back—its specialty—but that it seems unable defeat.

Wrong military, wrong enemy, wrong war, wrong world.


23
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Anonymous
Anonymous

Well, ya’ gotta bomb something!

comment image

JIMSKI
JIMSKI

Author is uninformed.
The military ( and HUD and DOE and all the rest ) is a vehicle to loot the treasury.
Nothing more and nothing less.

durangodan
durangodan

Spot on. End of story. Down voters are clueless TV watchers.

Gator
Gator

Jimski is correct. It’s purpose is to make money for a select few, against the interests of the American people, by using their ignorance and fear against them. Just like the war on terror isn’t meant to be won, it is meant to be endless(and I would add expensive).

The Russians and Chinese are spending their smaller budgets much wiser than the US. Fred mentions cruise missiles, which are orders of magnitude cheaper than carrier battle groups(and more expendable since there aren’t people flying them…) and a swarm of them launched from long distance will destroy or disable a carrier group. I don’t know how many surface to air missiles an Aegis cruiser carries off the top of my head, but the Chinese will and will simply launch enough to overwhelm them. Then it’s game over. Even if they only sink or disable one, they will be vulnerable and therefore useless. Game over for the US projecting power.

Same with the Russians and their S-400. It’s said to be able to down any modern aircraft, and costs a tiny fraction of the F35, which can be knocked out of the sky, which makes it worthless since losing even a few of them would be too big of a psychological blow to the US public. Russian aircraft don’t have to be ‘superior’ to the US aircraft if the skies above Russia are too dangerous due to SAM coverage.

Gator
Gator

As an aside, the average European would not greatly benefit from more open borders and high speed rail type nonsense with the Chinese. While the Chinese probably won’t come in and demand everyone accommodate their beliefs, their hot money will flow in to desirable areas and drive up property values to obscene levels, such as has been done in the US and Canada, making housing unaffordable in many major cities. The ‘free trade’ arrangement that would doubtless be made would be sold as a boon to EU consumers, but in reality would only benefit large, transnational corporations.

Ray
Ray

Sorry dude but that ” US military force” That you think is so vast and powerful is GONE. Downsized. USED UP. Worn out and not replaced in 30 years of almost continuous war. The M1 MBT F-15 and F16 are products of the 70’s and 80’s. Obsolescent at best and only 20% of the 1995 force remains in service. The “fleet” is smaller than the one that Dewey sailed into Manila bay, and under manned with only enough sailors to man 1/2 the fleet at one time. The USMC ,Navy and USAF have to scrounge the “boneyard” for parts to keep 40% of the “available” air fleet flying at any one time. The Infantry are being purged of the best officers and NCO’s and the good, solid young men want OUT of what is become a rigid “zero tolerance” PC military. Where political conformity matter’s far more than readiness. Sorry to burst the fantasy bubble but right now as of September 2016 the US military is less ready for war than it was in 1939, and even IF Trump wins and go’s into a flat out rebuild that 1991 Gulf War Army, Navy Marine Corps and Air Force you remember seeing, is setting in the boneyard. It would take YEARS to rebuild and reactivate. We couldn’t fight a war, let alone win one right now if we had too. The Nukes too ARE GONE thanks to Obama who has been quietly “deactivating” since the day he took office. Only 25% or less of the 1999 stockpile remain. Wanna know what the largest single armed force in the US still is? Its the civilian gun owners. Or did you think that the UN and US Government were so hot to disarm the public out of hate? We are the ONLY thing standing between them and victory. The military really is become a “paper tiger”.

Pete
Pete

Note that while all that decline has happened spending has increased.
The money the DoD spends mostly vanishes into Virginia and Maryland suburbs; its welfare for engineers.
As I was one, I know this to be true.
Think hundreds of thousands of engineers & millions of staff all producing very little beyond words on paper at a cost in the hundreds of $$Billions.

IndenturedServant

In the grand scheme of things, the US is the military power center which acts as the enforcement for TPTB. (See Gaddafi and Saddam) London is the financial capitol and The Vatican is the “spiritual” center for TPTB.

Boat Guy
Boat Guy

It’s all exactly what jimski said its all bull shit at the thickest level as we all are now circling the drain thanks to Wall Street the federal reserve and K – Street lobbiest now every little police dept is equipped like a small military force with there interconntenatil ballistic WINNIEBAGO crisis command center bought with HSA and asset forfeiture and the term Eurasia freaky . “OCEANA IS AT WAR WITH EURASIA , OCEANA HAS ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EURASIA ” in closing DEATH TO BIG BROTHER !

Lysander The Deplorable
Lysander The Deplorable

What outstanding observations from most of you! Especially Indentured Servant pointing out the relationship of the various city states that run things.

Vatican City-Keeping the rubes in line and supporting religion, any religion, because those religions control a large mass of people.

The City of London- The financial head of the world.

Washington DC-The enforcement arm of the power brokers.

Hong Kong City-Keeps an eye on Asia and has it’s hand in everything in that corner of the world.

Yeah, I know that China owns Hong Kong after the British treaty expired in 1997……..but does it really? They are along for the ride as well.

mike
mike

Have you considered that it’s primary purpose is to keep the domestic proles in line?
Seems war machinery displayed and tested abroad is coming home to be used.
Fred restricted his article to the appearance of foreign hegemony.

OutLookingIn
OutLookingIn

Don’t forget the latest navy fumble. The littoral combat ships.
4 in service
3 fitting out
3 under construction
3 on order
$704 million first ship with $360 million each additional ship. Total order 12 ships
The first ship suffered from aggressive disintegration due to corrosion.
The expensive flotilla of NAVY LCS’s (currently 4 active) have been experiencing catastrophic engine failures.
During this past week, they have all been called back to port. The initial cost of these ships will balloon (who knows how much?) as change orders and design amendments pile up.
Initial 12 ship cost $4 billion, 664 million or $4.664 billion.
These are small fast ships with a small crew size, meant for shallow water operations.

Pete
Pete

For that last line .. try this instead ? .. These are small immobile ships with an enormous engineering, design, and construction staffs, meant as a political pay-off for important Congressional districts.

“Deplorable” Olga
“Deplorable” Olga

Might want to give this guy 18 minutes …. Particularly if you have draft-age sons as I do.

What better way to distract the peons from economic ruin than to start WWIII. The man almost makes me want to take up smoking again!

susanna

Thanks Olga,
Farrel has a unique way of explaining things…he gives facts.
We do not have draft age sons, nonetheless, one hangs their
head in shame…both for the arrogance and lies, and for the
stupidity.

Suzanna

Stucky

“Don’t forget the latest navy fumble. The littoral combat ships.”
——— OutLookingIn

Not to worry, my friend. All the problems you listed have been fixed in the latest version, designated as “C” ……… aka, C-littoral.

(It carries a lot more seamen than the older version, but they all jump overboard if they get too excited.)

OutLookingIn
OutLookingIn

Good one Stucky! lmao
Jumping overboard or, “suffering aggressive disintegration due to corrosion”.
In which case its seamen without a vessel!

Stuart Beaker
Stuart Beaker

What frightens your opponent?

* Invisibility

* Agility

* Immorality

Ditch the big stuff; ditch the big targets; ditch the moral constraints, which could have been dreamed up for you by your very opponents. Make them uncertain, worried and blind.

Then you can start setting an agenda for at least your part of the world. Get serious.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading