Back to the Future? Posted by Shawn Brimley

Nice to be here and thanks for having me.

Did anyone else find Fred Thompson's speech at the Citadel yesterday a little bizarre?  Thompson advocated for a "million man ground force" dramatically larger than the current size of both the Army and Marine Corps.

Apparently, the ground forces it took to confront the Soviet Union were too small for today's "war on terrorism."

I find it amazing that Thompson's proposal for an Army of 775,000 soldiers is exactly where we were in 1989, and a Marine Corps of 225,000 is 28,000 larger than at the end of the Cold War!

One would think that with the Soviet Union gone and the prospect of global conventional war all but eliminated, that the Republican presidential candidates can do better than one-upping each other on the size of the military.  Rather than posture over the size of a future military, perhaps Thompson and Co. can spend some time developing a strategy for the military we have today - one that is stuck in the middle of a civil war in the heart of the Middle East.

I think everyone can agree with Thompson that "we have asked too few troops to do too much for too long," but instead of reinforcing error perhaps we might think about bringing some of them home?  Being strong on defense is important for Democrats, but being smart on national security is vital.

Comments

[F. Keith Paxson]

Shawn, please enlighten us about your military experience and background. I served for six years as an intelligence analyst during the cold war, and later did something similar as a civilian, and Senator Fred Thompson's recommendations sound great to me. Fred Thompson is the only candidate making specific proposals on defense, illegal immigration, Social Security and many other issues. I applaud his courage and hope he is our next president!

[Greg Sanders]

Hey Brimley,

I keep seeing your work everywhere I go, I'm jealous. Glad CNAS is working out so well.

Anyways, how to interpret this. Well, maybe he means that since we're getting more involved in counter-insurgency we need to move from a more capital intensive military to a more labor intensive one.

Checking the speech:

We must fully field and fund the next generation of military systems to ensure U.S. forces retain dominance in the full battle space: On the battlefield, in the skies above it, and in the waters surrounding it.

Nope, capital and labor. So, as you say he's not looking for a different kind of military, he's just looking for one larger than we had at the end of the Cold War. Although it is a smaller military if we're talking percent of GDP, although if percent of GDP is the only metric that matters lets hope the North Koreans aren't reading this because they're dominant.

So why does he think we face a greater threat now? Well is says that there's more uncertainty in asymmetrical warfare than in symmetrical warfare. There's a reasonable thought there. So how do we judge the level of threat? I think we can best understand his line of thought from this passage:

When terrorists in their video performances pledge more and bigger attacks to come, these are not to be shrugged off as idle boasts. They must be taken at their word. When the president of Iran shares his nightmare vision of nuclear annihilation before cheering crowds, those are not just the fanatic's version of an empty applause line. The only safe assumption is that he means it.

So, he's advocating we base our defense policy entirely on the scariest things our potential adversaries say. I'm glad to hear that Sen. Thompson has such faith in humanity that he believes words speak louder than actions or capabilities.

I also find it interesting predictable that while Sen. Thompson raises the spectacle of nuclear terrorism he seems to have no interest in any sort of non-proliferation that doesn't involve another preventative war. NOthing matters but will. Another classic proponent of the Green Lantern theory of Geopolitics.

That said, he's still less scary than Mayor Giuliani.

Oh, and F. Keith Paxson. Check the prior post for his resume.

[Don Bacon]

Perhaps Fred Thompson could enlighten us about his military experience and background. Oh, that's right, he doesn't have one. He's a lawyer, movie actor and lobbyist. At a time when the US is not threatened by any other military force his proposal makes no sense, and is even bizarre. Hey, that's what Shawn said! Correctly. Grandpa Fred's a joke.

What the US needs in a National Intelligence Estimate that truthfully outlines the threats to the US. We don't have one. What we do have is an NIE on terrorism that says our military aggression in the ME is increasing the terrorist threat, and another NIE on Iran that says that any nuclear weapons it might produce (it has no program to do so) are ten years off. These NIAs prove that the current US policy is ridiculous, as the world recognizes.

The military threat to the US? There is none. The US doesn't need a standing military force, mush less a larger one.

[F. Keith Paxson]

Greg:

I took a look at his resume and from that, I assume that Shawn never spent a day in uniform. Did I miss something? Mrs. Hillary Clinton claims to be a foreign affairs/defense expert, too, but I'm not buying it.

Oh, and Don Bacon--how's that shilling for Ron Paul going? You and the other Birkenstockers will have a steep hill to climb on that one, but congrats on the fundraising!

[Dan Kervick]

F. Keith Paxson,

The idea that someone has to have served in uniform to have credible opinions on a proposed hike in national defense spending is like saying a person needs to have worked for the IRS to have credible opinions on a proposed tax hike. I'm glad you served in the military. But if you think that bought you and your comrades a special lifetime prerogative to make all the decisions on national defense policy, you can dream on. In fact, it's always the people who work in a particular area of the government who seem to be the prime backers of more cash for their area. It's generally up to everyone else to say no.

Thompson apparently thinks Iraq is the wave of the future. We need more guys, he thinks, so we can do more Iraqs in more places at once. Well, I personally think Iraq is a cautionary tale. One doesn't need a massive Army if one stops invading countries and stops fighting stupid "wars of choice" that are not vital to the defense of the country.

[Don Bacon]

F. Keith is unable to discuss issues and so must resort to ad hominem attacks. How about telling us what Grandpa Fred's million man ground force would be used for, F. Keith? Where and how would it be employed? Show us your experienced reasoning on military matters, if you can.

[ugg boots sale]

UGG Boots is your best ugg boots sale online Outlet where you can buy the cheapest
Ugg Boots.