Remind you of something?

[pigeonmeister]

.

1. I am arguing that it should not become easier to burden the military with this role. In extreme, short term situations, sure.

2. Going forward, if there are failures in the non-military systems in place to deliver humanitarian aid, then fix those.

3. Personally I share in the opinion that a faster, more mobile force lead by smaller specialized forces are the future of how conflicts will be handled. This is the direction things are currently going within the military community. It was demonstrated to be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was a huge difference in the number of troops and method of how the Gulf War in 91 and the recent war in Iraq were waged.

4. We are moving away from the huge conventional forces and the massive infrastructure required to support them. We should not be looking to reverse that process by expanding the mission. Take the money and spend it on something like the Coast Guard to fill the need of disaster relief.

5. And dont forget all those lefties who will start screaming when they realize this will require an increase in size and budgets and the potential ease with which the military might be able to be deployed domestically.

Again, I dont think it will happen. Bush suggested it primarily for the shock value.

1. Your government is arguing the same thing. I wouldn't worry to much about the armed forcers being burdened by genuine peacekeeping. America doesn't commit peace-keeping troops in areas of non-strategic interest. You are, however, willing to pay for it. Consequently America contributes about 1% of UN peace-keepers (430 troops) but over 25% of the budget. That is down from 1.8% and 30% of the budget since 2001. To be fair the US also deploys a few units, not under UN control, alongside UN peacekeepers in the Balkans, East Timor, and the Sinai. The point is that US policy, since Mogadishu, has been to not get involved in putting US peace-keepers on the ground in any serious numbers and only if overal control of the situation is guaranteed. I'm not knocking the fact that America is mostly willing to pay for it (debate about UN contributions aside). It's just not a burden for the military as Slim suggested. Peace-keeping in a post conflict situation that you have created yourself is a different kettle of fish, damn right US troops should be burdened with that role.

Top 3 troop contributers (I think all these figures are about 9 months old)
Pakistan (8,652),
Bangladesh (8,211)
Nigeria (3,577).

2. There are two considerations for effective humanitarian operations. Firstly, international political Will to give it. Secondly, and once a commitment has been made, getting it to the right people. The first consideration is always going to be broadly a result of non-military systems. The second is broadly about military logistics and providing security. Both considerations are co-dependent. You are right that non-military systems need to be fixed.

3. That is broadly defined as the Doctrine of Rapid Dominance, it was largely succesfull in the first Gulf War and as such I agree will probably be succesfull in similar types of conflicts. But then the crucial point is that the second Gulf War is a very different type of conflict, in which the Doctrine of Rapid Dominance has been totaly ineffective. That is because Daddy Bush had international support and limited mililtary and politcal aims: Get Saddam out of Kuwait, kick the crap out of his army BUT DONT TRY AND OCCUPY IRAQ. That is why daddy Bush didn't really think the current conflict was a good idea. Once you attach very ambitious political goals onto military operations, you get held hostage by factors that are not limited to how effetively you can detroy your enemy. You can eliminate athreat with DRD but can you create a nation? What if (as Saddam did) preperations for a well organised guerilla insurgency have been made? I think most military commentators agree that the US went in with too few soldiers, not to many. In Afghanistan, the US didn't even try and maintain authority outside Kabul.

4. The main problem with huge conventional armies is that they need to be paid, housed, trained and fed whether there is a war on or not. I think that in the future we will see more private armies, commissioned by the state, in times of conflict. I don't see how if America wants to 'nation-build' by occupation, in areas like Iran and Syria, they are going to do it with a smaller army. If they want to decrease the burden on conventional forces they should just avoid politically ambitious attempts to remap the politcal lanscape of a region, and just put all the money into developing bigger and cleverer bombs, robots and forcefields.

5. Surely cutting conventional forces would help cut military budgets?

[Slim]

1. Your government is arguing the same thing. I wouldn't worry to much about the armed forcers being burdened by genuine peacekeeping. America doesn't commit peace-keeping troops in areas of non-strategic interest. You are, however, willing to pay for it. Consequently America contributes about 1% of UN peace-keepers (430 troops) but over 25% of the budget. That is down from 1.8% and 30% of the budget since 2001. To be fair the US also deploys a few units, not under UN control, alongside UN peacekeepers in the Balkans, East Timor, and the Sinai. The point is that US policy, since Mogadishu, has been to not get involved in putting US peace-keepers on the ground in any serious numbers and only if overal control of the situation is guaranteed. I'm not knocking the fact that America is mostly willing to pay for it (debate about UN contributions aside). It's just not a burden for the military as Slim suggested. Peace-keeping in a post conflict situation that you have created yourself is a different kettle of fish, damn right US troops should be burdened with that role.

Top 3 troop contributers (I think all these figures are about 9 months old)
Pakistan (8,652),
Bangladesh (8,211)
Nigeria (3,577).

2. There are two considerations for effective humanitarian operations. Firstly, international political Will to give it. Secondly, and once a commitment has been made, getting it to the right people. The first consideration is always going to be broadly a result of non-military systems. The second is broadly about military logistics and providing security. Both considerations are co-dependent. You are right that non-military systems need to be fixed.

3. That is broadly defined as the Doctrine of Rapid Dominance, it was largely succesfull in the first Gulf War and as such I agree will probably be succesfull in similar types of conflicts. But then the crucial point is that the second Gulf War is a very different type of conflict, in which the Doctrine of Rapid Dominance has been totaly ineffective. That is because Daddy Bush had international support and limited mililtary and politcal aims: Get Saddam out of Kuwait, kick the crap out of his army BUT DONT TRY AND OCCUPY IRAQ. That is why daddy Bush didn't really think the current conflict was a good idea. Once you attach very ambitious political goals onto military operations, you get held hostage by factors that are not limited to how effetively you can detroy your enemy. You can eliminate athreat with DRD but can you create a nation? What if (as Saddam did) preperations for a well organised guerilla insurgency have been made? I think most military commentators agree that the US went in with too few soldiers, not to many. In Afghanistan, the US didn't even try and maintain authority outside Kabul.

4. The main problem with huge conventional armies is that they need to be paid, housed, trained and fed whether there is a war on or not. I think that in the future we will see more private armies, commissioned by the state, in times of conflict. I don't see how if America wants to 'nation-build' by occupation, in areas like Iran and Syria, they are going to do it with a smaller army. If they want to decrease the burden on conventional forces they should just avoid politically ambitious attempts to remap the politcal lanscape of a region, and just put all the money into developing bigger and cleverer bombs, robots and forcefields.

5. Surely cutting conventional forces would help cut military budgets?

The original post suggests expanding the role of the military for domestic disaster relief, which is what I am arguing against. You seem more interested in trying to impress with your amazing (ly biased) understanding of geo-political and military knowledge, and creating an opportunity to inject more of your anger and resentment of the US. Well done.

[pigeonmeister]

The original post suggests expanding the role of the military for domestic disaster relief, which is what I am arguing against.

I quote: "Personally I share in the opinion that a faster, more mobile force lead by smaller specialized forces are the future of how conflicts will be handled. This is the direction things are currently going within the military community. It was demonstrated to be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was a huge difference in the number of troops and method of how the Gulf War in 91 and the recent war in Iraq were waged."

Come on, this doesn't really have much to do with expanding the role of the miltitary for disaster relief does it? Sounds more like a rant about conflict resolution to me.

Don't congratulate me, debunking your poorly considered diatribe really isn't difficult.

[Taomagicdragon]

Not to pick on you, slim.
However, when saying the armed forces should not be required to take on humanitarian work in addition to what they already do, saying to expand one branch to encompass it is contrary to your point.

[Slim]

Not to pick on you, slim.
However, when saying the armed forces should not be required to take on humanitarian work in addition to what they already do, saying to expand one branch to encompass it is contrary to your point.

No problem.The Coast Guard's mission is vastly different than the other branches (A/N/AF/M). My main point was having it done by something other than those, the so called traditional military. The Coast Guard was a suggestion. So, I dont think I was contradicting myself at all.

[mrbiggs]

The whole idea sucks.

The city, the state, and FEMA were the causes of the failures, not the federal government. It is the city's job more than anything to take care of these crises.

These failures will not happen again, we've learned our lesson. It's not like future mayors of New Orleans will have an inadequate evactuation plan.

And FEMA was a joke.

[Taomagicdragon]

From my point of view...

THe local law enforcement was highly inept.
The local government delayed aid, CT sent a convoy of national guard troops/food/water and when they reached the louisiana border, they were turned back because the governer didn't decalre ait a stae of emergency until 2 days after the hurricane hit.
FEMA was bureaucratic and, anything doen in that fashion takes forever. This is partially the federal gov't's fault as much as their own.

[esskreemr]

I'm not disputing that it has happend in the past, and is currently happening in some places, primarily to clean up after a conflict. I am arguing that it should not become easier to burden the military with this role. In extreme, short term situations, sure. Going forward, if there are failures in the non-military systems in place to deliver humanitarian aid, then fix those.

Perhaps we should create a force that is under direct management by the Governor. This force could consists mainly of 'citizen' soldiers. Of course, they wouldn't be able to train on a daily basis. After basic training, they could train every so often, perhaps once a month. They could be on hand to help resume control and given the task of responding with the proper equipment, ship supplies in, provide order whenever a disaster strikes. Oh wait... they already have that, it's called the National Guard. The only problem is that due to tens of thousands of National Guard troops being shipped off to fight in Iraq, the recruiting numbers are way down and over 30% of their soldiers and equipment are running around the desert.

Personally I share in the opinion that a faster, more mobile force lead by smaller specialized forces are the future of how conflicts will be handled. This is the direction things are currently going within the military community.

This is the direction that it is being forced into. 'An Army of One'. It's code for let's shut down basis, trim our soldier count significantly, and then we'll have a reason to dump billions of dollars into our cronies' (Haliburton) laps.

It was demonstrated to be successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was a huge difference in the number of troops and method of how the Gulf War in 91 and the recent war in Iraq were waged.

Depends on what you define 'success' as.

We are moving away from the huge conventional forces and the massive infrastructure required to support them. We should not be looking to reverse that process by expanding the mission.

Yet, for some reason, the amount we spend on 'defense' seems to spiral up and up each year. I am somewhat skeptical about plans to 'trim' the military into a leaner, meaner, fighting machiner when the budgets continue to escalate faster than a premptive nuclear strike and the said 'trimmed' military is merely replaced with civilian contractors at a cost that is several times higher than the soldiers would cost.

Take the money and spend it on something like the Coast Guard to fill the need of disaster relief.

What money? The military budget is increased regularly, several times a year in an outright manner as well as covertly.

And dont forget all those lefties who will start screaming when they realize this will require an increase in size and budgets and the potential ease with which the military might be able to be deployed domestically.

Yes, let's not forget that.

How about the true conservatives? The non-rank-in-file Republicans who seem to be extremely displeased with the rising deficit?

Again, I dont think it will happen. Bush suggested it primarily for the shock value.

He seems to suggest alot for the 'shock' value. Your not suggesting that our Commander and Chief is misrepresenting his true agenda are you? That's un'Merican you commie!!!!

[Philistine]

{snip}The city, the state, and FEMA were the causes of the failures, not the federal government. {snip}

Umm..... isn't FEMA part of the federal government?


--Philistine

[mrbiggs]

Umm..... isn't FEMA part of the federal government?


--Philistine

Yeah, I suppose.

Tell you what, replace "federal government" with "the army" and it all makes more sense.

[epeeisky]

From my point of view...

THe local law enforcement was highly inept.
The local government delayed aid, CT sent a convoy of national guard troops/food/water and when they reached the louisiana border, they were turned back because the governer didn't decalre ait a stae of emergency until 2 days after the hurricane hit.
FEMA was bureaucratic and, anything doen in that fashion takes forever. This is partially the federal gov't's fault as much as their own.

You are correct the NOPD are known for their corruption, but this disaster tourned thn into a great force. There were a few officers that looted, and they are being punished at the moment. I dont know where you got that Blanco declared a state of emergency later in the week, but that is false. She declared a state of emergency on Saturday when we learned that the storm was coming our way. Alot of t was FEMA's fault. A study done after hurricane Georges determined that about 25% of the population would not leave, and during this hurricane about that many did not leave. The mayor of NO and hte govenor were not perfect but many of the problems were caused by FEMA. The first responders in the strom were State Personel of the Wildlife and Fisheries boat Crews who saved several thousand lives. When FEMA finally got around to helping out on Wendesday/Thursday they didnt even know that 10-15 thousand people were at the convention center. Brown was a "good ole boy" that should never have been in office.

[epeeisky]

The whole idea sucks.

The city, the state, and FEMA were the causes of the failures, not the federal government. It is the city's job more than anything to take care of these crises.

These failures will not happen again, we've learned our lesson. It's not like future mayors of New Orleans will have an inadequate evactuation plan.

And FEMA was a joke.

Yes FEMA is a joke, they even screwed up on Rita, they had all the supplies they needed but were not giving it out. A Texas judge threatned to take the generators and other things by force if he had too. Cities cannot take of crisses like hurricanes by themselves, in most cases their infrastructure is destroyed, they NOPD and NOFD lost a signicicant portion of their equipment and in most cases the officers used their own boats to save people and enforce law and order. The state stepped in late monday to help with boats for rescues and the limited supplies they had. LA is a poor state with limited resources and I think they did a decent job. I saw this through person experiences at the hospital where I work and the emergency triage center that the state set up.

[Taomagicdragon]

I dont know where you got that Blanco declared a state of emergency later in the week, but that is false. She declared a state of emergency on Saturday when we learned that the storm was coming our way.

My apologies for that, rechecked the news source, read it wrong, my mistake. Thanks for clearing it up