China Training for 'Short Sharp War' with Japan

[J20!]

@J20!

Let us be clear, my interaction with you started with your comment at Post #27 where you wrote to my comment:

as:



The issue was waging war and the benign approach of the US military posture as indicated by its downsizing its combat personnel by a cognisable number. As anyone with an ounce of military knowledge is aware, victory in war is measured in the kilometerage captured. To do that one requires boots on the ground to capture, and then hold! Thus the downsizing indicates that the US, while retaining its strategic vision, is at the same time, positing its responsible non adventurist intent.

1. Downsizing the US Army is a prerequisite to the commitments laid out in the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was put forth to reign in US military spending that has more than doubled since 9/11. It is by no means a sign of a "benign" US military posture.

2. Air-Sea-Battle, the war-fighting policy being adopted by the US military in the Pacific emphasized the operations by the US Navy, the US Airforce and the US Marines(something I mentioned in my previous post if you read it at all). The US Army has a much less significant role as compared to the three arms of the US military I just mentioned.

http://www.google.co.bw/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csbaonline.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2F2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf&ei=fR4aU7SvD5PB7Aa-5oGADQ&usg=AFQjCNHi9KSBUI_eutv0nsgL5mzxMo4sgg

One would hardly construe what I wrote as ' basically agreeing with what me and t_co'

To wit, may I contend that this is yet another puerile attempt to deftly give sheen of validity to your bogus meandering as if I were only endorsing what you wrote. I would only like to suggest that it would be delightful if you quit the usual style deliberate falsifications and specious argumentations to obfuscate issues and turn them into facts to suit your postulations. One has no time for Smoke and Mirror!

I hardly think that I was endorsing this ill informed and meandering, vacuous and ignorant post of yours (Post # 53) wherein you stated:

I cant decide whether you're trying to be confrontational/cynical, or if comprehension of your queens English eludes you. You said:

Thank you for the stereotype commentary about the US.wars that they fight and who organises them for profit.

Maybe that is the reason why the US Military has announced that they are downsizing!

Army to Cut Its Forces by 80,000 in 5 Years
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/army-to-cut-its-forces-by-80000-in-5-years.html?_r=0

Maybe, to fight wars goaded by defence contractors, and lose, right?

To which t_co and I replied:

Actually, if you look closely at the budget, you'll see that procurement allocations are flat while personnel costs are down - the net amount going to defense contractors is pretty much the same; the cuts will be borne by the wives and children of US soldiers.

In addition to what t_co said, the largest portion of the US defense budget is paid out in wages; that's what sequestration is largely cutting through personnel reductions not the programmes that fund the defense sector.

The procurement funds that the defense sector profits from have remained largely as they are. Like I've already shown you, they have first class representation in congress. Congress would sooner cut service men than over-budget and over-due big ticket procurement items like the F35 or LCS.

I am afraid I do know how a military operates and what is downsizing. But then, you seem to be the know all. Military is your profession I presume.

Unlike you, I do not declare myself a knowall, and instead do some serious research before commenting, knowing fully well that knowalls like you will shoot off the hip for their two minutes of fame.

The US is undertaking massive restructuring plan and the U.S. Army will reduce its strength by 80,000 soldiers (note the word 'soldiers' and not auxiliary staff) over the next five years and relocate thousands of troops.

That apart, is cancelling construction projects worth $400 million.

Just to be more precise, the Army will cut between 3,500 to 5,000 troops by fully eliminating 12 active combat duty brigades at 10 Army bases across the country by 2017 in Georgia, Colorado, North Carolina, New York, Kansas, and Washington, and including two bases each in Texas and Kentucky.

Further, thousands of others across the service, including those in support units of the brigades, as well as two overseas brigades located in Germany, also are slated for elimination. The downsizing of 80,000 soldiers, which will reduce the army's strength to 490,000, stands for a 14 percent reduction.

Because of the cut in combat strength, the Army may have to force several hundreds of officers to leave their jobs in order to achieve the appropriate number for troops across the hierarchy.

It is also worth noting that more cuts were in the pipeline, and as many as 100,000 more active duty, National Guard and Reserve soldiers could be downsized, if Congress approved the fiscal restraints to continue to next year.

So yes ray, we do agree thatthe sequestration process is prioritizing personnel cuts over procurement budget cuts.

Nowhere in any US document or policy (including the one you posted) have any mention of non combatants. So, what exactly are you meaning? Who are the non combatants you saw in the US Base in Botswana? The US outsources non combat productive Base activities to civilians. Iraq is one example, where haulage and activities as Camp chefs etc were done by hired labour and not combatants.

I don't know what you're trying to put across here... Who do you imagine maintains, administrates and operates the 662 US over-seas bases I mentioned? The soldiers themselves? Who bears the logistics costs and risks associated with it? Who do you think bears the managerial, administrative and maintenance costs? Those support units are mentioned in the CBO quote you so conveniently ignored:

In the options, CBO assumed that, when reducing the number of combat units, DoD would trim the same proportion from support units and overhead activities within the department; if DoD could not make proportional reductions in support and overhead activities, more combat units would need to be eliminated to achieve the required total reductions.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43997_Defense_Budget.pdf

Reducing force structure would generate savings across all three categories of DoD's budget: military compensation (because the department would need to pay and provide benefits to fewer service members); acquisition (fewer weapons and other items would need to be purchased);
and operations (fewer units would require basing, training, fuel, maintenance, and other types of support).2 Over a long enough period, the percentage reduction to DoD's base budget would correspond to the percentage reduction in the force structure if supporting infrastructure was reduced by a similar percentage.

Cutting combat units is only half the story oh knowledgeable one. There must be corresponding cuts to the support structures that allow those combat units to operate. To reduce the total number of combat units that need cutting to satisfy the requirements of the sequester, "proportional reductions in support and overhead activities" need to be made to preserve the desired no. of combat units. That refers to the non-combat support personnel I was referring to. Or do you want them to spell it out for you? Whether financial, administrative, logistics or medi-care support structures are outsourced or not, they are still costs borne by the defense budget.

No country will downsize to that extent that the country is unable to meet its strategic obligations. Therefore, to believe that the US has downsized to commit suicide is being totally naïve. Yet, at the same time, the downsizing does show a benign positing for international attention to indicate that the reckless adventurism associated with the US is a thing of the past.

By all means, quote the post where I said the US military is "downsizing to that extent that the country is unable to meet its strategic obligations".
Those are your assumptions, not mine. Like I said before, I'm starting to think your ranting has distracted you from the actual argument you initiated.

Your 'research' is totally spurious. Your attention span can be computed in milliseconds, but admittedly your zeal to pursue your agenda is immeasurable. It is most hilarious wherein you take the US sacrificing its defence preparedness at the expense of profit to the defence contractors!

Since you claim that your research is based on 'verifiable material with factual detail', could you show us where you have produced authentic details and not 'newspaper articles or opinion pieces in blogs'. You have merely indicated that you are self opiniated person spouting your own thoughts and passing it off as authentic 'verifiable material with factual detail'.

Another pretentious assertion as if you are walking the corridors of Powers that Be in Washington and Beijing!

My research draws information from peer-reviewed reports from the very agencies tasked with implementing the sequester, if it doesn't satisfy your expectations, please do us both a favor and ignore it.

Look man, I don't know what your problem is with me or my posts, but if they offend you so much with the "pretensions" you percieve, by all means don't reply to them. All you're doing is driving a straight forward issue into off-topic rants about other members "attention spans" and "opinionated" views. If you don't like the facts I'm giving you, please ignore them.

I've concluded the discussion on the military industrial complex's role in US foreign policy with Ewald on this very page, so you'll forgive me if I don't see the need to suffer further baseless, accusational rants from you on this thread. By all means feel free to continue blustering without me.

 

[Ray]

1. Downsizing the US Army is a prerequisite to the commitments laid out in the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was put forth to reign in US military spending that has more than doubled since 9/11. It is by no means a sign of a "benign" US military posture.

You comment about my comprehension of the English language thus:

or if comprehension of your queens English eludes you.

Fancy that coming from a person who cannot even spell or understand the meaning of simple English words like reign and rein

My good man, let me help you to understand this simple language called English for you:
[reign] = verb = hold royal office; rule as monarch.
noun - the period of rule of a monarch.
[rein] = verb = check or guide.
noun - a long, narrow strap attached at one end to a horse's bit, typically used in pairs to guide or check a horse in riding or driving.

I actually wonder who is handicapped in comprehension of English or in spelling!

So, downsizing the US Army is a prerequisite to the commitments laid out in the Budget Control Act of 2011?

Cast in stone?

So, it can't be changed dependent on the vagaries of the changing strategic situation, right?

Let's tarry a while and ponder.

Why is the downsizing being done? Would it be only to keep to commitments given for Budget Control? Would the US sacrifice national and strategic security to merely meet moral obligations? If it were so, then something must be seriously wrong.

Any downsizing, reduces the combat punch. And any downsizing, reduces flexibility since it reduces reserves! Here, reserves is meant not as in National Reserve, but as 'reserve' to ensure a win at the critical moment of battle.

2. Air-Sea-Battle, the war-fighting policy being adopted by the US military in the Pacific emphasized the operations by the US Navy, the US Airforce and the US Marines(something I mentioned in my previous post if you read it at all). The US Army has a much less significant role as compared to the three arms of the US military I just mentioned.

http://www.google.co.bw/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csbaonline.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2F2010.05.18-AirSea-Battle.pdf&ei=fR4aU7SvD5PB7Aa-5oGADQ&usg=AFQjCNHi9KSBUI_eutv0nsgL5mzxMo4sgg

The Army has less significant role?

Air Force, Navy and Marines are to ensure the capture of Beachheads. Thereafter, who takes over? Guess?

I cant decide whether you're trying to be confrontational/cynical, or if comprehension of your queens English eludes you. You said:\

To which t_co and I replied:

So yes ray, we do agree thatthe sequestration process is prioritizing personnel cuts over procurement budget cuts.

Your interpretation.

Not really in the actual interpretation since it is about downsizing of the army which is what I was alluding to.

I don't know what you're trying to put across here... Who do you imagine maintains, administrates and operates the 662 US over-seas bases I mentioned? The soldiers themselves? Who bears the logistics costs and risks associated with it? Who do you think bears the managerial, administrative and maintenance costs? Those support units are mentioned in the CBO quote you so conveniently ignored:
trim the same proportion from support units and overhead activities within the department; if DoD could not make proportional reductions in support and overhead activities, more combat units would need to be eliminated to achieve the required total reductions.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43997_Defense_Budget.pdf[/.

Yes, who supports?

Are these civilians?

What is support units ? Operative word: unit

Civilians are formed into units/b]?

In which Army?

Check this:

Category:Sustainment and support units and formations of the United States Army
Category:Sustainment and support units and formations of the United States Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cutting combat units is only half the story oh knowledgeable one. There must be corresponding cuts to the support structures that allow those combat units to operate. To reduce the total number of combat units that need cutting to satisfy the requirements of the sequester, "proportional reductions in support and overhead activities" need to be made to preserve the desired no. of combat units. That refers to the non-combat support personnel I was referring to. Or do you want them to spell it out for you? Whether financial, administrative, logistics or medi-care support structures are outsourced or not, they are still costs borne by the defense budget.

Check the above.

By all means, quote the post where I said the US military is "downsizing to that extent that the country is unable to meet its strategic obligations".
Those are your assumptions, not mine. Like I said before, I'm starting to think your ranting has distracted you from the actual argument you initiated.

What you have said I have quoted and don't be squeamish and try to deflect and obfuscate as is normal with you all.

My research draws information from peer-reviewed reports from the very agencies tasked with implementing the sequester, if it doesn't satisfy your expectations, please do us both a favor and ignore it.

Like which very agencies tasked to implement?

It is all very easy to pull wool and act informed and air pretensions. But nothing is there that backs up your money where your mouth is!

My credentials is well known and is available even in the net.

Look man, I don't know what your problem is with me or my posts, but if they offend you so much with the "pretensions" you percieve, by all means don't reply to them. All you're doing is driving a straight forward issue into off-topic rants about other members "attention spans" and "opinionated" views. If you don't like the facts I'm giving you, please ignore them.

I've concluded the discussion on the military industrial complex's role in US foreign policy with Ewald on this very page, so you'll forgive me if I don't see the need to suffer further baseless, accusational rants from you on this thread. By all means feel free to continue blustering without me.

The problem is that you don't back up what you purvey as the Gospel.

You are not suffering. We are. You are spreading disinformation about the US and linking issues that are remotely connected as passing them up as facts.

Everyone knows about the connection between the military industry and the Govt in the US. Eisenhower, himself, has said so as produced below:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

I don't think we require you tell act like a worn out gramophone record to echo his thoughts as your brilliant deductions!