US backbone and the middle east (was Re: Le Pen ...)
Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:14:50 -0700
Ok, a word about the limits of American Power.
America doesn't have that many boots on the ground, which is why someone
with the stature of Kagan is calling not for $350Billion but $450Billion
Past neglect and Afghanistan means that we couldn't do a good job on
Iraq today. We don't have the JDAM kits. (We will by September.)
We don't have the infantry to attack and occupy any area with a large
population. Iran would be much harder than Iraq simply because it has
more people. The world isn't in danger of seeing the US march on
Beijing or Moscow.
We can't do another Desert Storm. The troops no longer exist. (On the
other hand, the capability of the troops we have left took a quantum
jump. In Kosovo, our Nato allies were down right shocked by the
differences. That shock has only deepened after Afghanistan.)
So the US can go in and break things, but it can't stay anywhere except,
perhaps, Iraq. Iraq isn't that heavily populated of a country.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
> The full article is here:
> It's a bit fluff, but basically points out that we need no cooperation
> from anyone and in fact if we wanted to it would basically be
> for any nation to stop us militarily- not only do we have better
> technology and utterly global reach but we spend 40% of the /world's/
> military budget, and that number is growing.
> This does not answer the question of will- no other nation in the
> history of warfare has done so little with so much, arguably, since we
> withdrew from Vietnam. But undoubtedly if we /wanted/ to do something,
> no one on earth can stop us militarily.