Low bar there.At least our military can fight
It's not just inertia; people need to eat, and want to have a home to live in.
There's a strong motivation to keep working, which keeps some basic economic activity going, even when there are a lot of negative factors.
I've made a prediction or two that was overly pessimistic/optimistic about when governments like the CCP would collapse, but eventually I realized that while people like Zeihan tend to be good at analyzing potential problems, they don't talk much about the constructive forces that keep a nation and economy going.
Until you can get a more comprehensive picture, making predictions is kind of useless.
TRADOC is the big standard that they must get.Hmmm, not Chinese level….but some people seem to want the soldiers moving in that direction. Example of a 30 year difference in training.
Some fairly recent Infantry training I was told about: CMD leadership mainly from TRADOC.
(Canned training is not training.)
Squad live fire members must IMT to pre-placed red flags, then only shoot between the two yellow flags in front of the red flag.
A team or squad leader will escort each person in the squad.
……. Squad is recocked because one squad member went to right of a tree vs. left of the tree.
Vs CMD leadership Tier 1 background ……25 mile road March into an OBJ company never used. BN Scouts did the recon and brief CO and PL’s.
Company goes strait into live fire including mortar(60mm), AT-4, and all other sundry small arms.
(Granted that was culmination of year long training cycle).
Oh, it's plausible that China will have a navy able to question American naval supremacy in China's own front yard. But it won't be able to change the answer.Unless we properly understand that the USA will lose its unquestioned naval supremacy in the next 15 years we will continue to act under a delusion.
I'm guessing Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq. Korea was over 70 years ago, not under 50.The last 4 major wars, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1 and I guess GWOT?
And the military kicked ass I'm everyone of thoseOh, it's plausible that China will have a navy able to question American naval supremacy in China's own front yard. But it won't be able to change the answer.
I'm guessing Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq. Korea was over 70 years ago, not under 50.
But this betrays the vapidity of his analysis. Afghanistan and Iraq II were "lost" in the sense that the occupation went sour. I hope we can all agree that if the United States went to war with China and totally conquered it, the occupation would likely go badly, but I don't think that's what most people mean by "the US would lose a war with China".
Arguable for Vietnam. Whether for political reasons or not, the army never pushed north, never captured the flag. North Vietnam did the proverbial "lose every battle and win the war". For the others, that's what I said.And the military kicked ass I'm everyone of those
I see your point. Vietnam was a loss because of government stupidity then military mightArguable for Vietnam. Whether for political reasons or not, the army never pushed north, never captured the flag. North Vietnam did the proverbial "lose every battle and win the war". For the others, that's what I said.
I see your point. Vietnam was a loss because of government stupidity then military might
Well we have a stupid government, if we weren't so far ahead and blessed with amazing institutions and geography we'd be fucked by nowwe have been losing a lot of wars because of government stupidity...
The military serves the civie governments goals, not their own desires for combat, and it is civilians who determine the policy goals of a nation (in trustworthy elections), not the military leadership or the NCO corp.Let the military Military
So you want us to go an nation build when the military can go strike the enemy and be out and get done what needs to be done?The military serves the civie governments goals, not their own desires for combat, and it is civilians who determine the policy goals of a nation (in trustworthy elections), not the military leadership or the NCO corp.
So you want us to go an nation build when the military can go strike the enemy and be out and get done what needs to be done?
Because when it comes to military matters, such as fighting the war. Let the military military. Let the politicians handle everything else.
Restricting the military is how you get Vietnam, the war you so like to hold over our heads, A-stan, Current situation in Iraq, the fact we havnt bombed Iran and Yemen into submission
Sometimes nation building works (looks at S. Korea, Germany, Japan), but the people in charge have to know how to do it right, instead of doing it to line their own pockets.So you want us to go an nation build when the military can go strike the enemy and be out and get done what needs to be done?
War is politics/diplomacy via other means.Because when it comes to military matters, such as fighting the war. Let the military military. Let the politicians handle everything else.
Out of all of those, only A-stan was justified to begin with; we should never have been in Veitnam or Iraq.Restricting the military is how you get Vietnam, the war you so like to hold over our heads, A-stan, Current situation in Iraq, the fact we havnt bombed Iran and Yemen into submission
The problem is, Zach doesn't want the civie government setting any rules or restrictions on the US military that have political reasoning behind them.War is inherently political, but.
Going all the way back to Sun Tzu, letting political leaders mess too much with military execution was a known recipe for disaster, and it's a lesson the American political establishment has been insisting on ignoring painfully for most of a century.
Politicians set objectives, and reasonable limitations.
Unreasonable limitations and unreasonable objectives defeat a military as or more easily than the enemy will, as evidenced in Afghanistan.
The bigger problem in this discussion is that Zach is really bad at communicating, not even taking the time to use proper spelling and grammar, much less fully articulating ideas and carefully delineating between what he does and does not mean.The problem is, Zach doesn't want the civie government setting any rules or restrictions on the US military that have political reasoning behind them.
Zach wants to continue to pretend politics is not part of military matters and affairs, despite the fact politics has NEVER been absent from the military, nor is politicians/civies setting goals for the military to achieve, and then wanting oversight on how it is done, some massive burden.
It mostly seems like he wants the concerns of the NCO corp to dictate US politics, not civies concerns.