The US Military is in Crisis, and money won't fix it.

[Thekri]

So this will be a rather Skroe-esque post, so if you don't like walls of text I will have a TLDR at the bottom.

The recent war-drums the Trump administration is beating over Venezuela sparked this post, but this is not really about Venezuela in particular, this is about the overarching disaster of US Military administrative policy over the last 30 years. The end of the Cold War left the US military without its driving focus, defeating a well armed, well equipped, national level threat. Since then we have had 4 presidents, and each has dramatically changed the course of what our military purpose was, and each has made it more unsustainable. This has left us with a hugely expensive, overextended, directionless, and ultimately unsuitable military structure. The political "Solution" to this over the last three decades has been to either add or subtract money from its budget, but the problem has never been money, but military policy. The US does not have a clear understanding of what it wants its military to do. And this fundamental failure has consequences far beyond the military, as it has deep consequences on the US Economy, and global security and international politics.

To understand how we got here, lets start with the Clinton Administration in 1992. George Bush's Administration made no major changes to the Cold War infrastructure of the military. He used that exact structure to execute a decisive war with Iraq, to accomplish a clear military objective, and then concluded that campaign. It was a war that the military was perfectly suited for, and it showed. When Clinton took the White House however, things had to change. The massive armored formations, missile networks, and gigantic blue water navy all were intended to fight a threat that no longer existed, and the situations that were unfolding needed a different approach. Clinton was confronted with a disastrous military intervention in Somalia, a open ended ethnic conflict in the Balkans, instability in Latin America, and other non-traditional threats, where the US was the only remaining superpower to influence. Simultaneously, he had a large debt problem that had come from the Cold War, and a gigantic military budget that no longer served its original funding. Clinton slashed military spending, restructured the Army away from its massive armored formations, cancelled an entire generation of advanced warfighting projects. He also began to deploy the military to Peacekeeping and stability operations, with long term commitments to entire regions. These policies where deeply unpopular with the military, and earn Clinton the enduring enmity of military buffs everywhere, but they were logical and necessary. He severely underestimated the longevity and expense of his commitments however, and future presidents would compound that.

Next came Bush, and although his campaign rhetoric indicated a very different role for the military, before he really had a chance to implement any of it, his hand was forced. He had loaded his administration with people with very deep ties to the defense industry, most notably Cheney and Rumsfeld, who had chafed under the Clinton era reductions. 9/11 required a military response, and these individuals ensured that response would be massive, lasting, and expensive. Two wars began, minor in historical context, major in the context of military capability. The massive drain on money and manpower nearly broke the military that had been restructured under Clinton, and the efforts to expand it slashed recruit quality, accountability, and readiness to catastrophic levels. Budgets and numbers soared, and so too did reliance on expensive third parties to support it. A massive quasi-military infrastructure sprung up nearly overnight, one without which the military could no longer operate. But it still wasn't enough. A key decision was made not to utilize the draft to expand the active military, as we had done in Vietnam, instead, the National Guard was increasingly used to bulk up Active Military. This decision was made because the draft had major contributions to loss of public support for Vietnam, and it worked. US popular support never forced the end of either war, as without the draft, most Americans didn't care enough to protest. Instead, the Guard was stretched to the breaking point, and the Active component grew to rely on their manpower. Like Clinton, foreign policy continued to lead to massive long term commitments, with no clear end or military objective. Military deployments were drawn around the doctrine of "Presence", that is, that simply being there was enough to accomplish the objective. This doctrine was used to a ludicrous extent, even creeping into tactical operations, where platoons wandered around hostile areas with no purpose at all. Financially, the Bush Administration refunded the old military programs and then some. Absolutely catastrophically expensive programs like the F-35 JSF, the Zumwalt Destroyers, and a never ending parade of mine-resistant vehicles sprang up, and were funded to absurd levels. There was very little accountability in these programs, leading to broken and ineffective equipment that had cost overruns in the tens of billions. Finally, the last legacy was the decaying of American moral authority, as lack of tactical guidance and an elusive and frustrating enemy led to atrocities and war crimes committed by US military personnel.

Then came 2008, and Obama took office. Promising to end the two wars, close Guantanamo, restore US moral authority, and revitalize the military, while balancing the budget like Clinton did. Over the next eight years he did exactly none of those things. In fact, the most permanent legacy of the Obama years was the full continuation of every single thing that was wrong with the Bush years, only begrudgingly, rather then enthusiastically. Essentially Obama's policies were the same as Bush's, he was just less happy about it. The programs that were started under Bush became even more bloated and worse under Obama. The Zumwalt destroyers for example were cut from 24 ships to 3, the program cost tripled, the guns were defunded for ammunition, yet not replaced, so the ships can no longer shoot, and it turns out the hulls are not suitable for open sea operations and the engines aren't reliable. In other words we bought three warships that can't shoot, move, or float, and we paid double what we thought we could get 24 next generation warships for. Other programs performed similarly, as defense industry interests consumed the entire pentagon. Obama's desperate attempts to cut the still rising military costs led to sequestration, essentially slashing the budget arbitrarily without guidance on where to save, since he couldn't get individual program cuts approved. The resulting cuts landed directly in the operating budgets of military units attempting to either actually engage in combat, or reform our almost extinct counter-national capabilities. Attempts to end the war repeatedly failed, and in frustration we withdrew from Iraq prematurely, leaving a seething power vacuum that boiled over almost instantly. Each step of this pushed the military harder. The last few years of the Obama years actually marked some improvements. Tactical goals improved, operating budgets stabilized, and the National Guard took a much needed breather. The bloat remained however.

That brings us to the forum's favorite topic... Trump. He threw open the doors and welcomed in an unprecedented swarm of defense executives, mercenaries and racketeers. He threw them some of the largest spending increases in history, and gleefully overcommitted to everything, while not establishing a single military objective ("Destroy ISIS" doesn't count. Also he changed his mind on that). Like Obama, he promised to end the wars. Also like Obama, he can't. Instead he seems determined to start new ones. With the active military already stretched by Obama era commitments to Europe and the Pacific, the Wars in Afghanistan and Syria/Iraq are being increasingly handed over to the national guard. The active military is taking on large new commitments to our own border (Which like 5 other agencies are already responsible for), and potentially soon in Latin America as well. More money won't help here, more bodies are needed if we pursue these things, and right now they are coming the Guard and Reserves, and those units are breaking down fast. Meanwhile our military budget is growing at a completely unsustainable rate, and cutting it is political anathema. The big defense contracts have framed these bloated projects as "Patriotic", as we continue to pour money in to large cap technology and fall behind in Soldier skills and truly adaptive areas, such as cyber.

The promised TLDR (Because yes, I am sure you didn't want to wade through that): The US Military has become a massive, bloated, structure that is bad at all the things we actually use it for, and is destroying our budget and our relationship with the world. While it remains a stunningly lethal force, it is so badly overstretched that it can barely fulfil the most basic functions of two extremely small existing context, and the possibility of a third is horrifying to anyone tracking military capability. Regardless of the rational of engagement in Venezuela, the idea that we can't effectively do so, even if we wanted too is frightening. By operating our military at max capacity, all the time, we are losing the capability to build efficiency, and we are unable to effectively deal with an emerging crisis if it arises. If we do not see a major, sustained policy shift for our military extremely soon, we are going to be stuck an absolutely crushing financial drain that simultaneously fails to perform its core purpose to the nation.

[KOUNTERPARTS]

hyper-technological advancements in weaponry will ( eventually) render the ground forces aspect of the military obsolete and solve this problem

[kaid]

hyper-technological advancements in weaponry will ( eventually) render the ground forces aspect of the military obsolete and solve this problem

We already have that technology but we just are not willing to implement it. Even with kinetic bombardment systems you still eventually wind up with boots on the ground in almost any conflict.

[tumppu]

hyper-technological advancements in weaponry will ( eventually) render the ground forces aspect of the military obsolete and solve this problem

That "eventually" is a rather important word. Because outside of the realm of science fiction, there's nothing immediately obvious, that would render infantry obsolete.

[cubby]

hyper-technological advancements in weaponry will ( eventually) render the ground forces aspect of the military obsolete and solve this problem

A Russian and American General of Tanks meet in Berlin at the end hostilities in WWII.
Russian General: Hey, good to see you! Btw, who won the air war?
American General: Who cares!

While I agree that hyper tech will change the face of warfare going forward, as it always does, having boots on the ground is still one of the best/only ways to actually win a conflict.

[Valerean]

What you don't understand is US military is not about having clear goal or efficiency, its about making money. US is ran by corporations, huge chunk of them are producing military equipment and they have lots of politicians in their pocket. They couldn't care less about anything other than making money.

Reminder that Walmart has revenues over three times greater than the five largest US defense contractors put together, and probably holds more influence over the average American pocket than the entire defense industry.

But I get it, Military Industrial Complex sounds cool and edgy and smart like the movies and stuff.

[ati87]

So to summarise Republicans are good at starting wars but screw up the army in the processes.

Obama as a president never really lived up to his full potential because the policies that he never really had the power to push for the policies the US needed. Republican obstructed in allot of ways was bad enough but he also had to deal with Democratic obstruction (Guantanamo) and the idea of any president slashing the Pentagon budget is laughable because he (maybe next time a she) will be attacked by all sides.

US militairy is in some ways really efficient (equipment) but in every other way it's a bottomless pit that really needs an overhaul in the way the money is spend.

[Valerean]

Are Walmart's profits coming from taxes? No? Then its irrelevant. Government spending is what matters. Money that could be spent to educate people and make them healthier are spent on biggest military in the world in country that is separated by massive oceans from all potential enemies.

And yet the US spends nearly twice as much on Medicare / Health as it does defense...

[Thekri]

Its working as intended.

What you don't understand is US military is not about having clear goal or efficiency, its about making money. US is ran by corporations, huge chunk of them are producing military equipment and they have lots of politicians in their pocket. They couldn't care less about anything other than making money.

US can do its political and actual military stuff with only a fraction of its military. Saved money could be spent on education, healthcare or even paying out massive debt. But it will never happen because corporate profits are more important than anything else.

Both political parties are part of it and as long as US has fake 2 party democracy that works for corporations, taking turns to screw people over every 4-8 years, nothing will be done. People are too brainwashed to realise it, so they keep voting for corrupt politicians. Its a shame.

Did you read my post? Because that is exactly what I said in it, lol. I am not sure why you claim I don't understand what was literally the entire point of the thread.

hyper-technological advancements in weaponry will ( eventually) render the ground forces aspect of the military obsolete and solve this problem

Not in any future that is foreseeable they won't. At least if the object of the war is to leave any survivors. Granted, you can nuke an entire continent and "Win" a war without any ground forces, but short of that you are going to need infantry.

Hyper-technological weapons are also Hyper-Expensive, so they make this problem worse, they don't improve it. I even talked about the Zumwalt-Class destroyers as an example of this, they are so advanced that congress literally refuses to buy ammunition for their guns. So they have guns, they work fine, but no ammunition was ever manufactured to fill their magazines. Because those rounds cost as much as Tomahawk missiles.

Lastly, nothing about my post was specific to ground forces. Military capability in general is the subject, the Navy is dealing with the exact same crisis as the Army, which is causing their absolutely horrific problems with corruption and safety. Hyper-technology will not change either of those two problems, or any other problem we are dealing with.

- - - Updated - - -

Reminder that Walmart has revenues over three times greater than the five largest US defense contractors put together

No it doesn't. You made that fact up altogether. The top five make about 300 billion in annual revenues. Walmart makes 500 billion. That is not triple.

More importantly, revenue in this context is meaningless. Walmart has a net profit margin of just over 2%, defense contracts average about 35%. So Walmart splits about 30 billion a year between shareholders and growth. Those five defense companies keep about 100 billion of that. Hence the lobbying.

Finally, why cut it off at 5? We are talking the entire industry, the smaller players have the same obscene profit margins, and lobby just as hard.

, and probably holds more influence over the average American pocket than the entire defense industry.

Ok, you are correct here. Defense spending is not consumer spending. Thanks for that insight. Instead it all gets written against our ballooning national debt, which is a completely different sort of problem that cannot be solved with your bi-weekly paycheck.

But I get it, Military Industrial Complex sounds cool and edgy and smart like the movies and stuff.

Yes, I suppose it does. You are also the first person in this thread to use that phrase. Congratulations on being cool and edgy.

[Endus]

The problem is that the USA is a superpower, whose military was designed for constant conflict against another superpower. That's been the status quo for the USA since right around WWII. Their military came into world-stage power leading up to that conflict, and when they joined the Allies against the Axis, that was a fight that warranted throwing everything at it. In the aftermath, the USSR became the enemy, and warranted continuing on a war footing.

And since the USSR fell to pieces in the early '90s, the heavy military strength of the USA has been an enormous hammer desperate to find some nails to justify its existence. Hence the Persian Gulf War, the War on Terror, and so forth. The idea that maybe you just don't need the giant hammer has been taken off the table entirely; what you need is more nails to hit. This is why, with the War on Terror winding down, Trump is talking about Venezuela and kicked off noises towards North Korea again; they're trying to identify more nails to swing at.

American military spending is essentially a giant sunk-cost fallacy. You've spent so much, for so long, that it needs to be worth it, meaning there needs to be an enemy to fight, even if you enter "we've always been at war with Eastasia" territory.

[Trifle]

hyper-technological advancements in weaponry will ( eventually) render the ground forces aspect of the military obsolete and solve this problem

Anyone who's played Civ will tell you, you can't occupy cities with planes. Hopefully the US isn't planning to occupy cities anytime soon, but the point still stands that you absolutely need ground forces.

[Skroe]

So this will be a rather Skroe-esque post, so if you don't like walls of text I will have a TLDR at the bottom.

I wish you well with this post, but I think you'll soon see why I stopped making them here. I don't even make space / tech threads anymore. I still make them, and participate in a discussion, with an audience of experts, engineers, scientists and enthusiast, at a forum that's behind a paywall.

The point your making is an important one, but folks here won't be assed to process it and will mostly just want to soapbox their usual positions. MMO-OT can't handle the nuances of the point you're trying to make. They can't handle the nuances of points far simpler than this.

MMO-OT, a place where people declare that Jane's Defence aren't subject matter experts anymore than they are.

This is a place where after Elon Musk landed his rockets two dozen times, people say it matters less than a Soyuz launch.

This is a crucial issue you're bringing up, and one I've mentioned less directly, and more implicitly, many times over the years. You'll be stuck explaining fundamental things to the people who say "good, let it fall in on itself", and don't care, and the people who think it's all a vast RTS game, and similarly, don't care.

Of course, when the shit hits the fan, they'll be made to care.

[Bodakane]

I wish you well with this post, but I think you'll soon see why I stopped making them here. I don't even make space / tech threads anymore. I still make them, and participate in a discussion, with an audience of experts, engineers, scientists and enthusiast, at a forum that's behind a paywall.

The point your making is an important one, but folks here won't be assed to process it and will mostly just want to soapbox their usual positions. MMO-OT can't handle the nuances of the point you're trying to make. They can't handle the nuances of points far simpler than this.

MMO-OT, a place where people declare that Jane's Defence aren't subject matter experts anymore than they are.

This is a place where after Elon Musk landed his rockets two dozen times, people say it matters less than a Soyuz launch.

This is a crucial issue you're bringing up, and one I've mentioned less directly, and more implicitly, many times over the years. You'll be stuck explaining fundamental things to the people who say "good, let it fall in on itself", and don't care, and the people who think it's all a vast RTS game, and similarly, don't care.

Of course, when the shit hits the fan, they'll be made to care.

I don't think the problem is the military. I think that is but a symptom. A significant and detrimental symptom, but still symptom.

The problem is what it always is....businesses.Uber military tech businesses in this case. They dictate the budget. They dictate the arms races.

Capitalism needs to evolve.

[Thekri]

The problem is that the USA is a superpower, whose military was designed for constant conflict against another superpower. That's been the status quo for the USA since right around WWII. Their military came into world-stage power leading up to that conflict, and when they joined the Allies against the Axis, that was a fight that warranted throwing everything at it. In the aftermath, the USSR became the enemy, and warranted continuing on a war footing.

And since the USSR fell to pieces in the early '90s, the heavy military strength of the USA has been an enormous hammer desperate to find some nails to justify its existence. Hence the Persian Gulf War, the War on Terror, and so forth. The idea that maybe you just don't need the giant hammer has been taken off the table entirely; what you need is more nails to hit. This is why, with the War on Terror winding down, Trump is talking about Venezuela and kicked off noises towards North Korea again; they're trying to identify more nails to swing at.

American military spending is essentially a giant sunk-cost fallacy. You've spent so much, for so long, that it needs to be worth it, meaning there needs to be an enemy to fight, even if you enter "we've always been at war with Eastasia" territory.

I like that argument, and I think it has a lot of merit. However I am not arguing against the existence of the big hammer, I am arguing against misusing it so much it becomes some weird fantasy looking World of Warcraft hammer that isn't actually good at being a hammer.

Since we are so busy finding nails to hit, our hammer is simply not available if we should need to hit someone with it. And it wouldn't be very good at if we did, because we broke it a long time ago, and now we are just gluing pointless pieces to it.

As to why we need a hammer in the first place, well I think that is primarily because if we lack it, then other nations will be forced to scramble for parity with each other. The US having an unrivaled military strongly discourages nation on nation wars, because if the US backs one side, that nation wins. So we have been mostly free of that sort of major conflict. So now "Modern War" is a never ending series of prolonged insurgencies, that nobody has figured out how to "win". I still think this is preferable to the sort of huge wars that regularly erupted before the second world war however.

[Skroe]

I don't think the problem is the military. I think that is but a symptom. A significant and detrimental symptom, but still symptom.

The problem is what it always is....businesses.Uber military tech businesses in this case. They dictate the budget. They dictate the arms races.

Capitalism needs to evolve.

@Thekri

See?

[Bodakane]

@Thekri

See?

I'm not wrong.

[jeezusisacasual]

I mean if those companies were so patriotic they would be more then willing to do it on the cheap for good ole uncle sam right? If they were so important to our very being they would be nationalized right? War is a Racket, Gen. Butler has never been so right in any point in history. My only fear is that the US goes into another quagmire giving China more then enough room to move about and grow again similar to the last decade and a half.

[Thekri]

@Thekri

See?

Hah, I agree in principle, I kind of agree with @Bodakane on that particular post though. It isn't the entire problem, but it is a significant one. The F-35, Zumwalt, and other super high dollar programs are driven more by these companies direct to congress then they are by the militaries need. We constantly had expensive equipment that we did not need or want being delivered.

[Skroe]

I'm not wrong.

You are. You're not even within the same star system.

This is mostly a policy thing, and how America sees its military, and how politicians talk about the military, and how they support the military through funding.

And you want to talk about Capitalism.

*sigh*

This is precisely why I stopped these. L2 never has this. Here? Page one.

[krooka1]

I'm not wrong.

Based on what facts.