• American Military Supremacy: Real or Fiction?

    From olade@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 16 03:38:56 2018
    In reality, the US should have sent warships to the sea of Azoz to
    demonstrate its freedom to travel anywhere it wants. But, at the moment, the sea of Azoz is closed by Russia, which is not legal to do so.

    But at issue is psychological game working at each other can be negotiated. There are many other fronts that US are addressing its strategic approaches, such a South China Sea and other key issues of places such as North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela.

    The US is still a formidable force but there is not enough of coalition
    forces to assist them. A collective coalition quality force is stronger than
    a sole quality force. Russia is testing the patience of the US, and the US response is delayed by talking more, instead.





    "ltlee1" wrote in message news:8d526ab9-daea-441f-81ef-61dd53584862@googlegroups.com...

    On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:50:30 AM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 2:07:49 AM UTC-5, olade wrote:
    That is well said and well analysed piece by the author.

    Indeed, many generals in the Pentagon never served a single day in
    uniform
    and many do not possess even basic knowledge of physical principles of which
    modern weapons to use and which to operate.

    This is because they do not know the changing dimensions that have reflected
    by the changing tactical, operational and strategic aspects if war. Even between distance-contact war and close-contact war or invasion war can
    make
    war dimensions to change and churn and escalate up very fast, sometimes even
    in "a blink of an eye".

    General should not sit in their air-conditioned Pentagon office. They should
    be on the ground to work with the troops on practical and hand-on
    aspects of
    training with fast changing scenarios of war game plans.

    But this is just the symptom. The root cause, if I am to summarize the author's view, is Americans' failure to appreciate Sunzi's opening sentence: 兵者,国之大事,死生之地,存亡之道,不可不察也 because the US has yet to defend the US
    nation from foreign invasion/occupation.

    To the extent that military operations and a country's life and death do not intersect, military operations degenerate into military-sport games. And US punditry further trivialize military operations exemplified by Stephen Blank Sea of Azov article:

    "In practice this means that Washington should send US Navy warships into
    the Sea of Azov through the Kerch Strait to demonstrate our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and integrity and the freedom of navigation on the seas, which has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy since 1789."

    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-trump-can-get-putin-s-attention






    "ltlee1" wrote in message news:25532b4c-86ad-43eb-8b72-03e29114b3c2@googlegroups.com...

    Andrei Martyanov, the author of LOSING MILITARY SUPREMACY, argues that "American military history is as much a matter of PR spin as it is a
    matter
    of reality.

    All nations, without exception, tend to have their own military
    mythologies
    and this is normal as long as those mythologies have at least some basis
    in
    reality. Military historians may argue about the validity of claims
    about
    the massive armor clash at Prokhorovka on July 12, 1943 during the
    Battle of
    Kursk, but no serious military historian doubts the battle itself, its gigantic scope and scale, and the massive influence it had not only for
    the
    war on the Eastern front but on the outcome of World War Two. How can
    one
    even claim any success militarily for the United States in the last 70 years
    when, with the exception of a turkey shoot in the First Gulf War, the United
    States as a nation and its much-vaunted military didn’t win a single
    war?
    The latest massive geostrategic failure in Syria only underscores the
    sad
    state of American fighting doctrine and of its war technology. As
    Geoffrey
    Aronson’s title to his article on Syria states: “Washington Relegated to
    Bystander Status in Syria Talks. Yet it is still attempting to
    manipulate,
    and will lose at that, too.”13 Manipulation and PR are no substitute for actual victory which is defined universally as achieving the political objectives of the war, or in Clausewitz’s one liner—the ability to compel
    the enemy to do our will. The United States military’s balance sheet on that
    is simply not impressive, despite a mammoth military budget, immensely expensive weapons and a massive, well-oiled PR machine. All this is the result of the US military-industrial complex long ago becoming a jobs program for retired Pentagon generals and an embodiment of the neoconservative “view” on war—a view developed by people, most of whom
    never
    served a single day in uniform and do not possess even basic fundamental knowledge of the physical principles on which modern weapons operate and how
    technological dimensions reflect upon tactical, operational and
    strategic
    aspects of war (they are all tightly interconnected and do not exist separately)."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From april@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 2 02:21:50 2019
    Go go go


    "olade" wrote in message news:pv3l8c$342$1@dont-email.me...


    In reality, the US should have sent warships to the sea of Azoz to
    demonstrate its freedom to travel anywhere it wants. But, at the moment, the sea of Azoz is closed by Russia, which is not legal to do so.

    But at issue is psychological game working at each other can be negotiated. There are many other fronts that US are addressing its strategic approaches, such a South China Sea and other key issues of places such as North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela.

    The US is still a formidable force but there is not enough of coalition
    forces to assist them. A collective coalition quality force is stronger than
    a sole quality force. Russia is testing the patience of the US, and the US response is delayed by talking more, instead.





    "ltlee1" wrote in message news:8d526ab9-daea-441f-81ef-61dd53584862@googlegroups.com...

    On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:50:30 AM UTC-5, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 2:07:49 AM UTC-5, olade wrote:
    That is well said and well analysed piece by the author.

    Indeed, many generals in the Pentagon never served a single day in
    uniform
    and many do not possess even basic knowledge of physical principles of which
    modern weapons to use and which to operate.

    This is because they do not know the changing dimensions that have reflected
    by the changing tactical, operational and strategic aspects if war. Even between distance-contact war and close-contact war or invasion war can
    make
    war dimensions to change and churn and escalate up very fast, sometimes even
    in "a blink of an eye".

    General should not sit in their air-conditioned Pentagon office. They should
    be on the ground to work with the troops on practical and hand-on
    aspects of
    training with fast changing scenarios of war game plans.

    But this is just the symptom. The root cause, if I am to summarize the author's view, is Americans' failure to appreciate Sunzi's opening sentence: 兵者,国之大事,死生之地,存亡之道,不可不察也 because the US has yet to defend the US
    nation from foreign invasion/occupation.

    To the extent that military operations and a country's life and death do not intersect, military operations degenerate into military-sport games. And US punditry further trivialize military operations exemplified by Stephen Blank Sea of Azov article:

    "In practice this means that Washington should send US Navy warships into
    the Sea of Azov through the Kerch Strait to demonstrate our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and integrity and the freedom of navigation on the seas, which has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy since 1789."

    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-trump-can-get-putin-s-attention






    "ltlee1" wrote in message news:25532b4c-86ad-43eb-8b72-03e29114b3c2@googlegroups.com...

    Andrei Martyanov, the author of LOSING MILITARY SUPREMACY, argues that "American military history is as much a matter of PR spin as it is a
    matter
    of reality.

    All nations, without exception, tend to have their own military
    mythologies
    and this is normal as long as those mythologies have at least some basis
    in
    reality. Military historians may argue about the validity of claims
    about
    the massive armor clash at Prokhorovka on July 12, 1943 during the
    Battle of
    Kursk, but no serious military historian doubts the battle itself, its gigantic scope and scale, and the massive influence it had not only for
    the
    war on the Eastern front but on the outcome of World War Two. How can
    one
    even claim any success militarily for the United States in the last 70 years
    when, with the exception of a turkey shoot in the First Gulf War, the United
    States as a nation and its much-vaunted military didn’t win a single
    war?
    The latest massive geostrategic failure in Syria only underscores the
    sad
    state of American fighting doctrine and of its war technology. As
    Geoffrey
    Aronson’s title to his article on Syria states: “Washington Relegated to
    Bystander Status in Syria Talks. Yet it is still attempting to
    manipulate,
    and will lose at that, too.”13 Manipulation and PR are no substitute for actual victory which is defined universally as achieving the political objectives of the war, or in Clausewitz’s one liner—the ability to compel
    the enemy to do our will. The United States military’s balance sheet on that
    is simply not impressive, despite a mammoth military budget, immensely expensive weapons and a massive, well-oiled PR machine. All this is the result of the US military-industrial complex long ago becoming a jobs program for retired Pentagon generals and an embodiment of the neoconservative “view” on war—a view developed by people, most of whom
    never
    served a single day in uniform and do not possess even basic fundamental knowledge of the physical principles on which modern weapons operate and how
    technological dimensions reflect upon tactical, operational and
    strategic
    aspects of war (they are all tightly interconnected and do not exist separately)."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)