Comparative militaries

Numbers in the military

Money spent on the military

Ok, I get it: The U.S. spends a whole lot more money on its military capabilities than anybody else. Doesn’t necessarily mean its military is all that much larger than anybody else’s, because it isn’t. There are any numbers of countries that field armies that are larger per capita than the U.S. counterparts or spend more money per capita or as a portion of their gross domestic product (also known as GDP) than the US does.

In fact, there even a few countries whose military establishment is even larger than that of the U.S., as shocking as that might seem.

Still, the U.S. military remains, arguably, the best trained, best equipped, most powerful force in the world.

Well, part of it is that the U.S. does put more bucks into its military might than anybody else (in aggregate). The old saying is that you get what you pay for.

However, as the world shows us time and again, you can spend big bucks on the gadgets and toys and other things (like paying the troops, their medical care, housing their families, giving them a fairly nice retirement plan), and still find yourself stretched to meet the challenges of much more frugally funded and equipped forces in the world.

What was that line by Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge: Adapt, improvise and overcome.

As an American, I sometimes am dismayed by the amounts we spend on our military forces. But then I step back and look at the reality of it. For its size, we do have the most professional corps of troops in our military services. I suppose that comes from the fact that it also is the best paid, nation-state funded military in the world, with – again arguably – the best benefits for the individual soldier that the world has to offer.

It is among the best trained forces in the world, so that is a good thing. I am a big believer it training troops. The better trained they are, the better prepared they are for the reality of conflict. The better prepared they are, the more likely they will survive in combat.

I also realize that like it or not America is called upon to be the “global cop”. You may not like it. I might not like it. Unfortunately, it is the way that things are. When bad things go down, everyone starts asking: Where is the nearest U.S. carrier task force or amphibious ready group? Why aren’t the Americans doing something about this?

Not that the Americans should be doing something about these things, but it seems that a large number of people look to the Americans to lead and  do something about them. Good, bad, indifferent, it still is the case.

For example, Syria: Our “friends” in the area are looking to the U.S. to at least support, if not provide leadership, to them. Hence, there is a military planning task force of 150 Americans in Jordan today … just to help the Jordanians prepare for any untoward consequences of the civil war in Syria.

And don’t be surprised if there aren’t a bunch of NATO planners (with a substantial contingent of Americans) talking with their brethren in Turkey about potential needs the Turks may have if the rumbles on its border with Syria continue to worsen.

The problem with the American military is that it is well-paid and very well equipped. Those things don’t come cheap. Oh, we could have a much larger military establishment, with lot cheaper weapons, but then that would come with a much higher human cost, which Americans are much more averse to seeing.

For example: Iraq, over eight years, cost the Americans about 6,000 dead. The British, in the 1920s, lost 1,200 in one battle. If that had happened in the latest Iraq war, it would have been over, right there.

Still, does the U.S. need such a powerful military? That is a good question and one I know Americans are quite divided about. Actually, one will find that Americans are quite happy holding contrary thoughts.

Americans always have looked askance upon a large standing military force. It smacks too much of opportunities for military coups and tyrannies. For that reason, there is such a strong tradition in the U.S. for civilian control of the military and for its members, particularly its officer corps, to remain as much as possible non-political and non-partisan.

On the other hand, particularly since World War II and the Cold War, Americans have been – and rightly so, to my estimation – almost terrified of a surprise attack catching the U.S. unawares and unprepared … sort of like 9-11 did.

In addition, Americans have this intense desire – not all that different than anyone else - to be respected (despite what you think, Americans still have somewhat of an inferiority complex toward the older and more established nations and cultures in the world … we are a bit like the nouveau riche), but not only respected, but also loved. We can’t seem to understand why everybody just doesn’t love us and respect us. I mean we have pretty much the most affluent society and our political system pays so much homage to the individual and individual rights, what is not to like and love? And we have this wonderful, almost Star Wars-like, military that is the envy of just about every military commander in the world (If we had just had half the weapons and gadgets at our command, they think)

For most Americans, we just don’t understand that being respected and being loved are two entirely different things and what makes you respected often does not lead to you being loved, and vice versa.

Americans don’t like to think of themselves as imperialists, and in the traditional sense, we are not (we don’t usually take over land; we merely try to get the people there to act like we do). We do not make good imperials. We are not ruthless enough or willing to pay the price to be imperials.

Ironically, I suspect, there is a reason that none of the First World powers have used their military forces to settle their disputes in recent memory and that is directly related to the power of the United States, and to a lesser extent to the power of the former Soviet Union. It was not in the interest of the US or USSR to fight a large scale conflict (even in conventional terms) involving First World technologies. It would have been a bloody mess, literally. That “peace” is the result of each playing “cop” in their respective spheres of influence and basically helping each other in the other areas. (You may not agree with this analysis, but I think if you examine it from a historical perspective, you will find it has a certain modicum of support) This not to say that there were not any “proxy” wars, because there were, but the two big guys kept a leash on the participants to keep them from going global.

So, when you look at the military “might” of America, you need to keep it in perspective: What is it there for?

Answer that question, and you have a better understanding of why the U.S. spends so much on its military and why, probably, it should continue to spend big bucks on it.

More on conspiracy theories

It always amazes me when people deny they believe in any conspiracy when they say “But I don’t think it happened that way.”

Time out! If you don’t believe something happened the way that it has been explained, then the burden sort of falls on you to come up with an alternate explanation to solve the mystery. Either it was an act of God, or humans did it and that means a conspiracy of some sort to execute and cover-up the real explanation.

For example, over the years, I have read or seen a host of books, documentaries, movies, etc., or in some cases actually interviewed people with first-hand knowledge of the events on Dealy Plaza on Nov. 23, 1963. And yes, while it is possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the shooter, there remains no credible alternative explanation for those events. Oh, I know about the commission in that found the tape that allegedly recorded a fourth shot and I have interviewed people who had statements from people who said there was someone on the grassy knoll. I also have seen people debunk the magic bullet mystery. So, my final point is, does it really matter? No. Because nothing we do now will either bring back John Kennedy or change the events of that day (or all the history up to now).

What about the controversy over the President’s birth certificate? It doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t unless you really want to screw up the country, which if you get the president declared ineligible, and therefore nullify everything he has done for the last three and half years, will happen … in spades.

Hell, he may have been born in Kenya or somewhere else in the Third World, but it doesn’t matter now, and it is time to get over it.

Same thing with the people who say the “official” and “unofficial” reports that explain how the events unfolded on Sept. 11, 2001, can’t be true. There is no way that 19 ragheads could cause that much damage and kill that many people. Yes, there is … and it happened.

Oh, you say, but I am just saying I don’t believe the official explanation. It leaves too many questions unanswered. Then provide your own beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise, let it lie.

The problem with those who reject these explanations, as I said before, is that the burden then falls on you to come up with a working alternate explanation. Now, it gets really fun when you do that, because you have to explain away the hijackings, or change their backers somehow from the people who have said they were the organizers and planners, and in one case, the hijacker who screwed up and got himself arrested two months before the operation took place.

Then, since the aircraft didn’t significantly damage two nearly forty-year-old buildings, and fires and other debris from the collapsing towers didn’t trigger the collapse of a third building, one is left with having to come up with an alternative. You need to develop one that a) creates the conditions that will allow the buildings to collapse, b) has a reasonable possibility for it being executed without detection, c) is backed by some group that has the money and the resources to do the job, d) has the ability to sway a whole slew of people to produce multiple products that ignore the explanation of the real cause, e) has a damn good reason to go out on a limb to make it happen, f) and do this under the spotlight of every media organization in the world without anyone on the team – from top to bottom – ever letting on.

I will admit that there probably are  gaping holes in the 9/11 Commission report, but I am willing to bet that they got most of the facts right. Just as I know there are holes in the Warren Commission report, but in the end, I suspect that they got the facts basically right.

This basically holds true for all conspiracies.

Don’t get me started on the military pulling off an operation of this magnitude, even a rogue group of Special Operations folks. The movies make them look like miracle workers … and I won’t deny that they are pretty damn good, but they still put their pants on the same way the rest of do and have to tie their shoelaces just like anyone else and are just as prone to have Mr. Murphy riding on their shoulders as anyone else. There has never been a military operation at any time that went off without a hitch.

The best one of those has to have been the Israeli raid on Entebbe to rescue a planeload of hostages, which succeeded. However, it still left one person behind, had one rescuer KIA and basically everybody knew about it and who did it within 24 hours.

Of course, I could be stupid, blind and ignorant and maybe all those movie magical toys do exist and there is some super-secret organization that kills all its members who might leak any information about its operations when they come back.

You believe that? Well, then look at the book just released on the takedown of Osama bin Laden. That is my exhibit No. 1.

Conspiracies: Tactics versus logistics

9/11 Truthers
I have been having an interesting discussion with another of my progressive friends out west. This person, methinks, that I am a raving idiot, but I don’t return the favor. I just blame the differences in our world prisms.
The contention, in the above link, is that the three World Trade Center buildings (1,2 and 7) were not brought down by factors related to the impact of the two passenger jets that struck Towers 1 and 2, but a government-caused controlled demolition. While I respect the sincerity of the people in the 90-minute video, I also respectfully disagree.
Why do I have a problem with their argument? Well, it goes back to something you are taught in the military, especially if your career lasts long enough:
Amateurs talk/think/are concerned with tactics, while professionals talk/think/are concerned with logistics.
In short, you can have the best tactics and equipment in the world, but if you don’t have the logistics to get them to where you need them to be utilized and the ability to support them, then they are useless.
So, you can argue all day long about “how” the World Trade Center buildings actually collapsed and, in the end, you will basically have an argument about the tactics (physics) of how the buildings came down.
The question then has to revolve around how those physics came into play and, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, that is where if you rule everything else out, then even the most improbable of answer comes into play … which usually is the simplest or Occam’s Razor solution.
Note, while I respect the points made in the video, I am reminded that not all evidence is equal … and often, in science, you find what you are looking for, not for what is there. They make that point about the “official” and “unofficial” reports that support the hypothesis that the planes (and their hijackers) ultimately were responsible for the structural failures.
The problem I have with all government/military conspiracies is that they depend on absolute secrecy and the integrity of that secrecy. I am sorry, but that never happens, at least not when you are dealing with more than one human being.
So, to assume the people in the video are correct:

1. First you have to have someone who has the skills, capabilities and resources to achieve the objective. Obviously, this is not something you can pull off on the spur of the moment. It takes considerable planning and preparations. Note that even Al Qaeda took years to get their people trained and into place. So, you are talking about years for someone or some organization, resources (money) and foresight to train the operatives who were to place the exotic explosives along with appropriate control devices, as well as have someone develop the exotic explosives and control devices. This type of training would be impossible to keep secret. These types of explosives and control devices also would be very difficult to keep secret.
2. Second, you would have to find a way to model what you wanted done, and then apply that modeling to the structures involved. That, the demolition expert would tell you, is not done on the drop of a hat, but takes considerable time to develop the optimum method to achieve the objective. So, what you are talking about is a group of people who can go unobserved, basically, for several months – if not years – in the three buildings preparing the explosives for their eventual use. Is this possible? Theoretically, possibly; practically, no. Somebody not involved in the effort is going to notice something that should not be there.
3. Third, you would have to arrange a suitable “cover” to give an alternate explanation to the event … otherwise, you are leaving a trail that leads back to you. That would mean, in this case, that the hijackings had to have been government-inspired/controlled. Are you serious? The US government? The one that routinely can’t find its left hand with its right, much less has any clue what it is doing. Even the best of the best, like Seal Team Six and the 160^th Aviation Regiment (Special Operations), have things go wrong – big time wrong. Witness the “oops” with the helicopter left in Pakistan when ST6 people assassinated Osama Bin Laden.

Assuming all that is correct, then exactly what would be the motive? Invading Afghanistan? Get real. Invading Iraq? No one seriously thought Iraq was involved in 9-11. (Yes, Saddam was busy helping all sorts of terrorists, just not the ones involved in 9-11) Helping Halliburton? Give me a break. Ok, helping the military/industrial complex? Hello, ever heard of herding cats? Defense contractors are very much like cats; they are out for themselves and not the industry.
So, to believe the 9-11 Truthers (like the Birthers),  you have to suspend all the disbelief about what is accomplishable logistically, and accept their view that what happened tactically is the only possible explanation.
Now, I am not saying I am an expert on anything (although I was trained how to use explosives and how they are made and what they are made of), it just seems to beggar belief to accept the dogma of the Truthers. For, no matter how or what caused the buildings to collapse, you have to answer the questions of who did it, how they did it and why they did it. This is not just an intellectual exercise of what if. Just saying, but it couldn’t have happened that way, doesn’t wash. Not when there are competing theories out there. You have to answer the total package.
Unfortunately, their explanation doesn’t. The various reports pointing to 19 terrorists hijacking aircraft being the proximate cause does. It may seem improbable, but the others have to be ruled out due to lack of evidence to support the entire package.