Aircraft Carriers - What is their future?

[Benton]

(07-20-2017, 12:38 AM)Dill Wrote:
Benton and Leonard. I know a lot of people agree with you about reducing bases and alliances. I think some bases could be consolidated or abandoned, as we have many in A-stan and Iraq. But I am concerned that so many think US bases don't do much for the national defense and economy, not to mention our allies economies.

I realize they have an impact. On the other hand, we have a trade deficit with many of the countries where we have several bases, including allies like Germany and Japan, two of our largest deficits. We're spending a lot of money to, in part, make sure they can afford to sell us stuff more cheaply. That's insane. And I realize part of the agreements with those two countries in particular goes back to arrangements made after WWII.... but that's kind of the point. That was nearly 3/4ers of a century ago. They aren't the same; our approach doesn't need to be, either. And they're also just two examples of places where we have bases and deficits.

Quote:When the US was attacked on 9/11, it not only had to attack Al Qaeda, but to engage the Taliban and occupy their land locked country. No matter how mobile you are, that means thousands of troops on the ground, bases, supplies, and supply routes. And it means an occupation reckoned in years. No Naval task force is up to that, even if we have 3 or 4 and rotate them. If the US leaves A-stan in March of 2002, the Taliban simply reconstitutes and Al Qaeda is back in force by fall 2002, dug in deeper this time.

Eh, we're probably going to veer off top a little here. But — in my opinion as an arm chair general — we never should have engaged in that ground war. 

We can handle a clear battle with definable lines. When you're fighting a group that doesn't really care about holding specific positions, you've got to change your tactic. We didn't. We took mostly the same approach of 'occupy here, bomb there, move; occupy here, bomb there, move.' Our military leaders should have listened to our intelligence community before 9/11 and they should have let them handle it after 9/11. 

Quote:10 years before, the US invaded Kuwait with a massive army. It left bases there and in Qatar, Djibouti, and Egypt which greatly helped the US project power in 2001 (and in the unfortunate invasion of Iraq). Among other things, this meant a patchwork system of international agreements about air lanes as well. E.g, we could not fly certain missions from Turkey and not over Iran at all. I don't know what our agreement was with Pakistan, but I am sure it was limited. We had an airbase in Uzbekistan for several years, very valuable for staging the initial invasion, then suddenly the Uzbekis said "no more," which complicated the mission. Bases, and the ability to project power, are inextricably bound with diplomacy and "presence" as well. 


Further, the Gulf bases were also occupied by our NATO partners, augmenting US power. If you like aircraft carriers, then think of Qatar as like a giant one sitting in the Persian Gulf. It afforded a kind of staging ground impossible for ships to provide. Not to mention runways for B-1 and B-2 bombers. Much easier to maintain and hold supplies there, than on a ship or ships with much more limited space--yet still within bomber reach of A-stan and many other countries in the region as well.  Not to mention that it has been a check on Iran, for those who worry about that nation.


Leonard, we are not simply paying for other countries protection.  They help protect us as well. And there is far more to protection than just being able to get anywhere quickly in force. There is also a need to prevent conflict. We
 have a "buffer" zone of allies across both the Pacific and the Atlantic, should we ever face a real war with Russia and China. They would have to reckon with those allies, not just us.  

Understandble.

The problem is maintaining peace time buffer zones is bankrupting us well before war time. The equipment we have needs updated. We need more troops. Contracting some allows that to happen. Like pruning a bush — you trim off the limbs so they are stronger when you need them. 

Quote:Much of our current conflict with Russia and China is over buffers--e.g., Ukraine and North Korea.  Were the US presence in Europe and the Far East to disappear, then a deal of instability would follow as Russia and China would seek to acquire them. 


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you and Benton are picturing short term conflicts like Grenada or maybe the Gulf War--There's a problem. We don't ask for permission or help. We send in the Navy and Marines, kick ass, get out. No nation building. Problem solved and money saved. 

But if you are thinking in strategic terms, and working with national intel estimates for Africa, the Middle East and East Asia, you are worrying about preventing conflicts as well, and where there is potential for conflict then you want many things to be in place, potential staging grounds, flyover rights, agreements and alliances with other national militaries--these are valuable assets you cannot gin up in 24 hrs.

I don't think it's our job to prevent conflicts. We should not be in the ME right now. I prefer our approach in Africa. There's countries in conflict and in great need of help, so we send in people who teach them how to handle their own situation. We provide them with information, give them the keys to dealing with atrocities and work with groups to provide relief to the victims. That's largely how we operated in the ME, too, until Bush I decided to go ***** deep to protect oil wells and an ally agreement.