What should the US military be like?

Quick, decisive, overwhelming, brutal. Just like it is now. Like the way they trained me.

The biggest negative of the current US military in my view is that too much of it is stationed overseas. There were more active duty US soldiers overseas during the peace before Desert Storm than there were in the USA, not counting the various Reserve and NG units.

At most we should have one base in Europe, one in the Indian Ocean, one in the Far East, and the rest should be based in the US. These bases should be configured to allow all branches of service access to the region in question.

I will just focus on the army this time, as the navy and air force are more complex.

It should have a small active duty regular army, and a large reserve component. Reserves would only be allowed to serve 30 days over 2 years outside of the US without an act of congress to extend the duty. They could serve up to a year in the USA without an act of congress or the state they are from.

The reserves would need more annual training than they get now, to keep the active duty units running and to keep them ready for service in an emergency.

When you get down to the individuals of the military and that is what should be considered the military. They frankly have very little say in their lives while there. The rules, laws and constant badgering takes it’s tull and they do what they are told. It is not the MILITARY but the leaders that have a problem if there is one. Those young boys act as they are told and are trained to act and then when they come home America sometimes treat them as if something was wrong with them. Then there are those that come home (because they were 18/19 when they went to war and saw things most cannot understand) that have emotional problems. DUH what do we as a nation expect of them. I was lucky I didn’t have to go but many went and some volenteered and they saw things unspeakable. I had friends that saw things I could not imagine. Viet Nam was uncalled for and it was not the (BOYS) Military that was responsible. They all did what they had to, to try and survive. If you want a great military then have great military leaders but do not blame the young men that perform their duties.

As far as civilian casualties go well, there has always been that going on during a conflict since the beginning of time. It’s nothing new. It’s my belief that it’s not near as bad as it was before modern weaponry that is more surgical. Because the US is involved in no less than 3 different fights at the moment it will get lots of attention.
A country needs a heavy world presence or at least the impression that we can BE anywhere at any time. There are many cultures that will respect others only if (the others) have a big hammer. It’s a shame that it is that way, but that is the way of the world. Progressive thinking isn’t going to change millennia of that. So with that said, it’s nice to live in a country with THE big hammer.

After my time in the Navy, I think the military needs to be a place to escape from abuse of power, politics, and backstabbing that is so prevalent in the civilian world where the hierarchy is a bit looser. The truth, however, is that the military (or at least the earl/mid-1990s Navy) not only has that going on, but has refined it to an art form.

Once we solve that, everything else should fall into place.

@jerv Being in the military one cannot escape from abuse of power etc…

@Summum I was idealistic when I went in.

@jerv Okay thanks

Oh i’d suggest something like this would be good. Just toughen up a little, that’s all.

It should not recruit soldiers who enjoy killing people. And sometimes even become the founders of a ‘kill team’.

@mattbrowne They usually try to weed those out. I know one person who was denied re-enlistment in Vietnam because, when asked why he wanted to re-up, his response was, “To kill more fucking gooks!”.
Yeah, some bad apples get through, but that is not the type of person Uncle Sam wants in his military.

@jerv – I know. This principle hopefully applies to all armies in the world. I wonder what went wrong when Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs was recruited. His acts will put the lives of thousands of foreign troops in Afghanistan in danger. The military tried so hard to build trust with Afghan civilians. I’m so shocked and disappointed.

It should downsize. It spends $700 billion a year on ‘defence’ more than the next 16 biggest defence spending countries combined. With oceans to east and west and friendly countries north and south the United States is as safe as it is possible for a country to be. Yet it looks on Iran as a threat, a country that spends $9 billion a year on defence which is only 2.7% of its GDP.

Iran’s neighbours to east and west have been invaded by the US within the last ten years so Iran would have some justification in feeling threatened. The more weaponry a country possesses the more paranoid it seems to become. Downsize and spend the money on something useful.

Here is what I’d like to see:

We have not fought a war of attrition since World War 2. Because of nuclear weapons, we probably never will. Warfare has evolved to something closer to police action; it is certainly almost always assymetrical, and it is not only morally important but strategically important to avoid civilian deaths.

So, why the hell are we fighting wars with the same machine guns, fighter jets, and 500 pound bombs we used in Vietnam?

My ideal military would make very heavy use of less-lethal weapons: tasers, sound, and heat weapons. Those last two are often characterized as inhumane, but risking burning or deafening someone to diffuse violence is a lot more humane than shooting someone to death.

The rules of engagement should change to more strictly enforce against civilian casualties. If you kill a civilian, you are dishonorably discharged, period, unless there are freak circumstances. “Fog of war” is not an excuse to fire into a civilian area. If someone shoots at you from an area, you do not just return fire. The problem with this policy is that officers would not suffer consequences, so we’d need some sort of similar policy dealing with commands that result in civilian deaths.

Obviously, police forces have lots of problems with corruption and abuse too, so “becoming like police” isn’t a perfect solution. But it’s better than the status quo.

And instead of spending billions of dollars a year on absolutely useless fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines, our defense department should spend that money on developing better less lethal tech, and better armor for our troops on the ground. We do not need 11 freaking aircraft carriers.

@Qingu – Could we use tasers, sound, and heat weapons in Libya right now?

If we actually put military forces in Libya, I would certainly hope so, since the fighting would most likely be in urban areas.

We spent a few days firing missiles at armored military targets. I mean, it’s important to maintain superiority against traditional military opponents (like Qaddafi’s forces) but considering Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam, taking out these targets is the most trivial part of military operations in modern warfares. I think we put waaay too much focus on this aspect of military power when most of the time and manpower in modern wars is spent fighting assymetrical wars against people in civilian areas.