We're fighting too many people. We're going to get in over our heads fighting little, petty side conflicts and someone big and important is going to take advantage. #Thuycidides
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
- Status
Nice.
I don't disagree, I just think we have been fighting petty side conflicts pretty regularly for the last 130 years - with the big wars the exception not the rule. I feel like, especially as the Army, we ought to spend some time and resources learning how to win those petty side conflicts. Instead we seem to want to hold out for the big fights - because it allows us to spend lots of money on big toys, expensive shit, and careers with industry for the brass. It also means we don't ever really have to get a bad report card for any of our failures to win the small conflicts - since they don't really count, it will just be the big upcoming fight that will count, or WWII - we were great in WWII, why you gotta always bring up old shit like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan or any of that shit that doesn't really count.
I guess the other alternative is not to fight the petty side conflicts. Not sure that's going to happen unless President Trump replaces SECDEF Mattis with Andrew Bacevich.
This is a pretty decent laydown of the 'official' Trump administration promises for the first 100 days - although a number of others were made on the campaign trail and other public comments from President Trump - and where they stand. Overall it looks like the Trump administration has done about 10% of them, made some effort or demonstration towards another 50% or so but ran into the reality of how they framed the problem, and caved or flipped on the rest.
Trump's 100-Day Plan, Annotated: Where His Promises Stand
Trump's 100-Day Plan, Annotated: Where His Promises Stand
Some of the ones we're in, or are about to be in, aren't so petty. We're fighting in morasses like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and especially in Syria the conflict has the possibility to escalate dramatically. You and I both served in Korea so we both know what a mess that would be militarily, economically, and humanitarianly (is that a word?) if something kicked off. We're making noise about Ukraine and posturing in the Baltics. We even sent troops back to Somalia for some reason. All of these things cost money, operational capacity, political capital, and of course American lives.
Yeah, I definitely agree Korea would be one of the 'big ones' the DoD has been pining/preparing for through doctrine and procurement. I feel like Syria and Ukraine fall somewhere in between - where RNGW is a great doctrine but we don't have anything comparable. Not since the Cold War have we really thought about proxy wars - and even then it seems like only echelons above corps were thinking about that stuff, guys on the ground were just paying the consequence of fighting with a hand tied behind their back. One might argue Iraq morphed into a proxy war with Iran 2005-2010 with EFPs/JAM/JAM SP - but even then we never treated it that way. But, my larger point is we end up fighting these smaller conflicts - not the major ones we spend our effort manning, training, and equipping for - the majority of our time.
I think you make a very valid argument we shouldn't let ourselves get bogged down in them in the first place - it's a smart strategic argument. I just think history bears out that Presidents can't help themselves but get involved in them. President Clinton, the first post-cold war president, didn't really campaign on foreign intervention yet, despite significant political and DoD pushback got deeply involved in the Balkans and Somalia - and would have gotten involved in Rwanda if he had it to do over again (and/or had a DoD that would have supported him). President GW Bush campaigned on a more 'modest' military posture with 'no more nation building.' Maybe without 9/11 he wouldn't have changed his stance so dramatically (certainly he wouldn't have had the political capital for Iraq) but the GWOT was/is a rash of interventions across the globe. President Obama campaigned on pulling us out of most of these conflicts but he escalated operations everywhere but Iraq - and paid a hefty political price for his 'failure' to prevent ISIS in Iraq and 'loss' of Syria. He limited ground troops but was extremely interventionist from the air. President Trump, other than saying he had a secret plan whereby he would defeat ISIS in his first 30 days, campaigned on not getting involved in these smaller wars and getting distracted spending blood and treasure solving other countries' messes. The secret ISIS defeat plan was apparently so secret even they never found out they had been defeated - but President Trump has been every bit as interventionist as his predecessors - albeit by really just letting the military do whatever they wanted (drop MOABs, sail carrier battle groups in whatever direction they like). It's hard to tell how much is intent and how much is incompetence - but likely a solid helping of both. But ultimately the narrative is very similar across all these leaders - they get into office and get us enmeshed in foreign conflicts. Regardless of how smart/moral those choices are - those are the choices they continually make.
My point for the DoD at large and Army in particular is we need to accept reality and start figuring out how to win these smaller conflicts every President is intent on getting us involved in - whether they say so or not. It's the only humanitarianly thing to do.
Last edited:
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
I would prefer we stay out of petty side conflicts and let are enemies sort themselves. We go into places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, what do we expect, they've been fighting for generations and beating every opponent playing the long game. The only way to win is to have the political will to play the long game, that which we do not have for the petty side conflicts.
So basically it's the Same Old Shit, Bullshit. Not that I expected too much different, I wanted it to be different, he worked pretty hard in the 1st 30 days. But the reality of being the MAN is thus.
So, apparently fuck Canadian soft wood...
So, apparently fuck Canadian soft wood...
It's retaliation for our fearless leader not willing to compromise on our dairy quota system and reluctance to permit more US dairy into Canada. Frankly we're fucked unless we acquiesce more to NAFTA negotiations. Our dollar is tanking even more, foreign business is leaving much of the country and government isn't doing anything to help.
I some what grasp what's going on, but find it a bit stupid. It may effect Canuckistan slightly, but the end result will be price hikes in the US for imported and domestic lumber, being passed onto home buyers. We still will need lumber from our northern brethren, as we cannot harvest enough for domestic consumption. Any tariff placed on canuck lumber will be passed onto the end user. American lumber will not miss out on the chance to hike their prices to turn larger profit due to the increased cost of canuck lumber. Basically an artificial inflation and taxation.
It won't help the US Citizen, unless Canucks start wheeling and dealing to avoid this bullshit.
Sucks
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Well...relax on our milk so we can supply you, and then you can supply us with plywood...geeze.
Pretty comprehensive review of President Trump's first 100 days - including all the context missing from the NPR grade on the administration's first 100 day promises: Trump’s First 100 Days: What Mattered, And What Didn’t
The only thing missing on the 'positive' side in my opinion is the increase in the stock market and consumer confidence in the business sector. Ross Douthat covers those in his last editorial in the NYTimes. But, I think this piece does address the idea that President Trump has had a significant impact on opinions and impressions - positively for conservatives and negatively for everyone else. It's just something that has to be approached with some nuance as those impressions and opinions are not always based in any objective reality - and on some points are explicitly counter to objective reality.
The only thing missing on the 'positive' side in my opinion is the increase in the stock market and consumer confidence in the business sector. Ross Douthat covers those in his last editorial in the NYTimes. But, I think this piece does address the idea that President Trump has had a significant impact on opinions and impressions - positively for conservatives and negatively for everyone else. It's just something that has to be approached with some nuance as those impressions and opinions are not always based in any objective reality - and on some points are explicitly counter to objective reality.
One thing that I'm surprised hasn't gotten more attention is the administration's deal with China to buy American coal over North Korean coal. I'll preface that by saying that I think coal is a terrible energy source, but the president campaigned on resurrecting the coal industry so here we are.
Anyway, the coal deal accomplishes two things: the first is that, obviously, it puts more money into the domestic coal industry. Second, it puts the squeeze on one of NK's biggest (legitimate) exports. There's a UN-mandated cap of $400 million on North Korean coal, so that cuts off a major source of the country's income. Whether this means that other countries pick up the import slack or not, it does mean that the administration has successfully severed a major avenue of support between China and NK, and managed to benefit domestic industry at the same time.
Anyway, the coal deal accomplishes two things: the first is that, obviously, it puts more money into the domestic coal industry. Second, it puts the squeeze on one of NK's biggest (legitimate) exports. There's a UN-mandated cap of $400 million on North Korean coal, so that cuts off a major source of the country's income. Whether this means that other countries pick up the import slack or not, it does mean that the administration has successfully severed a major avenue of support between China and NK, and managed to benefit domestic industry at the same time.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Trumps's Tax Plan: White House Unveils Trump’s Opening Tax-Cut Bid
No President seems to be able to execute lasting tax reform. How the article begs the question: "Who will pay for it?" Uh, the government pays for it by cutting spending. Balance sheet, etc.
It's interesting: from 7 tax brackets to three. What's funny about Schumer is that he's attacking a tax cut that helps him since he's wealthy as shit.
No President seems to be able to execute lasting tax reform. How the article begs the question: "Who will pay for it?" Uh, the government pays for it by cutting spending. Balance sheet, etc.
It's interesting: from 7 tax brackets to three. What's funny about Schumer is that he's attacking a tax cut that helps him since he's wealthy as shit.
That's because he notionally cares about his constituents, who by-and-large are not wealthy. Meanwhile, the president's proposal to eliminate the alternative minimum tax would greatly benefit him and other very wealthy people. There's a bit of irony there if you can spot it.
EDIT: And the estate tax.
Last edited:
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Trump's Tax cuts doesn't help me most of us much, but it doesn't harm us either. What does harm us is continuing to deficit spend. We need to wrangle our national debt, the tax plan and budget proposals so far do not truly address those. I also see this tax plan going nowhere and the budget proposal going nowhere and we will continue to live that CR life. I wish Congress Critters wouldn't receive a check when we ran on a CR.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
I suppose he's channeling Charleton Heston:
Norks tend to fire a lot of missiles during Republican presidencies it appears.
- Status
