Anti-Subjugator

It appears some people can't see the forest for the trees. I'm talking about withdrawing the bulk of the troops from Iraq in December 2007, and they think that Bush's actions (ie the surge) is the exact opposite of that. And others think that the US forces are spread thin. It's amazing that people can look at exactly the same thing and see two totally different things. Here is reality, for those who need it spelled out to them.

First of all, the Iraqi security forces vastly outnumber and outgun any challenge to their authority. The US doesn't need any forces at all in Iraq to ensure the ISF isn't defeated by these elements. It does however need some presence in order to ensure the ISF don't stage a military coup, or some other country decides to invade Iraq. This is the only feasible way the Iraqi government can be overthrown. So the US forces aren't even tied down in Iraq. Let's look at the other places that have US troops. 38k in South Korea. The South Koreans have one of the strongest militaries on the planet. Not only can they defend against any attack by North Korea all on their own, they could even launch an offensive war if they wanted to, and win. Having US troops there just makes North Korea an even bigger joke, but they're certainly not required.

There are 69k in Germany. There's no enemy in sight. Just a whole stack of NATO allies. They can all be removed at any time, with no effect whatsoever. There's 47k in Japan. Japan is another ally, and while it does have enemies, or potential enemies, such as China and North Korea, neither country is able to cross Japan's moat. Even if they somehow did, they'd still lose. Regardless, in all of these countries, about 100 aircraft would be overkill to ensure that no-one touches any of our allies. So that's 300 aircraft out of a total of 11,000.

Then we have the US troops in continental US. The US is bordered by Canada and Mexico. The Canadians have actually signed up (via NATO) to DEFEND America. Mexico is not hostile either. Does anyone seriously think either country would invade the US? Why should the US fear either of these countries any more than Iceland (with no military at all) should fear the US (which has forces in Iceland). No. The US can afford to move ALL of its troops off the continental US. Regardless, let's leave 10,000 planes in the US, just in case the Canadians try to burn down the Whitehouse again. They should be able to defeat Canada's 485 planes, assuming the Canadians don't manage to get a 20:1 kill ratio. If they do, you've still got those nuclear bomb thingos.

So there's over 1 million US troops available, and not ONE of them is tied down in ANY theatre ANYWHERE in the world. And we've demonstrated the ability to topple a government with 200 troops in Afghanistan and 113k troops in Iraq. That's just what's been DEMONSTRATED, not what is actually possible. Without the ability to rerun Iraq, we'll never know what might have been.

That's what Iran is for. To see just how few troops are required to liberate a country. Can it be done with 20k troops? 20k opens up a world of possibilities. If the number can be brought down to that level, Australia could probably liberate huge countries on its own in future, if for some reason the US decides its fed up with helping others. We need to prove the technology first though. And how can you do that?

Well, we've managed to get the entire world convinced that the US is tied down, and there are no troops available, and the surge (of 20k troops) is not sustainable. So long as the Iranians actually believe this crap, we can use those 20k troops from the surge to go and liberate Iran. The Iranians will need to react to an invasion force of 20k, assuming incorrectly that there are no other troops available. This is the closest we can actually get to a real test. Can the US military be scaled back to 20k TOTAL some time in the future? Maybe. If the Iranians are somehow able to fight the 20k troops, despite US total air supremacy, then 120k troops from Iraq can effortlessly be added. And troops from the other theatres can be called in if even more are required. At this stage we have no idea what the Iranian reaction will be. Will there be more or less defections than were seen in Afghanistan and Iraq? No-one knows. It's vitally important to get that information for future liberations. Ideally we want to have about 20 liberations so that we can predict enemy reaction with more certainty, and write a new military doctrine.

I'll finish with a quote from someone in the Finnish military:

"Here geographic distance is a function of technology, and today this means that Finland is literally only hours from massive and decisive western military airborne power."

This is the reality we live in. Decisive US air power blankets the globe, and with that, most of the world can be freed, and the free world secured. Reality is staring you right in the face, your eyes are open, you can't possibly miss it, but the brain just doesn't register it. Bizarre. Just how many more countries need to be liberated, effortlessly (2 months with 200 troops, 3.5 weeks with 113k troops) before you say to yourself "um, how come the US keeps on managing to liberate people when it's supposedly bogged down and spread thin and the enemy are all supermen and insurgents usually win wars etc etc etc?". If this is all part of a US psyop to make the world believe the US is no threat to anyone because it can easily be defeated, well, it's working great. The US keeps on liberating people, everyone says "the US lost again", and the dictators don't feel the need to form some sort of hostile alliance because, hell, 12,000 Taliban armed with pea-shooters can defeat the entire US Army, and we've got much more than that. Nope, nothing to worry about. I can't imagine MY dictatorship falling, and the population I've suppressed for decades exacting revenge on ME. Nope. Not ME.

There you have it folks. This is the whacky world we live in. I'm not sure we've actually advanced from the days when people used to sacrifice virgins to keep the sun rising. At least they had the evidence that the sun did indeed rise after the sacrifice. In today's world, we have millions of new voters, hundreds of thousands signing up to new security forces, and people look, but can't see. The equivalent would be the sun failing to rise and the Aztecs saying "we've sacrificed the virgins, so maybe the sun is obscured by a cloud that keeps on moving - there's no other explanation - yeah, there it is - just look really really hard and you can see it - yeah, just like the Taliban victory over the US - I can see it, I can really really see it".

UPDATE: The OOB above is undated, but appears to be from around 2002. Here is one dated 2001 and here is one dated 2003.