If you were in charge of the U.S. military, what would you suggest?

Question

Maybe use the troops to help stop genocide, those starving, natural disaster reconstruction, maybe the Mexico-U.S. wall building, stop drug traffiking "I think the CIA brings the stuff in to be honest" or would you keep the troops in Iraq for a few more tours so they come back with PTS, depressed, and divorced. I would like them to fight a war I would call it the war on hunger, and have them work around the world spreading humanity in a world full of devastation and distruction. Anyway that's my two cents,

Answer 1

I'd get firing.

Get a modest sized (say, 400K actual combatants), highly deployable "core" army for national defense, rapid response etc. Navy & airforce of a suitable size (say, 250K) to surport these assets would be required. Experienced NCOs could be kept on and trained as advisiors to militia forces, primarily with the intent of ensuring these forces might be mobilised into a proper command structure but also to furnish tactical advise. As such regular forces can be used almost entirely for power projection missions.

For policing actions the money saved cutting down regular troop numbers could pay for untold numbers of cheap locally raised units. These sepoys (if you will), would be ideal for lonterm security missions where costs & numbers are a priority. Where local support can't be bought, or numbers are required quickly, PMCs could fill the gap. These are all relatively cheap & expendable; casualties have virtually no political repercussions, so you can cut back on the density of costly support assets that are currently used to keep casualties to a bare minimum. When the fight is done they can be dispanded; no combat bonuses, no pensions & no vets in bandanas belly-aching.

A more business-like focus on the likely requirements of the army would be required. The current tendancy for military planners to focus on blue-sky worse-case-scenarios drives up spending no end and frequently compromises the actual usefulness of the procured equipment & arms. The staff should still invisage such scenarios and have contingencies but military procurement should focus on the war the troops are likely to (rather than "might just" have to) fight in the next decade.

This plan give the military greater operational flexibility as well as saving a great deal of money. Less tax improves economic performance and that is the REAL arbiter of military power.

Answer 2

I think it would be interesting to take a step back, and make an attempt to see who WANTS our help, and who is willing to work with it, and accept it...Then actually give it to someone who would be greatful, and happier for us having come.

Answer 3

Until the religion(s) that run around doing this to people itself is completely wipe off the face of this earth, the problem "will" always exist.

Answer 4

You are right - the troops should be used to back up the police & the anti-poverty campaign and to help build offices, homes, infrastructure and factories, and particularly (though most will disagree on this) to find and remove guns and drugs from people's homes. And also prisoners should be used for useful purposes that the state and the economy can make money from.

Answer 5

ummmmm.... A) the U.S millitary doesn't kill people for the h**l of it no matter what the libs tell u.

2) the U.S millitary is the most powerful force on earth and ifI had control of it I would wipe Iran of the map(NOT innicent civillans) and I would offer other cultures ours and I would spread Capitalism, thawuld make the world a be.

Answer 6

Iraq had genocide on the Kurds and starving people.  

Remember, you're arguing against Iraq only because you're a lib, not because Iraq didn't have some of the same problems others 'worthy' causes have.  No, no American troops put in danger anywhere abroad unless it benefits the security of our country, which Iraq does.  No more Somalias.  Let them starve.

Answer 7

Put more focus on Afghanistan. That is where we should be fighting terrorists.