The Bears really have the momentum on their side. The Ukrainians will try to put down the rebellion, organized by Russia, which orangeslices claims is a foolish attack on Russia, but Russia organized the rebellion, as they did in Crimea, thus once the shooting starts they rush in across the border, or parachute. Then they annex.
The Bears really have the momentum on their side. The Ukrainians will try to put down the rebellion, organized by Russia, which orangeslices claims is a foolish attack on Russia, but Russia organized the rebellion, as they did in Crimea, thus once the shooting starts they rush in across the border, or parachute. Then they annex.
The Bears really have the momentum on their side. The Ukrainians will try to put down the rebellion, organized by Russia, which orangeslices claims is a foolish attack on Russia, but Russia organized the rebellion, as they did in Crimea, thus once the shooting starts they rush in across the border, or parachute. Then they annex.
You can say it was a 50/50 effort but in reality it was more 70/30, Russia/allies. Moscow to Berlin is more than 1000 miles. PGOS thinks it's easy to defeat a country with that kind of will and instinct for survival. He's deluding himself.
Probably going unnoticed by Putin is the SECDEF calling for the Army to reduce end-strength to 420K from 490K over the objections of the Chief of Staff. Oh, and all that gear we have in Afghanistan? It has to leave either by truck through Pakistan (hardy har har), via very expensive airlift, or via train through Russia (hardy har har har).
Probably going unnoticed by Putin is the SECDEF calling for the Army to reduce end-strength to 420K from 490K over the objections of the Chief of Staff. Oh, and all that gear we have in Afghanistan? It has to leave either by truck through Pakistan (hardy har har), via very expensive airlift, or via train through Russia (hardy har har har).
Probably going unnoticed by Putin is the SECDEF calling for the Army to reduce end-strength to 420K from 490K over the objections of the Chief of Staff. Oh, and all that gear we have in Afghanistan? It has to leave either by truck through Pakistan (hardy har har), via very expensive airlift, or via train through Russia (hardy har har har).
The army, while not totally irrelevant, is still pretty fucking irrelevant. The Navy and AF are of far more importance, and I bet 99% of the shit the army does can be automated.
This has to be a contender for "stupidest fucking comment ever made on this website." Way stupider than anything I ever said about grunge music.
PGOS - please to be explaining how the Navy and the AF were able to combat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the Navy and the AF provide a land-based deterrent in Korea. For that matter, what happens to the AF and the Navy when the Army goes away? Here's a clue: the Army provides logistical support to all services in deployed environments. The Army provides the water purification specialists and the cooks and the doctors and the medics (except for Marine corpsmen). But you can automate that shit, right?
Real_God knows that all those private contractors Rumsfeld hired worked out great, you know, on time and below budget and all that shit, right? Oh, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED? Never mind.
Fact: At the end of the day, wars are won by boots on the ground. The Air Force is dominated by flyboys that want to be Top Gun, and the Navy clings to a belief that expensive carrier fleets are viable when ballistic missiles are cheap and so are the submarines that fire them.
Now, if you were just saying this to troll me - I compliment you.
Probably going unnoticed by Putin is the SECDEF calling for the Army to reduce end-strength to 420K from 490K over the objections of the Chief of Staff. Oh, and all that gear we have in Afghanistan? It has to leave either by truck through Pakistan (hardy har har), via very expensive airlift, or via train through Russia (hardy har har har).
The army, while not totally irrelevant, is still pretty fucking irrelevant. The Navy and AF are of far more importance, and I bet 99% of the shit the army does can be automated.
This has to be a contender for "stupidest fucking comment ever made on this website." Way stupider than anything I ever said about grunge music.
PGOS - please to be explaining how the Navy and the AF were able to combat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the Navy and the AF provide a land-based deterrent in Korea. For that matter, what happens to the AF and the Navy when the Army goes away? Here's a clue: the Army provides logistical support to all services in deployed environments. The Army provides the water purification specialists and the cooks and the doctors and the medics (except for Marine corpsmen). But you can automate that shit, right?
Real_God knows that all those private contractors Rumsfeld hired worked out great, you know, on time and below budget and all that shit, right? Oh, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED? Never mind.
Fact: At the end of the day, wars are won by boots on the ground. The Air Force is dominated by flyboys that want to be Top Gun, and the Navy clings to a belief that expensive carrier fleets are viable when ballistic missiles are cheap and so are the submarines that fire them.
Now, if you were just saying this to troll me - I compliment you.
Probably going unnoticed by Putin is the SECDEF calling for the Army to reduce end-strength to 420K from 490K over the objections of the Chief of Staff. Oh, and all that gear we have in Afghanistan? It has to leave either by truck through Pakistan (hardy har har), via very expensive airlift, or via train through Russia (hardy har har har).
The army, while not totally irrelevant, is still pretty fucking irrelevant. The Navy and AF are of far more importance, and I bet 99% of the shit the army does can be automated.
I see I've struck a nerve. I know you're current or former military, so I'll phrase the following nicely.
1) We shouldn't have been in Afghanistan anywhere near as long as we were, or in Iraq at all. The Iraqi military got trampled, yes, but the Taliban and other insurgents cost the US countless needlessly wasted lives, and billions in needlessly wasted cash. It's easy for the US to win a war against an overmatched foe in days; loitering around to get blown up by ied's, carbombs, and rpg's in urban areas is a much messier matter. You can't really "win" against the insurgents in a traditional sense. In order to do that, you have to Nuke the entire country, desert, mountain caves, cities, all of it. As long as Islam exists in its current form, organizations of radicals are going to cause problems and kill people.
2) Now that we've gotten the inefficient clusterfuck that was the Afghan occupation/Iraq war out of the way, let's discuss the significance of the army. The army is important, don't get me wrong. The US army and marines fucked up Saddam's Royal Guard in 2 battles with minimal causalities. You can't have a supply chain in hostile territory without the army. I get that.
The Navy and AF are just more important in the postmodern world, especially for America. America rules the world in a form of modern hegemony tied to its currency and military. In order for any aggressor to even reach American soil, it has to defeat both the US Navy and AirForce. The US Navy is bigger than the rest of the world's combined, and the AirForce is 10 years more advanced than its closest rivals.
"The only currently combat-ready fifth-generation fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 2005.[2][3][4]"
Whenever America is gong to wage war on an enemy, it's naturally going to send the Navy and AirForce in first. The US planes alone will simultaneously sink the enemies navy/bomb the enemy country into submission/strategically strike enemy bases/defeat the enemy AirForce. Only once all that has been done, will the truly badass footsoldiers in the Special Forces/Marines come into combat, followed by the army and armored brigades. And even that is changing with the use of drones and automation in warfare...why risk American lives if robotic weaponry can accomplish the task? Soldiers are expensive to train and maintain; in the long run, a $10,000 drone strike on a fortified location is better than sending a marine squadron in worth millions in invested dollars. Granted, drones and automation don't always make things better and more efficient, but it's still only 2014. Things are only going to accelerate in that direction, by 2050 the US military will be unrecognizable compared to its current form.
Also, the Army's traditional logistical tasks are being given to PMC's.
TL, DR the Army is important, but significantly less so than the Navy and AirForce, and the gap is widening. That said, if hostile aliens invade and wipe the floor with the AirForce, it doesn't hurt to have a strong ground force...
This has to be a contender for "stupidest fucking comment ever made on this website." Way stupider than anything I ever said about grunge music.
PGOS - please to be explaining how the Navy and the AF were able to combat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the Navy and the AF provide a land-based deterrent in Korea. For that matter, what happens to the AF and the Navy when the Army goes away? Here's a clue: the Army provides logistical support to all services in deployed environments. The Army provides the water purification specialists and the cooks and the doctors and the medics (except for Marine corpsmen). But you can automate that shit, right?
Real_God knows that all those private contractors Rumsfeld hired worked out great, you know, on time and below budget and all that shit, right? Oh, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED? Never mind.
Fact: At the end of the day, wars are won by boots on the ground. The Air Force is dominated by flyboys that want to be Top Gun, and the Navy clings to a belief that expensive carrier fleets are viable when ballistic missiles are cheap and so are the submarines that fire them.
Now, if you were just saying this to troll me - I compliment you.
Probably going unnoticed by Putin is the SECDEF calling for the Army to reduce end-strength to 420K from 490K over the objections of the Chief of Staff. Oh, and all that gear we have in Afghanistan? It has to leave either by truck through Pakistan (hardy har har), via very expensive airlift, or via train through Russia (hardy har har har).
The army, while not totally irrelevant, is still pretty fucking irrelevant. The Navy and AF are of far more importance, and I bet 99% of the shit the army does can be automated.
I see I've struck a nerve. I know you're current or former military, so I'll phrase the following nicely.
1) We shouldn't have been in Afghanistan anywhere near as long as we were, or in Iraq at all. The Iraqi military got trampled, yes, but the Taliban and other insurgents cost the US countless needlessly wasted lives, and billions in needlessly wasted cash. It's easy for the US to win a war in an overmatched foe in days; loitering around to get blown up by ied's, carbombs, and rpg's in urban areas is a much messier matter. You can't really "win" against the insurgents in a traditional sense. In order to do that, you have to Nuke the entire country, desert, mountain caves, cities, all of it. As long as Islam exists in its current form, organizations of radicals are going to cause problems and kill people.
2) Now that we've gotten the inefficient clusterfuck that was the Afghan occupation/Iraq war out of the way, let's discuss the significance of the army. The army is important, don't get me wrong. The US army and marines fucked up Saddam's Royal Guard in 2 battles with minimal causalities. You can't have a supply chain in hostile territory without the army. I get that.
The Navy and AF are just more important in the postmodern world, especially for America. America rules the world in a form of modern hegemony tied to its currency and military. In order for any aggressor to even reach American soil, it has to defeat both the US Navy and AirForce. The US Navy is bigger than the rest of the world's combined, and the AirForce is 10 years more advanced than its closest rivals.
"The only currently combat-ready fifth-generation fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 2005.[2][3][4]"
Whenever America is gong to wage war on an enemy, it's naturally going to send the Navy and AirForce in first. The US planes alone will simultaneously sink the enemies navy/bomb the enemy country into submission/strategically strike enemy bases/defeat the enemy AirForce. Only once all that has been done, will the truly badass footsoldiers in the Special Forces/Marines come into combat, followed by the army and armored brigades. And even that is changing with the use of drones and automation in warfare...why risk American lives if robotic weaponry can accomplish the task? Soldiers are expensive to train and maintain; in the long run, a $10,000 drone strike on a fortified location is better than sending a marine squadron in worth millions in invested dollars.
TL, DR the Army is important, but significantly less so than the Navy and AirForce, and the gap is widening. That said, if hostile aliens invade and wipe the floor with the AirForce, it doesn't hurt to have a strong ground force...
This has to be a contender for "stupidest fucking comment ever made on this website." Way stupider than anything I ever said about grunge music.
PGOS - please to be explaining how the Navy and the AF were able to combat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the Navy and the AF provide a land-based deterrent in Korea. For that matter, what happens to the AF and the Navy when the Army goes away? Here's a clue: the Army provides logistical support to all services in deployed environments. The Army provides the water purification specialists and the cooks and the doctors and the medics (except for Marine corpsmen). But you can automate that shit, right?
Real_God knows that all those private contractors Rumsfeld hired worked out great, you know, on time and below budget and all that shit, right? Oh, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED? Never mind.
Fact: At the end of the day, wars are won by boots on the ground. The Air Force is dominated by flyboys that want to be Top Gun, and the Navy clings to a belief that expensive carrier fleets are viable when ballistic missiles are cheap and so are the submarines that fire them.
Now, if you were just saying this to troll me - I compliment you.
Probably going unnoticed by Putin is the SECDEF calling for the Army to reduce end-strength to 420K from 490K over the objections of the Chief of Staff. Oh, and all that gear we have in Afghanistan? It has to leave either by truck through Pakistan (hardy har har), via very expensive airlift, or via train through Russia (hardy har har har).
The army, while not totally irrelevant, is still pretty fucking irrelevant. The Navy and AF are of far more importance, and I bet 99% of the shit the army does can be automated.
I see I've struck a nerve. I know you're current or former military, so I'll phrase the following nicely.
1) We shouldn't have been in Afghanistan anywhere near as long as we were, or in Iraq at all. The Iraqi military got trampled, yes, but the Taliban and other insurgents cost the US countless needlessly wasted lives, and billions in needlessly wasted cash. It's easy for the US to win a war in an overmatched foe in days; loitering around to get blown up by ied's, carbombs, and rpg's in urban areas is a much messier matter. You can't really "win" against the insurgents in a traditional sense. In order to do that, you have to Nuke the entire country, desert, mountain caves, cities, all of it. As long as Islam exists in its current form, organizations of radicals are going to cause problems and kill people.
2) Now that we've gotten the inefficient clusterfuck that was the Afghan occupation/Iraq war out of the way, let's discuss the significance of the army. The army is important, don't get me wrong. The US army and marines fucked up Saddam's Royal Guard in 2 battles with minimal causalities. You can't have a supply chain in hostile territory without the army. I get that.
The Navy and AF are just more important in the postmodern world, especially for America. America rules the world in a form of modern hegemony tied to its currency and military. In order for any aggressor to even reach American soil, it has to defeat both the US Navy and AirForce. The US Navy is bigger than the rest of the world's combined, and the AirForce is 10 years more advanced than its closest rivals.
"The only currently combat-ready fifth-generation fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 2005.[2][3][4]"
Whenever America is gong to wage war on an enemy, it's naturally going to send the Navy and AirForce in first. The US planes alone will simultaneously sink the enemies navy/bomb the enemy country into submission/strategically strike enemy bases/defeat the enemy AirForce. Only once all that has been done, will the truly badass footsoldiers in the Special Forces/Marines come into combat, followed by the army and armored brigades. And even that is changing with the use of drones and automation in warfare...why risk American lives if robotic weaponry can accomplish the task? Soldiers are expensive to train and maintain; in the long run, a $10,000 drone strike on a fortified location is better than sending a marine squadron in worth millions in invested dollars.
TL, DR the Army is important, but significantly less so than the Navy and AirForce, and the gap is widening. That said, if hostile aliens invade and wipe the floor with the AirForce, it doesn't hurt to have a strong ground force...
This has to be a contender for "stupidest fucking comment ever made on this website." Way stupider than anything I ever said about grunge music.
PGOS - please to be explaining how the Navy and the AF were able to combat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the Navy and the AF provide a land-based deterrent in Korea. For that matter, what happens to the AF and the Navy when the Army goes away? Here's a clue: the Army provides logistical support to all services in deployed environments. The Army provides the water purification specialists and the cooks and the doctors and the medics (except for Marine corpsmen). But you can automate that shit, right?
Real_God knows that all those private contractors Rumsfeld hired worked out great, you know, on time and below budget and all that shit, right? Oh, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED? Never mind.
Fact: At the end of the day, wars are won by boots on the ground. The Air Force is dominated by flyboys that want to be Top Gun, and the Navy clings to a belief that expensive carrier fleets are viable when ballistic missiles are cheap and so are the submarines that fire them.
Now, if you were just saying this to troll me - I compliment you.
Probably going unnoticed by Putin is the SECDEF calling for the Army to reduce end-strength to 420K from 490K over the objections of the Chief of Staff. Oh, and all that gear we have in Afghanistan? It has to leave either by truck through Pakistan (hardy har har), via very expensive airlift, or via train through Russia (hardy har har har).
The army, while not totally irrelevant, is still pretty fucking irrelevant. The Navy and AF are of far more importance, and I bet 99% of the shit the army does can be automated.
I see I've struck a nerve. I know you're current or former military, so I'll phrase the following nicely.
1) We shouldn't have been in Afghanistan anywhere near as long as we were, or in Iraq at all. The Iraqi military got trampled, yes, but the Taliban and other insurgents cost the US countless needlessly wasted lives, and billions in needlessly wasted cash. It's easy for the US to win a war in an overmatched foe in days; loitering around to get blown up by ied's, carbombs, and rpg's in urban areas is a much messier matter. You can't really "win" against the insurgents in a traditional sense. In order to do that, you have to Nuke the entire country, desert, mountain caves, cities, all of it. As long as Islam exists in its current form, organizations of radicals are going to cause problems and kill people.
2) Now that we've gotten the inefficient clusterfuck that was the Afghan occupation/Iraq war out of the way, let's discuss the significance of the army. The army is important, don't get me wrong. The US army and marines fucked up Saddam's Royal Guard in 2 battles with minimal causalities. You can't have a supply chain in hostile territory without the army. I get that.
The Navy and AF are just more important in the postmodern world, especially for America. America rules the world in a form of modern hegemony tied to its currency and military. In order for any aggressor to even reach American soil, it has to defeat both the US Navy and AirForce. The US Navy is bigger than the rest of the world's combined, and the AirForce is 10 years more advanced than its closest rivals.
"The only currently combat-ready fifth-generation fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 2005.[2][3][4]"
Whenever America is gong to wage war on an enemy, it's naturally going to send the Navy and AirForce in first. The US planes alone will simultaneously sink the enemies navy/bomb the enemy country into submission/strategically strike enemy bases/defeat the enemy AirForce. Only once all that has been done, will the truly badass footsoldiers in the Special Forces/Marines come into combat, followed by the army and armored brigades. And even that is changing with the use of drones and automation in warfare...why risk American lives if robotic weaponry can accomplish the task? Soldiers are expensive to train and maintain; in the long run, a $10,000 drone strike on a fortified location is better than sending a marine squadron in worth millions in invested dollars.
TL, DR the Army is important, but significantly less so than the Navy and AirForce, and the gap is widening. That said, if hostile aliens invade and wipe the floor with the AirForce, it doesn't hurt to have a strong ground force...
Disagree except for the bolded part.
I'll quote CollegeDoog on this one:
You're a fucking simpleton, Sven.
Even Tequilla thinks you need to get to the fucking point faster.
This has to be a contender for "stupidest fucking comment ever made on this website." Way stupider than anything I ever said about grunge music.
PGOS - please to be explaining how the Navy and the AF were able to combat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the Navy and the AF provide a land-based deterrent in Korea. For that matter, what happens to the AF and the Navy when the Army goes away? Here's a clue: the Army provides logistical support to all services in deployed environments. The Army provides the water purification specialists and the cooks and the doctors and the medics (except for Marine corpsmen). But you can automate that shit, right?
Real_God knows that all those private contractors Rumsfeld hired worked out great, you know, on time and below budget and all that shit, right? Oh, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED? Never mind.
Fact: At the end of the day, wars are won by boots on the ground. The Air Force is dominated by flyboys that want to be Top Gun, and the Navy clings to a belief that expensive carrier fleets are viable when ballistic missiles are cheap and so are the submarines that fire them.
Now, if you were just saying this to troll me - I compliment you.
Probably going unnoticed by Putin is the SECDEF calling for the Army to reduce end-strength to 420K from 490K over the objections of the Chief of Staff. Oh, and all that gear we have in Afghanistan? It has to leave either by truck through Pakistan (hardy har har), via very expensive airlift, or via train through Russia (hardy har har har).
The army, while not totally irrelevant, is still pretty fucking irrelevant. The Navy and AF are of far more importance, and I bet 99% of the shit the army does can be automated.
I see I've struck a nerve. I know you're current or former military, so I'll phrase the following nicely.
1) We shouldn't have been in Afghanistan anywhere near as long as we were, or in Iraq at all. The Iraqi military got trampled, yes, but the Taliban and other insurgents cost the US countless needlessly wasted lives, and billions in needlessly wasted cash. It's easy for the US to win a war in an overmatched foe in days; loitering around to get blown up by ied's, carbombs, and rpg's in urban areas is a much messier matter. You can't really "win" against the insurgents in a traditional sense. In order to do that, you have to Nuke the entire country, desert, mountain caves, cities, all of it. As long as Islam exists in its current form, organizations of radicals are going to cause problems and kill people.
2) Now that we've gotten the inefficient clusterfuck that was the Afghan occupation/Iraq war out of the way, let's discuss the significance of the army. The army is important, don't get me wrong. The US army and marines fucked up Saddam's Royal Guard in 2 battles with minimal causalities. You can't have a supply chain in hostile territory without the army. I get that.
The Navy and AF are just more important in the postmodern world, especially for America. America rules the world in a form of modern hegemony tied to its currency and military. In order for any aggressor to even reach American soil, it has to defeat both the US Navy and AirForce. The US Navy is bigger than the rest of the world's combined, and the AirForce is 10 years more advanced than its closest rivals.
"The only currently combat-ready fifth-generation fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 2005.[2][3][4]"
Whenever America is gong to wage war on an enemy, it's naturally going to send the Navy and AirForce in first. The US planes alone will simultaneously sink the enemies navy/bomb the enemy country into submission/strategically strike enemy bases/defeat the enemy AirForce. Only once all that has been done, will the truly badass footsoldiers in the Special Forces/Marines come into combat, followed by the army and armored brigades. And even that is changing with the use of drones and automation in warfare...why risk American lives if robotic weaponry can accomplish the task? Soldiers are expensive to train and maintain; in the long run, a $10,000 drone strike on a fortified location is better than sending a marine squadron in worth millions in invested dollars.
TL, DR the Army is important, but significantly less so than the Navy and AirForce, and the gap is widening. That said, if hostile aliens invade and wipe the floor with the AirForce, it doesn't hurt to have a strong ground force...
Disagree except for the bolded part.
I'll quote CollegeDoog on this one:
You're a fucking simpleton, Sven.
Even Tequilla thinks you need to get to the fucking point faster.
By the way, I agree with your actual point.
Valid. In my defense, that was probably the longest post I've made on here.
The AF fixed the oxygen issue on the F-22's. The point was, the US is at least developing stuff way beyond the capabilities of China, Russia, etc.
While the carriers would be vulnerable to missile's, you'd hope the US AF and submarines would have already wrecked most of the launching points before the carriers became seriously vulnerable. Fighters/bombers can now make long forrays from the carrier without having to refuel, the carriers themselves would remain safe.
But this is all armchair general shit. Revenge of the nerds around here.
Comments
Budapest Memorandum (not citrus)
What If Ukraine Still Had Nukes?
Let's Spend Some Fucking Money on National Defense and Keep AZDuck In a Job
It's a good place to get a used tire. Some of the tires piled up outside police buildings look just fine.
It's all over for the kiev government as far as Russia goes and the east.
You can say it was a 50/50 effort but in reality it was more 70/30, Russia/allies. Moscow to Berlin is more than 1000 miles. PGOS thinks it's easy to defeat a country with that kind of will and instinct for survival. He's deluding himself.
Ukrainian President phones Obama and asks desperately, "Please reassure me that you have my back"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/defense-secretary-chuck-hagel-recommends-reducing-army-to-pre-ww2-levels/
FYFMFE (but especially me)
Hi Puppy!
PGOS - please to be explaining how the Navy and the AF were able to combat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how the Navy and the AF provide a land-based deterrent in Korea. For that matter, what happens to the AF and the Navy when the Army goes away? Here's a clue: the Army provides logistical support to all services in deployed environments. The Army provides the water purification specialists and the cooks and the doctors and the medics (except for Marine corpsmen). But you can automate that shit, right?
Real_God knows that all those private contractors Rumsfeld hired worked out great, you know, on time and below budget and all that shit, right? Oh, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED? Never mind.
Fact: At the end of the day, wars are won by boots on the ground. The Air Force is dominated by flyboys that want to be Top Gun, and the Navy clings to a belief that expensive carrier fleets are viable when ballistic missiles are cheap and so are the submarines that fire them.
Now, if you were just saying this to troll me - I compliment you.
1) We shouldn't have been in Afghanistan anywhere near as long as we were, or in Iraq at all. The Iraqi military got trampled, yes, but the Taliban and other insurgents cost the US countless needlessly wasted lives, and billions in needlessly wasted cash. It's easy for the US to win a war against an overmatched foe in days; loitering around to get blown up by ied's, carbombs, and rpg's in urban areas is a much messier matter. You can't really "win" against the insurgents in a traditional sense. In order to do that, you have to Nuke the entire country, desert, mountain caves, cities, all of it. As long as Islam exists in its current form, organizations of radicals are going to cause problems and kill people.
2) Now that we've gotten the inefficient clusterfuck that was the Afghan occupation/Iraq war out of the way, let's discuss the significance of the army. The army is important, don't get me wrong. The US army and marines fucked up Saddam's Royal Guard in 2 battles with minimal causalities. You can't have a supply chain in hostile territory without the army. I get that.
The Navy and AF are just more important in the postmodern world, especially for America. America rules the world in a form of modern hegemony tied to its currency and military. In order for any aggressor to even reach American soil, it has to defeat both the US Navy and AirForce. The US Navy is bigger than the rest of the world's combined, and the AirForce is 10 years more advanced than its closest rivals.
"The only currently combat-ready fifth-generation fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 2005.[2][3][4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
Whenever America is gong to wage war on an enemy, it's naturally going to send the Navy and AirForce in first. The US planes alone will simultaneously sink the enemies navy/bomb the enemy country into submission/strategically strike enemy bases/defeat the enemy AirForce. Only once all that has been done, will the truly badass footsoldiers in the Special Forces/Marines come into combat, followed by the army and armored brigades. And even that is changing with the use of drones and automation in warfare...why risk American lives if robotic weaponry can accomplish the task? Soldiers are expensive to train and maintain; in the long run, a $10,000 drone strike on a fortified location is better than sending a marine squadron in worth millions in invested dollars. Granted, drones and automation don't always make things better and more efficient, but it's still only 2014. Things are only going to accelerate in that direction, by 2050 the US military will be unrecognizable compared to its current form.
Also, the Army's traditional logistical tasks are being given to PMC's.
TL, DR the Army is important, but significantly less so than the Navy and AirForce, and the gap is widening. That said, if hostile aliens invade and wipe the floor with the AirForce, it doesn't hurt to have a strong ground force...
You're a fucking simpleton, Sven.
By the way, I agree with your actual point.
That's an intro paragraph for Tequilla.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/
The best air superiority platform in the world is the F-16.
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/CentennialofAviation/TechnologyandtheF-16FightingFalconJetFighter.aspx
The best ground support platform in the world is the A-10.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/September/Pages/FighttoKeepA-10WarthoginAirForceInventoryReachesEndGame.aspx
The fucking zoomies want to ground them both.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140574/robert-farley/ground-the-air-force
The Navy still can't answer the question of how does a carrier task force meet a ballistic missile attack:
http://www.johntreed.com/sittingducks.html
http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/surface-combat-fleets-obsolete/
While the carriers would be vulnerable to missile's, you'd hope the US AF and submarines would have already wrecked most of the launching points before the carriers became seriously vulnerable. Fighters/bombers can now make long forrays from the carrier without having to refuel, the carriers themselves would remain safe.
But this is all armchair general shit. Revenge of the nerds around here.