Changing the Army for future wars?
Hello
I am working on a paper that debates making changes to the current formation of the Army to an Army suited for War and Nation building. My premise is as much as the population doesn't want to admit it the Army needs to incorporate units that nation build. I am advocating that the Army add units to either guard or active duty that can come in and help nation build. I know the first argument I got was the Army has engineers, Jag officers, ect. If any of you have been in the Army you know that the majority of engineers don't know how to work with power lines or sewers systems. Jag Lawyers barely know how to litigate much less judge on disputes in other country. The idea is the Army could make units that can be brought into a city and take over all major utilities and law operations. Basically these new units will free up combat troops for security operations while professionals work on civil systems. These specialized units would be helping to promote good will within the local population. My question is does anyone know of any other research being done on this subject? I appreciate any information anyone can provide. Thank you
There's a Search function in the topmost blue bar
on this page. You'll find many discussions on your topic of interest. Here are links to three threads that address it to one degree or another:
NGO and Humanitarian Thread LINK
Lessons not Learned Thread LINK
Foreign Internal Development and working with Indigenous Forces Thread LINK
After you look at those, find some or all your answers using the search function and before you post again on this thread, you might go to this LINK and introduce yourself -- preferably with a little more detail than the previous two folks provided... :wry:
Clarify why the Army should do this?
Robodoc, please clarify why you think the Army should have standing units/organizations that should support nation building? The council can then better assist you with your research.
First, I recommend you go on-line and research what the Department of State and Department of Defense are doing in an attempt to address this noted shortfall. Both are looking at hiring mostly civilians and putting them on standby to support such contingencies.
IMO I doubt that it is possible to recruit, train, sustain technical proficiency, then retain these talented technicians in the depth and breath required to support potential contingency operations.
Electric power as one example, what skills should the army nation building organization have? All of them? How to run a Hydroelectric plant, a fossil fuel plant, a nuclear plant, be a line man for the county, etc. Every situation could require different skills, so it would seem more efficient to contract based on the location and problem set, and when possible contract locally to put people to work and facilitate a smoother transition when we hand over the reigns. Your comments on the Army's lawyers were off the mark, and hardly relevant unless your version of nation building is that we're going to "impose" our legal system?
I'm not anti-nation building, though I think we should be very careful when choosing to get involved in this type of activity, but I'm probably one of those who currently believe the Army doesn't need a standing organization for nation building due to the breadth and depth issue. Our nation has the capability to do this already through contracting as required. We need to fix the contracting process. What reportedly happened in Iraq in some cases is that contracts were given out to persons and companies based more on political affiliation than capability to execute the contract. I'm sure that happened in every war, but if an effort is made to clean this process up instead of throw it out, I think it would be a more efficient fix than standing up a new Army organization.