Sorry about the double post
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Don't understand the "what about less powerful countries" issue?
In this case what I am talking about are places like Kuwait, East Timor, and Kosovo, which only by the grace of the United States are they independent. It is possible that they might use the tactics of insurgency to guarantee their existence, but in the words of Stalin, quantity has a quality all of its own.
The budget debate that I wanted to avoid, could be summed up thusly: Yes, the vast majority of the largesse previously and currently in the budget is social welfare. Indeed, even if we were to completely abandon all military spending, it would not decrease the projected shortfalls for the next ten years by anymore than half. Given a choice between decreasing spending on virtually any social program and national defense, I would cut everything before decreasing defense spending.
However, it seems to me that the precient
Quote:
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
~Benjamin Franklin
has come to pass. Once programs are in place people view the money coming to them as entitlements, and defend them as such. Usually the only way to acheive any cuts is through a 'compromise' which will almost assuredly result in defense budget cuts.
Even without such cuts, outside forces could force them upon us. Economists have no idea how many dollars are outside the U.S. If demand for things like US Government Bonds, or Oil priced in dollars wanes, the devaluation of the dollar could be precipitous, resulting in a real decrease in spending even without a nominal one.
Why would we opt for missions like those?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abu Suleyman
I do have to say, though, that I already believe that we are already at the minimum number of soldiers we can have and continue to carry off missions like Iraq or Afghanistan with any hope of success.
There are better ways to have handled each of those. The problem was not that the money to develop and train forces capable of strategic raids had not been available, it was that the political and military will to employ the tactic in pursuit of strategy was lacking. Thus we had to employ an Armor and Euro centric force in South Asia and the Middle East -- just as we had earlier committed similar forces (and operational methods) to North Asia and Southeast Asia. We appear to be on the way to rebuilding that same force...
Would have been and would in future be far cheaper and more effective to employ such raids rather than getting tied up in lengthy, expensive in all terms and essentially marginally productive COIN efforts that in the end offer little if any change to either the nations involved or the strategic balance...
If you have a lot of money, you buy a lot of tools, supplies and such -- often more than you need. If you don't have that much money, you tend to buy smarter and buy only what you need. That lack of excess also causes you to work smarter.
Why would you want to do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abu Suleyman
...at the same time I just don't see a way that a small elite force could pull off missions of the type of Afghanistan or Iraq.
That's the point -- those were missions made necessary more by the existing and available force structure and the focus of military (mostly) and civilian (influenced by the military) leaders. Both Afghanistan and the Middle East needed military attention, that was IMO a strategic necessity. Neither mission as actually performed was IMO strategically desirable in virtually any respect.
Quote:
If, rather than invading Iraq, we had just sent in 10,000 (arbitrarily chosen number) SF soldiers, and they had fomented rebellion amongst hoi polloi, then we certainly would have destabilized Iraq, but I am not sure that the same 10,000 would have been able to stabilize it again.
In the first place we didn't have 10K SF. In the second, why would you want to do that? Foment a rebellion and you have no idea how that might end.
We should have in Afghanistan have known the location of all AQ assets and simply have gone in an destroyed them and left. In the ME, the issue was not Saddam but to send a message to the ME that attacks on American interests were no longer going to be tolerated as they had been for the past 22 years with either no response or a tepid one; rather with a full bore slam. Iraq was as good a place as any as it was effectively a pariah state with a roundly disliked Dictator but there were other more directly related targets. Problem is that our Foreign Policy in the region (and elsewhere) for many years has been directed at a course which made the course taken almost inevitable -- and the fact that so few options were available is an indication of major errors in foreign policy as well as military policy.
The more salient fact that four Presidents over the period 1979-2001 failed to properly respond to a series of provocations and probes from the Middle East which almost certainly led us to 2001 and later should not be forgotten...
Quote:
I am willing to be convinced, but breaking things is easy; building things is hard, and it is in the building that the world gets shaped.
I totally agree. Very much so. I'd also suggest that employing a sledgehammer in building is not a common thing for a good reason.
Here's what the Wiki says about sledgehammers: "Sledgehammers are often used in construction work, for breaking through drywall or masonry walls. Sledgehammers are also used when substantial force is necessary to dislodge a trapped object (often in farm or oil field work), or for fracturing stone or concrete." Not a good tool for building; better one of these; LINK.
The GPF is a sledgehammer. It should be used for its designed purpose -- to break things -- you can use it for other things to be sure but it will not be nearly as effective as the proper tool.
Building things take time and preparation, it helps to use the right tools -- and those are intelligence, diplomacy and properly applied foreign aid plus a little very low key police and / or military assistance -- with emphasis on the low key. Once you expand the military presence, you're creating targets (everyone loves to snipe at the 800 pound Gorilla); you're usually creating a need for further commitment and you are undertaking an effort that will almost certainly be time consuming, expensive in many terms and with an uncertain end state almost guaranteed.
So I again ask -- why would you do that mindlessly without even investigating other options?
The answer is, of course that our previous decisions both on diplomacy and force structure put us where we were in 2001. We now have an opportunity to be bit smarter and, I believe, an obligation to be a bit tougher. Domestically and overseas. We can and should nip a lot of this stuff in the bud and forestall any more Afghan or Iraq like commitments which are generally not worth the costs. Perhaps really never worth them. We certainly need to be prepared to do them but we equally certainly should do our level best to avoid them. Whether we will or not, I can't say. Your generation needs to work on that...
I'm not sure whether we're talking past,
at or alongside each other but obviously I'm failing to communicate...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abu Suleyman
Actually, those daggers are useful, because they illustrate where our differences are. What you seem to be arguing is from a position of "limited engagement" or :gasp: "isolationism." ...
Far from it, that dog won't hunt at all in this age. Nor am I suggesting that we not do any 'expeditionary' operations -- I am suggesting that we need a capability to do strategic raids on both a covert and overt basis (and that DoD has deliberately eschewed that in an effort to influence policy -- that's backwards IMO) as well as expeditionary capability which is imperative as a capability -- not desirable; to be avoided but possibly necessary. Further, that the strategic raid is more in keeping with the American psyche and norms and properly done will normally be cheaper on all accounts than a lengthy COIN-like operation. Those latter should be avoided if at all possible for all the obvious reasons.
Quote:
However, what I am most concerned with is a precipitous decline in American strength, such that no other country is able to step into the gap, thereby creating an unstable international situation. As you said, [The object is to NOT have to establish security...
I can cover a road block by fire from a click or two away; I don't have to sit on the crossroads and be a target...
Quote:
...but politics and not tactics decide how, when and why we fight wars.
Of course they do; that's the point. If you provide the policy makers a sledge hammer and only a sledge hammer, that's what they'll have to use even if another tool would be a far better option.
We have the capability of providing a number of tools; we have foolishly elected to build sledgehammers.:mad:
If that's all the policy makers have; they, as you seem to wish to do, will use them because it's better than nothing and they don't know any better and are taking advice from overly cautious military types. Dumb.
Quote:
That said, I really don't see a point, including bankruptcy where the U.S. gives up its 'expeditionary' nature. Our
first overseas expedition was in 1801 for crying out loud, and that proclivity hasn't ceased since.
Thank you for making my point -- the vast majority of those were strategic raids. Only after the foolishness of the Philippines in 1898 did we get involved with the go and stay business -- and we have NEVER done it well...
Quote:
My point being is, as much as we may like it or not, politically, there is no way that we are ever going to go from an Army which takes and holds territory the old fashioned way to one which relies on raids and brief incursions. Until the American political landscape changes, we are stuck with it and we can either grouse about it, or we can deal with it.
I don't think that's correct; I acknowledge there are many who believe that way but there are others who'd dispute that. Most of the Marine Corps would, probably...:D
Quote:
re: Mexico This should almost be another thread.
True.
Quote:
we cannot abandon our own people to capricious raids by well armed and organized thugs based outside the country.
Nor would I suggest we should.:cool:
Necessity is the mother of innovation...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abu Suleyman
..I agree that a more agile, and all around better force is desirable, but I do not believe that we can decrease the number of ground troops that we have below the number we currently have...
Does the number required not depend on your doctrine and tactical principles? If it does, then the question becomes are those principles currently in place the best for the world as it is today? :wry:
Quote:
1. I think that the actual mission ... at least the ca. 500k soldiers that we have...
Do we have 500K or more nearly a Million? I would opt for more troops, perhaps about 1.5 to 2 M -- but with only about 350-400K active; the rest would be in the Guard and Reserve. That 350-400K does not count the USMC which is not going away...:D
Quote:
2. Even with a less "Take and Hold" based strategy abroad, situations will inevitably arise that the US will feel compelled to take and hold territory, even without planning to do so, and the military and the country does not want to get caught short in such a situation.
I don't agree with inevitable but it is certainly a possibility and therefor needs to acknowledged in plans. I again state that it is possible to control territory without occupying it provided one is trained and equipped to do so. An MRAP is not the vehicle of choice for that, nor is Bradley or an M1 -- neither is a helicopter. OTOH, if you want to physically occupy space, then the ground vehicles have a use -- the Helicopter is still not a good choice for the movement of people (okay for supplies). It's not even good for commanders who become physically and emotionally separated from their troops. Not good for the Troops because it physically and psychologically separates them from the ground on which they operate.
Quote:
3. Even with a more "Raid" mentality, there is likely to be missions and times where a smaller force would be highly stressed. Specifically, I am imagining a situation where, even though the deployments are only 3 mos. the dwell time is also on 3 mos. or other similar configuration...
Raids aren't the only other option, just one I cited. If you do raids, you aren't looking at three month deployments, more like a week or two. In any event, you'd have to work on selling me on deployments (in the current usage of the term) of less than a year. I understand all the reasons for shorter deployment, I just disagree. Lengthy tours in unfriendly places go with the job; those not prepared for that should find other employment -- one reason why I say a smaller active force; fewer will join if the deployment rules change. :eek:
The loss of continuity, tactically and operationally is not worth the slight benefit gained (I realize most will not agree with this but we may see how that works with some folks in Afghanistan in the near future).
Quote:
Tying into this, if we are going to have a force that is going to be this well trained we are going to have to be able to commit a greater amount of time to training, so a larger percentage of our force will be in training at any time.
Yes and no; longer enlistments / active duty requirements, better initial training and more unit training -- as opposed to units that piddle around in garrison a lot -- will mean less time in training because people would spend more time doing.
Not to worry; none of that will happen. Congress and the Mothers of America do not want truly competent and dangerous armed forces; just moderately competent. However, my point was and is that interventions in other nations should be avoided because we do not do them well, they do not suit the American psyche and impatient nature, are more expensive in all aspects than several alternatives and we -- as you originally said -- cannot afford the force we now have and some drastic reprogramming will be required in the future.
A smaller better trained force does certainly give up some capabilities (though I'd question how valuable Mass is today...) but it can provide other capabilities which may be more valuable. Not least a requirement to think situations and applications to remedy them through...
Now we are getting somewhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Does the number required not depend on your doctrine and tactical principles? If it does, then the question becomes are those principles currently in place the best for the world as it is today? :wry: Do we have 500K or more nearly a Million?
I agree, and I am basing the 500k on the roughly half a mil active Army, since I assume that AF and Navy missions wouldn't change all that much. I also presume that the Marines mission wouldn't change all that much either, since it sounds a lot like what you are describing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I would opt for more troops, perhaps about 1.5 to 2 M -- but with only about 350-400K active; the rest would be in the Guard and Reserve. That 350-400K does not count the USMC which is not going away...:D
I think if I were absolute commander of the military I would be even more radical than you would. I would have no problem with the configuration that you propose, but I would say that we should also allow people to enter and leave the military periodically as they choose.
Basically, (and I realize this is an oversimplification, but not by a lot) the military views the world as either in or out. Anything you did on the outside does not matter, and once you are out it can be very hard to get back in. With a few important exceptions, if you come into the military you start at the bottom whether E-1 or O-1. If you get out, and I mean out-out and not into the reserves, anything that you do does not matter should you attempt to return. The net effect is that there is only one door into the military building, and lots of doors out.
I believe that we should be flexible in allowing people entrance and exit to the military, and not treat everything that happened outside the military as if it doesn't matter. Of course, there really is nothing like combat arms except in the military, but truthfully supply chains, intelligence, maintenance and a whole host of other issues are almost perfectly analogous within and without the military. Why should someone who has been doing intel for the past ten years as a GS-whatever have to start out as a 2LT and hope he gets intel. Moreover, why not allow people to take breaks from the military, learn new things, and return at a rank and pay grade appropriate to the level of their abilities.
This is how things used to be, and it is how things are in the rest of government and in the medical community. I think that a military more integrated in our society would benefit both society and the military and society. I confess that I have no idea how we would have to configure our military with such a structure, and it would probably take some trial and error to get it right. (And you thought I was an inside the box type).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I don't agree with inevitable but it is certainly a possibility and therefor needs to acknowledged in plans.
Inevitable is probably a strong word. It isn't inevitable in the same sense a perhaps an asteroid on a collision course with earth is inevitable. It is inevitable in the same sense that an idiot with money will end up broke. Theoretically the idiot could avoid calamity, but he is an idiot. Theoretically the bureaucracy could avoid those problems but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I again state that it is possible to control territory without occupying it provided one is trained and equipped to do so. An MRAP is not the vehicle of choice for that, nor is Bradley or an M1 -- neither is a helicopter. OTOH, if you want to physically occupy space, then the ground vehicles have a use -- the Helicopter is still not a good choice for the movement of people (okay for supplies). It's not even good for commanders who become physically and emotionally separated from their troops. Not good for the Troops because it physically and psychologically separates them from the ground on which they operate.
Insert countless stories of misuse of equipment here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Raids aren't the only other option, just one I cited.
I used the nomenclature of "raids" because, although you did not specifically say it, your strategy seems to imply short duration and therefore a planned exit. An operation where the exit is planned used to be the definition of a raid. It doesn't have to be a "raid" in the classic sense of running up, raising hell, and leaving, but for lack of a better word, but anything from sabotage of a nuclear power plant to the 1979 Sino-Viet-namese war qualifies using my definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
If you do raids, you aren't looking at three month deployments, more like a week or two. In any event, you'd have to work on selling me on deployments (in the current usage of the term) of less than a year.
I suppose when I said deployment I meant time away from home, and not necessarily away from homestation. Nevertheless, it is almost an axiom of organization that the more people who become involved, the longer things take. When the Marines ship out for some thing, no matter how large or small, it generally means 7 months away from family. I think that if we could keep it down to 3 we would be lucky. I could be wrong though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I understand all the reasons for shorter deployment, I just disagree. Lengthy tours in unfriendly places go with the job; those not prepared for that should find other employment -- one reason why I say a smaller active force; fewer will join if the deployment rules change. :eek:
Unfortunately, smaller organizations usually result from a higher attrition rate, as well as a lower recruitment rate, which can lead to less institutional knowledge and therefore less experience. There is no way to know at the beginning who will last 20+ years, so it is not like you can recruit only those who will make it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
The loss of continuity, tactically and operationally is not worth the slight benefit gained (I realize most will not agree with this but we may see how that works with some folks in Afghanistan in the near future).Yes and no; longer enlistments / active duty requirements, better initial training and more unit training -- as opposed to units that piddle around in garrison a lot -- will mean less time in training because people would spend more time doing.
I think you are talking about the Victorian Era British model. I couldn't agree more. This is where my in and out model of the military would work. I bet we could get plenty of all kinds of people to sign up for long tours of understanding and controlling but not occupying area, if they knew that upfront. Stay a long time and get the job done; then return home and do it again or don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Congress and the Mothers of America do not want truly competent and dangerous armed forces; just moderately competent. However, my point was and is that interventions in other nations should be avoided because we do not do them well, they do not suit the American psyche and impatient nature, are more expensive in all aspects than several alternatives and we -- as you originally said -- cannot afford the force we now have and some drastic reprogramming will be required in the future.
No argument here, except to say that we aren't alone in our incompetence. It seems to be a flaw of human nature that we are seized with the uncontrollable desire to meddle in the affairs of others, but are deprived of the ability to do so effectively.
All that said, and it seems like we actually do see eye to eye on some if not most of these issues, I think that such a change bodes ill for two groups in particular: International Organizations which rely on American soldiers for the heavy lifting, and small or less militarily capable nations that rely on the US for their defense. While not what the US military is designed for, their bodies do a lot of the work for groups like NATO or the UN, who would be hard pressed to even exist without them. And lets face it there are plenty of countries, including some whom we consider powerful, whose basic military strategy is "Hold out (or don't) and let the Americans rescue us." I do worry that a precipitous transition from our current status brought on by the many negative problems resulting from bankruptcy, could result in destabilizing the international arena, and make the world for us, and everyone else, less secure.
Much to agree with here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abu Suleyman
I think if I were absolute commander of the military I would be even more radical ... I would say that we should also allow people to enter and leave the military periodically as they choose.
Very much agree.
Quote:
I confess that I have no idea how we would have to configure our military with such a structure, and it would probably take some trial and error to get it right. (And you thought I was an inside the box type).
Didn't think that, merely trying to highlight how easy it is to rely on the familiar and pick up the same tools out of habit... :wry:
Agree on the trial and error -- the Army, in addition to radically revising the Personnel System (to the extent of firing or moving everyone currently involved and starting all over) -- should be more willing to experiment.
Quote:
It doesn't have to be a "raid" in the classic sense of running up, raising hell, and leaving, but for lack of a better word, but anything from sabotage of a nuclear power plant to the 1979 Sino-Viet-namese war qualifies using my definition.
Raids are good, strategic raids are a good alternative to many things, so I'm a believer. Better Intel and more aggressive diplomacy would be a big help. On one thing I'm firmly convinced -- committing the GPF to nation building should be a last resort and if it is done, a civilian should be in charge. :cool:
Quote:
...When the Marines ship out for some thing, no matter how large or small, it generally means 7 months away from family.
In addition to fixing a bankrupt personnel system and significantly improving training, we also need to overhaul the pay structure -- which is essentially a 1917 construct. We could start by not rewarding a guy to be married -- I'd opt for paying a bonus to stay single but the Mothers of America and Religion Inc. would go berserk... :rolleyes:
Quote:
There is no way to know at the beginning who will last 20+ years, so it is not like you can recruit only those who will make it.
On that I don't agree; we could better select new entrants, have higher standards, refine the pay and training and have a waiting list to get in -- and if your suggestion of a revolving door were also adopted...
Quote:
I bet we could get plenty of all kinds of people to sign up for long tours of understanding and controlling but not occupying area, if they knew that upfront. Stay a long time and get the job done; then return home and do it again or don't.
True.
Quote:
International Organizations which rely on American soldiers for the heavy lifting, and small or less militarily capable nations that rely on the US for their defense. While not what the US military is designed for, their bodies do a lot of the work for groups like NATO or the UN, who would be hard pressed to even exist without them. And lets face it there are plenty of countries, including some whom we consider powerful, whose basic military strategy is "Hold out (or don't) and let the Americans rescue us." I do worry that a precipitous transition from our current status brought on by the many negative problems resulting from bankruptcy, could result in destabilizing the international arena, and make the world for us, and everyone else, less secure.
That's all true and I think some of that could be turned around with better diplomacy and lowered US military visibility worldwide. We should avoid some commitments because we'll merely become targets and we have to stop trying to fight nicely; that never works. Hard and fast will do less damage and create less casualties of all kinds. The harder and more rapid the better... :cool: