The Best Trained, Most Professional Military...Just Lost Two Wars?
The Best Trained, Most Professional Military...Just Lost Two Wars?
Quote:
(...) President Obama has described our military as “the strongest military the world has ever known.”
There’s just one problem with this...
That military just lost two wars in a row.(...)
If our military is so great, why have the last fifty years been so disastrous? (...)
He's got his opinion about this, and it won't come as a huge surprise to the usual suspects in here.
(I don't agree completely.)
Then why didn't anybody say so?
If "...the failure to fully achieve goals (call it "defeat" if you must) in recent wars was less due to military deficiency than to the selection of impractical and unrealistic goals that were not achievable by military force in the first place." then why didn't anybody say so in the first place?
Was it foreseeable that goals were unacheivable?
You're more right than wrong, however...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
...he's easily a top tier military affairs analyst if "highly naive" is the worst that can be said about his articles. There's not much shining competition...
Agree there's little competition but believe that naivete is dangerous. Being intelligent, articulate and passionate does not bestow competence.
Quote:
I personally don't agree with his idea to about the direction to go (pop-centric COIN) and would if at all rather treat this as a political fight (=deal with those who have influence, don't try to influence millions of people directly).
Agreed.
Quote:
I do believe he's more right about the "losing" thing, and consider your and dayuhan's position as rather reflexive partisan - especially in the case of Iraq, where the troubles were started more by occupation mistakes than in Afghanistan.
Also agree. We are victims of our own propaganda and are not nearly as good as we could be or should be.
It should be noted though that we are as competent as most want us to be -- and allow us to be. Fortunately, that's generally been adequate and competitors have all had their own problems -- political and military... :wry:
Quote:
Furthermore I wouldn't place so much trust in the core competence of winning battles. The American way of warfare works well against near-defenceless opposition (at least superficially) and it works well with overwhelming resources. Competence is yet to be demonstrated in battle, and especially so in crisis. The 101st in Bastogne was probably the only U.S. Army ground forces formation that prevailed in a crisis with inferior resources - ever!
That's not totally correct. Just in the past century from WW I's 'Lost Battalion' and Belleau Wood to the failed defense of Bataan and numerous smaller actions in WW II -- the 101st may be the most notable in the Ardennes but there were other units that did well at the time against the odds. Add the 1st Marine Division at the Reservoir in Korea to dozens of smaller battles in both Korea and Viet Nam as well as some more recent examples. That said, while your statement omits a bunch of successes, it is broadly correct -- like all Armies, we've had more failures than successes. Thus OfTheTroops comment; no one wins -- and even the Swiss lost a few, not least Bicocca...
Quote:
The current doctrine and near-total radio comm dependency of the entire army still needs to be proved to be an effective system in a conflict against a great power. I've got my doubts about the viability of the entire concept in such a scenario.
Me too. Doubts that is; we are far too technology, mass and firepower reliant. That's mostly due simply to the fact that we can provide those things (currently, anyway...) and accordingly have been unwilling to properly invest in, train and educate our forces. Dumb way to do business but Congress likes it. :rolleyes:
One of the more popular posts...
One of the more popular posts on the Small War Council asks, "What can we do to keep the SWJ relevant?" Maybe the answer for the SWJ council is, "Quit insulting each other."
I stopped posting on here because people like Bill Moore and "Of the Troops" immediately descend to calling me an idiot or the author of "highly naive articles and this is just another one to add to the compost pile." As a result, I only check the council side when someone links to my article. As usual, most of the "discussion" chooses to personally attack me and avoid the argument.
You gentlemen stay classy.
You wrote that, I didn't...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Wait, so when the U.S.military trumps over say, the miniscule Panamanian Forces, it's the greatest military on earth.
I've NEVER said or written that the US Military was very good, much less great -- or even far less, the greatest on Earth. I have frequently written that both the German Army and the Commonwealth Armies train to a better standard than do we. I've also harped on our poor state of training for years.
As an aside, the Panama operation won by sheer mass; the number of screw ups there and the flaky actions by too many senior people would have been diastrous had that mass not been present. No trump or triumph there, just heavyweight steamrolling. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Yet when if fails this can be excused with 'others fail as well', completely ignoring that budget-wise it's almost the sum of all 'others'?!?
I did not and am not excusing anything -- I am pointing out that military failure is universal simply because warfare is unpredictable. All forces win some and lose some -- and again, we've lost more than we should have.
I also pointed out indirectly that a big part of our problem is just what you mention in your last sentence here. We have too much money and that encourages waste -- and inefficiency; that leads to poor performance.
I'm not a Tom Ricks fan but he's got it right on mediocre generals -- and they are a reflection of our personnel policies, many of which are dictated by the Congress (particularly with respect to Officers...). That is not an excuse, it is a complaint.
"To dream the impossible dream. To fight the unbeatable foe..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ganulv
I don’t know if this question can be addressed in short answer form, and I realize that the answer entails also addressing the question, “What are they expected to be able to do?”, but here it is just in case: what would forces adequately invested in, trained, and educated look like as compared to those currently in existence?
""""They'd have less money. The American solution of throwing money at a problem instead of fixing it has not worked with Education, Medical care -- or the Armed Forces.
For the active forces, there would be fewer people, they'd be a bit older (and thus, hopefully, a bit more mature) and would spend a bout one and half to twice as much time in institutional training staffed by selected Trainers with demonstrated expertise in subject matter and instructing. They would stay in the same units for years and their equipment fit would be a little different -- much of it to allow sea and land basing but rapid reaction to crisis area movement (we pay lip service to that but do not really want to do it -- too much uncertainty and careers might be damaged...). All would have spent some time in Reserve Units before being ALLOWED to enter the active force.
The Reserve Forces OTOH would very much resemble those of today but would be about 50% larger -- they would provide the mass and base for expansion if needed for a major war.
Movement between the two forces, active and reserve would be simplified. Personnel policies that over emphasize 'fairness' and 'objectivity' in selection criteria; 'everyone a generalist * ,' and the very mistaken idea that all persons of like education and experience are equally capable and can perform any job for that rank -- a structure, process and system that needs a MAJOR overhaul so we stop promoting based on 'potential' and being forced to reward decent performance with a promotion until the Peter Principle takes hold -- would disappear...""""
Then the Bwaa-ha-ha-ha-ha-hah from the Capitol and Five Sided Funny Farm in DC woke me up and I fell on my Lance. Sancho laughed and laughed.. :D
* That 'generalist' stuff and excessive rotation of personnel exist not to better train the force but to make assignments and finding square pegs to put in round holes easy for the Personnel bureaucracy. The unnecessary costs of that approach adversely impact the expansion of needed training; that lack of comprehensive training leads to mistrust of subordinates and reluctance to undertake any complex operations. The training process needs to ditch the Tasks, Conditions and Standards approach that limit abilities to aggregate and combine tasks to accomplish a mission; we need Outcome Based Training and Eduction.