We can disagree, not a problem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galrahn
...only I will suggest that I don't think you know what you think you know about naval programs...
Great minds apparently run in the same channel, that was exactly what I thought about your knowledge of them. I'd never heard anyone suggest that monster of a DDX as a littoral operator (as opposed to dominator). I'd also note I do not profess to be a naval gazer. All I know about the programs are things I read open source and a few things passed on by friends and acquaintances and they are not of great interest to me as my limited naval knowledge from growing up around the Navy (and even a Bubble Head for a Father in Law for many years) has been blunted by over 60 years of running around with folks in green. :eek:.
You might also check around on the prognosis for many more LCS' -- or a cheaper, lower tech or at least less gold plated replacement. I didn't grab that thought out of the air. ;)
Quote:
and I think your view of what the littoral is matches very well with the folks in the Navy who have unsuccessfully developed a littoral strategy for the post cold war US Navy.
Geography and water depth are geography and water depth; one can only do so much given the constraints. I don't think there has been or is a 'littoral strategy.' Nor should there be -- which littoral will you design it for? There are a number, all different -- one strategy cannot encompass all nor will one strategy fit all littorals (nor will one ship type fit 'em all...). Seems to me, admittedly lolling about on the periphery and paying only casual attention, that rather there has been a reluctant and grudging acknowledgment that some operations in littorals may not be avoided now matter how much the Navy would prefer to avoid them...
Quote:
But I disagree that long term strategies are beyond us. I don't believe the absence of a long term strategy is proof they aren't possible nor that they would be ineffective if implemented. Implementation is difficult, but not impossible.
In order; may not be beyond but we have not managed it in my lifetime and I'm close to 80 (nor, as I read our history, have we ever had one...); they are possible (just very highly improbable in my view); I think the relative 'effectiveness' would depend on what the strategy envisioned but I also am firmly convinced that the geopolitical and domestic political milieus would cause a need for constant change and revision -- that could be more detrimental than not having such a strategy at all.
Quote:
I note Russia, India, and China all have long term strategies and I see no evidence it is beyond any of those countries, and I would note that India is a democracy and even more of a political mess when it comes to policy than the US.
Yes, all purport to do so and Indian democracy is chaotic. China may have one that is effective; the other two, not so much...
Do recall that our problem is not a political mess (which we are) nearly so much as the design intent of a governmental system specifically to preclude too much coherence and singular direction. It is admittedly inefficient but I wouldn't want to change it.
Quote:
Our national inabilities are rooted in our indecision, not our incapacity.
Well, yes. That's the gist of the problem. That's essentially what I said -- just about the time someone gets decisive, the great unwashed go to the polls and vote -- and things get changed. New people, new ideas (well, not so much...). In 2012, who knows what will happen. ;)
So we can agreeably disagree. Time will tell who was / is correct.
Although I think I understand where your coming from
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galrahn
Ken,
I think you are wrong on so many parts of that post it would take us enormously off coarse on this discussion to go through it, only I will suggest that I don't think you know what you think you know about naval programs, and I think your view of what the littoral is matches very well with the folks in the Navy who have unsuccessfully developed a littoral strategy for the post cold war US Navy.
On the quoted section above, I think that is an interesting view. I think Bush had some policies that the Obama administration is rejecting, interventionism and unilateralism among the most influential policies that will impact defense strategy.
But I disagree that long term strategies are beyond us. I don't believe the absence of a long term strategy is proof they aren't possible nor that they would be ineffective if implemented. Implementation is difficult, but not impossible.
I note Russia, India, and China all have long term strategies and I see no evidence it is beyond any of those countries, and I would note that India is a democracy and even more of a political mess when it comes to policy than the US. Our national inabilities are rooted in our indecision, not our incapacity.
Note also the real difference in the aforementioned nations perceptual ties in relation to doing what their populous calls for vs sticking to something regardless what the popular sentiment is.
Although I too agree that we should be able to come up with at least some degree of consistency in our overall approach to international actors it is probably as important to make sure the US population never gets the perception that what they think about a given action is less important than the action itself.
It's a tough balance and as the last administration unfortunately suffered from just a sampling of how perception can kill ones ability to act even if appropriately given the circumstances without suffering devastating results in elections.
If for no other reason than that I would say Ken's correct in saying policy is probably as good as we're gonna get
PS : What he said:wry:
All well and good, but...
There are a few questions that have to be resolved or we're simply going to flail about, making decisions on the basis of force of personality and political maneuvering. Which, incidentally, is what we pretty much did (on both sides of the aisle) after the USSR imploded. After all, that was the "end of war" and the dawn of a "new world order" that made "warfare obsolete." Right? :rolleyes:
- What kind of international situations are we likely to face/do owe want to plan for in the next 20 to 30 years? Will another genocide (ala Rwanda) occurs? Will country C decide it can do a better job managing the resources of country R? Will a natural disaster occur (ala the tsunami in the Indian Ocean)?
- And what will we do about them? If another genocide occurs will we intervene? Do we help defend country R? Do we want to have a naval task group in the area to quickly render assistance? Even more important, will we have a national consensus on the answers, or will we see one party, for example, commit to intervention and four years later the other party swears it won't?
- Is the US Army serious about the new FM 3-0? Does it really want a force capable of successfully executing all those missions across the complete spectrum of conflict?
- After we answer those questions, the next set revolves around how we plan to execute the various mission profiles. i.e. What is our doctrine? How quickly do we respond, with how many troops? What will be the operational goals in the mission? Will the strategy be Populace or Threat Centric? What will the small unit tactics look like?
- What capabilities do we need in order for the troops to successfully execute the strategy? What kind of logistic footprint will we need to support? What threats will they face? What weapons will be appropriate?
I don't care if its called "strategy" or "policy," but these questions must be answered if we are going to make intelligent, rational decisions about our needs for manpower, training and equipment. And I'm not referring to discussions inside the Pentagon. Those take place in response to Congress and POTUS saying "here's what you get." I'm referring to the public discussion that needs to take place about what role we, as a nation, plan to play in the world at large.
Until we have that discussion, and answer the questions above, our entire defense structure, military, civil service and contractors, is going to be the random result political gamesmanship.
A viewpoint from across the Atlantic
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J Wolfsberger
(taken from) I'm referring to the public discussion that needs to take place about what role we, as a nation, plan to play in the world at large.....Until we have that discussion, and answer the questions above, our entire defense structure, military, civil service and contractors, is going to be the random result political gamesmanship.
I am not sure how much public discussion there has really been on the US or UK's national role; discussions within the 'Beltway' or Westminster are not a public discussion and rarely has the UK parliament debated national role. the last two I can recall were the second Gulf War and the Falklands; IMHO rather late for discussion of 'role'.
Politicians and others make assessments of how much the public will tolerate. In the Cold War our (UK) national role appeared to be set in concrete, until economic factors intervened and the UK concentrated on Europe.
I would suggest in the UK and Western Europe the commitments made to Afghanistan recognise the lack of public support, so are subject to limits of varying strengths.
Clearly the UK has left behind a focus on Europe for having an expeditionary role; not just in Iraq (due to end in July), Afghanistan and smaller, discreet presences in places like Kenya, Oman and West Africa. "Punching above our weight" crops up regularly in Westminster-Whitehall explanations.
No-one could have predicted the UK would have 8k troops in Afghanistan in 2009, six years after arriving; nor that Pakistan has become our No.1 foreign policy focus - the UK did after all leave South Asia in 1947.
A different viewpoint from my armchair.
davidbfpo
What kind of military strategy should a broke government pursue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J Wolfsberger
I don't care if its called "strategy" or "policy," but these questions must be answered if we are going to make intelligent, rational decisions about our needs for manpower, training and equipment. And I'm not referring to discussions inside the Pentagon. Those take place in response to Congress and POTUS saying "here's what you get." I'm referring to the public discussion that needs to take place about what role we, as a nation, plan to play in the world at large.
Until we have that discussion, and answer the questions above, our entire defense structure, military, civil service and contractors, is going to be the random result political gamesmanship.
This discussion won't take place, for the reasons others in the thread have given, but also I think because the public discussion - such as actually happen in the US - is going to dedicated to more pressing matters very soon now, like "how do we cope with the collapse of the economy?" Our strategy discussion can probably be held off until we know what drastically reduced economic circumstances will have to try to maintain some military capability under.