Having been on both sides of that fence --
and there is a fence there... :eek: ;)
It's turf and dollars on the part of the senior folks, it's what the British call 'cap badge' loyalty for most -- simple unit loyalty and the unfortunate human tendency to make ones self feel better by trashing others (even if partly in jest).
It is counterproductive and my sensing is that it's less a problem now than it used to be. Still around and needs to get better As more elements from both sides of that fence work together, it will.
Good example of why the US Media does a poor job of reporting on Military matters.
They're bone ignorant and don't know what to look for.
Go to this LINK (.pdf) and read Paragraphs 8. and 11 of the Responsibilities Enclosure. I think they've done a pretty fair job of tabbing out responsibilities and stating requirements. The changes in the paper are subtle but there are changes and all, IMO are pretty much for the better. Massive changes would be good but that is not the American way of guvmint... :wry:
The elements you quote above are all worthwhile and I don't see business as usual in them. As a long time Grunt, I understand the value of Infantry -- I also understand that there are always only going to be so many Infantrymen, thus there will never be 'enough' of them and that force multipliers like IRS assets are beneficial to those four Grunts.
There is no question in my mind that we have significant need for ability to reach into denied areas; we have neglected that since a need was shown in 1979. More aviation assets are needed to reduce road exposure of convoys.
Bad article by the WaPo (not much new there...); good paper by DoD, I think.
9.b. is also a good direction:
"...to ensure the U.S. Armed Forces are prepared to plan, conduct, and sustain campaigns involving IW-related activities and operations..."
Although (1) through (5) look to be in part lifted from here.
It looks like this DoDD is trying to eliminate some of the residual parochialism and institutionalization. I agree with Ken that it has gotten better in the last 20 years or so and this looks to be an even larger effort to make the point that each service is really part of one team.
So while, as Sabre points out, there is no specific mention of more infantry or specific training thereof (DoDDs try not to be too specific in taskings, they are more for outlining overarching responsibilities together with specific organizational arrangements and authorities) 9.b. does require all the service components are trained in IW.
Irregular warfare now equal to "traditional" warfare
Link.
Quote:
The Pentagon this week approved a major policy directive that elevates the military's mission of "irregular warfare" -- the increasingly prevalent campaigns to battle insurgents and terrorists, often with foreign partners and sometimes clandestinely -- to an equal footing with traditional combat.
The directive, signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England on Monday, requires the Pentagon to step up its capabilities across the board to fight unconventionally, such as by working with foreign security forces, surrogates and indigenous resistance movements to shore up fragile states, extend the reach of U.S. forces into denied areas or battle hostile regimes.
The policy, a result of more than a year of debate in the defense establishment, is part of a broader overhaul of the U.S. military's role as the threat of large-scale combat against other nations' armies has waned and new dangers have arisen from shadowy non-state actors, such as terrorists that target civilian populations.
How very nice of the Pentagon...
to finally formally recognize the prevalent mission that the Army and Marines have been performing for the last couple hundred years... :D
I can very much agree with cutting Staffs. Ours have always been too big
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sabre
I should have clarified what I meant by "not enough infantry" - I mean that, as a percentage of the total force, there aren't enough. I see numbers assigned to headquarters staffs increasing dramatically, and Intel slots increasing dramatically, and given that there is an "inelasticity of demand" for support troops (mechanics, truckers, medical,etc), it is the combat MOS's that end up with fewer personnel, one way or the other. Sure, ISR has value. But do we really *need* one Intel MOS soldier for every Infantryman?
and I'm sure they're worse now than ever. As far as a percentage of total force, in addition to staffs and intel increases, I'd be willing to bet that there are many 11Bs buried in out of the way and esoteric jobs all over the world.
I doubt there's one intel person per grunt but I do understand your point. What we don't know is how that ISR plus up will work.
Quote:
To be picky, I could crunch some numbers, but I am reasonably certain that even a massive increase in aviation assets wouldn't be enough to prevent the need for resupply with ground vehicles - trying to move all materiel and personnel by air is prohibitively expensive.
Didn't mean to imply that. POL other than in small doses isn't going to be air delivered -- still, more aircraft will mean less total ground exposure. If the force in Afghanistan stays light Infantry, we proved in Viet Nam you resupply at an 85% plus level by air.
Quote:
(The only thing that would do the trick would be to cut back on the amount of resupply that you need, perhaps by using far fewer folks to accomplish a mission...)
Not the only thing but definitely a plus on several counts.
My major point was that the article was not terribly informative and it missed the point that the Infantry is a part of the General Purpose Force (the bulk of the army by far) and is not a part of the IW force which the paper and Vickers were addressing. That's why the infantry increases such as 4/1 and 4/4 -- both new light inf Bdes in heavy Divs -- plus the others weren't mentioned.