And the bullets/words fly....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Odom
Rob,
First of all it is great to see you posting, keep it up.
Let me definately second that sentiment :).
Second, I agree with your thoughts and it is very much a reality: resources must match demands or the demands will not be fulfilled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Odom
At the risk of being shot or branded a heretic, I believe that we have to make a fundamental shift in our approach to manning and training and that shift is not one that the military can do within itself.
It's called a draft. If we are fighting new enemies and we need a new approach, we must approach it in a long war model. We are not dong that. We are approaching it in a constant crisis management model; we hire contractors to provide inherently needed services in any war. We are cycling units faster than we can reset those units. And we are doing this in an atmosphere of magnetic ribbon patriotism that portrays trips to the mall as fighting terrorism.
Tom, while I agree with your reasoning in laying out the needs, I really do have to disagree with you about the proposed "solution". Let me lay out some of the reasoning behind my disagreement.
- The "draft" is politically divisive. When the rumours of President Bush thinking about a draft started circulating a while back, there was a lot of political fighting going on in reaction to them. Drafts are seen, quite rightly in my view, as forced labour. Historicallly, and by that I mean let's go back to the 1960's, the draft was full of holes - deferments, escape over the border to Canada (and why do WE have to deal with YOUR social reactionaries? :)), etc. Even if the legislation was enacted with no deferments, you would still have a leaking sieve over your northern border, and the people flowing over it would be the people who could afford to come and resettle. That will, IMHO, inevitably lead to increasing racial and ethnic tensions which, in turn, just makes the general US society more vulnerable and more cut off from your allies who either don't have a draft (e.g. Canada) or who have a long history of "national service" and view the US as acting out of desperation (i.e. most of the EU).
- The draft will increase internal social conflict. Regardless of any legislation, the racial and ethnic tensions are already fairly high in the US over both the GWOT and the issue of "illegal aliens" (Damn those pesky Martians anyway, comin' here and stealing our jobs!).
- The draft is insecure. Okay, supose you do get the legislation through. What is the psycho-social profile of most of the al-Qaida cell members? First or 2nd generation immigrants rediscovering their Islamic identities and living in Western countries. Great! So we now have a situation with heightened tensions and forced labour of young muslims in the US. Tell me you don't think that al-Qaida will see this as a fantastic opportunity to infiltrate! I know that if I was a planner on their side, it is one of the first things I would look at doing.
There is a final point I want to make about this that doesn't go well in a list (or PowerPoint <wry grin>).
Given the symbolic meaning of "The Draft" in the US, the current political concerns about the relationship between the various branches of government, and persistant whisperings about a re-establishment of an "Imperial Presidency", I suspect that the basic nature of US society would shift towards that of a "total society". The US doesn't really have that model as something that is defined as "Good", unlike Britain, Canada and most of Europe. It is, in fact, totally opposed to the spirit the led to the original rebellion of the 13 colonies. It is also the core area of conflict that led to your own civil war (the rights of the individual states vs. the rights of the central government) and has led to the creation of many of the militias today.
Most importantly, I think this would lead inevitably to questioning "why" people are fighting with most of the drafted troops coming to the conclusion that they are doing it because the have to or their own government will hunt them down. Didn't we see enough of that in Vietnam?
Now, I may be being unduly pessimistic about these projections, but I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Odom
We need a national service draft that does not necessarily draw forces strictly for military use. We need border security. We need our own reconstruction services for disasters. We need a system to draw young people into a sense of middle ground that leaves them with a viewpoint that goes beyond their own needs (seen now as rights versus right to pursue those needs).
Again, I really don't disagree with your needs assessment, just your proposal to re-implement the draft. Let me toss out an alternative solution.
First of all, the military has traditionally been a way for kids to get out of poor backgrounds, get some education, learn some discipline and get some bucks together. Service with the Forces has a great number of "pull factors". What if, in place of a draft, you extend these pull factors? What if you were to create a program called "National Service" or some such, that encompassed all of the areas you are talking about in different streams? And, most importantly, where any service with combat forces may happen this is purely voluntary. Structure it so that there is a "basic training" which concentrates on physical fitness, basic educational skills (including history, Steve!) and basic teamwork followed by stream centered "basics".
Now, free education and experience can certainly help people get a job and will also make it more likely for employers to hire them, so that is one pull factor. Let's add in another one - "money". We have already heard a fair bit about school vouchers in the secondary school system, what if that was expanded into the post-secondary system using the same model as WWII? For each year of "national service" up to, say, a maximimum of four years, give the partcipants a voucher for one year of tuition and then require that that voucher be accepted. The universities would scream, but let them - they can still cherry pick based on SATs and other forms of entrance exams. Expand on this idea somewhat and modify it so that someone who doesn't want to go to university would get a government guarenteed loan to start up a small business, maybe at 10k/year, along with a program to help them start it up.
I suspect that some type of a program based on pull factors like this would be much more successful than the draft. It would also go a long way towards re-inforceing certain core values of American culture, as opposed to re-inforceing ones that are against American culture (e.g. hyper-centralization).
One final point and I'll leave it along. "Conscientious objectors" won't have a leg to stand on and a pull program will do a lot to make national service popular in the long run once people start graduating out of it, going to universities and running their own businesses. And besides that, it would mean that we in Canada don't have to deal with all those pesky American draft dodgers stealing our jobs <grin>.
Marc
I know I'm going to get yelled over this diatribe.
How many who aren't serving in the military would return willingly if recalled?
I have an interesting family history along my dads line. My grandfather fought in the Spanish American War and World War 1. One of my Uncles was I believe was drafted and served in Korea and later in Vietnam, and my father (born when my grand dad was 62!) was drafted early (1961-62) into Vietnam.
My uncle was a conscientious objector and did three tours (two in Korea and one I think in Vietnam) as a medic. My uncle describes those years as the most rewarding of his life. My father was an “advisor” training people in the mountains how to generate electricity. When they get together they rarely talk about serving, but when they do they refer to their time in the “peace corps”.
Military service was imposed on them as a duty to be accomplished at peril of their lives and liberty. The rewards in their service so closely related yet so substantially different did not drive a rejection of the political process, but rewarded them with a deep and substantial sense of patriotism.
The fear and loathing of a draft may be an expression of the loathing an entire generation of baby-boomers expresses as contempt for the bounty they’ve received. In that shadow of a morally depleted generation are gen-x, and gen-y who have already expressed a willingness to solve problems versus create new ones. Gen-x and gen-y denigrated and attacked as worthless slackers have to be problem solvers as they’ve been the bed rock holding up the baby boomers for years. If the solution to the problems of global terrorism threats requires a draft then express the solution with proof of the problem.
I asked who would serve given the chance. The fact is that I think most with prior service would willingly jump into the breach and the reticence in servitude is not with those who have served (us?), or those who would serve (gen-x, gen-y), but likely in the realm of those who attempt to lead. Where is the quote of the American general who said “We are at war, and America is at the Mall”. The culture of fear imbibed and pandered by civilian leadership is without sustenance and soon becomes stale. There is an entire generation who is the most educated fearsomely independent and collectively generous group in history. They are all entering or in their 20’s.
It seems that making a case for war in secret hearings holding that case to be a state secret and then expecting a democracy to step into line with whole hearted support would be a major error in strategy. Reasoned discourse while educating the public on the course of war has to become a priority engendering realistic expectations rather than a fearful boogeyman. The answer to the General is everybody went to the mall because the President told us to.
Gen-x and gen-y would tell you “Mall? Try Amazon or E-Bay”. Who’s truly out of touch with beating heart of society?
Unified Action at the Pointy End of the Spear
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob Thornton
Tom,
Here is one my boss and I were bantering back and forth. Is the concept of "Inter-Agency" cooperation soley a military buy in, or does it go both ways? He sent me an article out of the Foreign Affairs Journal that caused me to look hard at this question. In that "90 & 180 day objectives" document I sent you I brought up that regardless of how good ISF gets, without some reconstruction funds to get projects going, the Iraqi public will not establish faith in local government; no faith in local government = en environment in which insurgents can support.
We've heard about the PRTs (Proincial Reconstruction Teams), what we need are CRTs (City Reconstruction teams). Teams that like you had mentioned could be drawn from American Society to function within the role of their acknowledged profession. Doctors, lawyers, Small Buisness gurus, telecommunications specialists, power plant engineers, agricultural engineers, city planners, family planners, firemen, hazordous waste guys,etc. - all the skills that cities have come to rely on to keep a city functioning. Everybody has heard about the National Guard guys who are often more valuable fulfilling their civilian role here then their MOS (they do a good job at both), so why have we not asked the question why?
We need practical experience in these roles, not just well educated OGA (Other Govt. Agency) types. Their would have to be unity of command, and with that would come the provision of personal security. But lets say that at a certain watermark in the transition of security, host nation security forces took up the role securing their AOR (which of course is the plan), and the auxillary role CF (Coalition Forces) took on was the facillitation of reconstruction?
I'll stay away from formng a concrete oppinion about a military draft question because I don't have a resonable comparrison (my PEBD was 85), but I do recall the horror stories of armed FODs going into the barracks, but that may have been more the result of a social/cultural problem associated with the times. However an offer to forego paying back massive student loans and some incentives along the lines of a GI Bill, or other like ideas might get us the kind of professionals we would need for Reconstruction Teams - maybe even offer their kids a free state school 4 year scholarship and offer them & their families Active duty Healthcare benefits, PX, Commissary priviliedges while serving - oh and pay them at the same professional rate you'd pay military doctors, lawyers, etc.
In staying with the theme of the thread, its a new era in warfare with new enemies, and we need to adapt faster then the enemy
Best Regards, Rob
Rob,
Critical issue one addressed in an opinion piece somewhat disguised as a news report by Austin Bay, a retired colonel, recounting lunch with the SecDef, on the need to realign the Nat Sec Structure to achieve "Unified Action, " yesterday on the Early Bird under the title "...With Forecasts" in the Wash Times.
I saw what I would call somewhat "Unified Action" in the USG reaction to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The senior leaders "played well" together and the agencies fell in behind them. On the intel side, we had some knife fights but by and large it was a semi-unified effort.
At the pointy end of things in 2 very different embassies, I saw one case of complete and utter chaos and one of true unified action through a country team that worked very well together--so much so that we were altering viewpoints and affecting decisions in Washington. The first was in Zaire and it was a charlie foxtrot which began when the Charge (since we had no ambassador) announced he thought the refugee crisis in July 94 would be over in a couple of weeks. He refused to go to Goma until State ordered him to when the USAID Administrator announced he was coming out. When airlift started to flow, the same guy wanted a by name list of everyone coming so he could decide who would get country clearances; I had to threaten to call the Joint Staff and relay his demand before he backed off. He never got any better and OGA (aside from AID) didn't either.
In contrast, Kigali worked well. DoD mobilized. The NSC mobilized. State mobilized. AID was superb; we had the AID chief of staff with us for months at a time. The effort was truly extraordinary: Rwanda and the Balkans were the 2 standing items of interest in the NSC and the White House--driven of course by a need to recoup much face lost in the USG's stance during the genocide.
Quote:
The other reason for extending time in grade/service is to provide time for the additional education and developmental experiences required by 21st Century complex warfare. If we want our military to have experience with other USG Agencies or Alliances to experience the rest of the DIME or if we want strong, resident masters Degrees in International Relations, Economics, Social Sciences that takes a couple of extra years not currently provided for in a career with many tactical, military gates
As Jim Greer states above looking at US military culture we have to train ourselves in working across agency boundaries; we have to do the same thing on the State, AID, and other agency basis. The challenge we have is overcoming the cultures inside those agencies--as does the culture inside the military--must be changed. AID actually has the least distance to travel in making such changes. The get it done make it happen culture inside the military exists in AID. Getting such cultures to mesh in PRTs is made more difficult when they form on the fly. OFDA and its Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DARTs) are semi-permament teams that form according to need like we form JTFs. I believe we need standing JTFs or at least ready JTFs that form, execrise, and stand down all the while remaining on call. I believe also that we need to increase the JIIM aspects of such JTFs and start forcing other agencies to play with us.
Best
Tom
ROTC for Foreign Service and other types
Just a follow up, but what about an Officer Training Program aimed at producing foreign service types? They go to a Basic Camp, and an Advance Camp, get a huge scholarship, and pay it back by doing 4 years Active and 4 years IRR in the Foreign Service?
Mandates a Fundamental Shift in Approach
Although I agree that a ROTC approach to the Foreign Service would have benefits, I will say that barring a fundamental shift (akin to California opening new waterfront properties adjacent to Ft Irwin after the rest falls into the sea) in the way the Foreign Service approaches life. It remains in its heart an organization founded on Ivy league elitism and it maintains a caste system that would make sense in old school S Africa or India.
Sec State Rice and the former Sec State GEN Powell have attempted to change this; that the Embassy in Baghdad is a rotating door for short termers tells me they have not succeeded.
We are going through the transformation of Civil Service. A larger goal and one easier to manage due to its lesser size should have been creating a National Security Corps that draws all foreign relations oriented organizations into a central being, like we were supposed to have done with Homeland Security.
best
Tom