1 Attachment(s)
What we support and defend
Every now and then I like to go back and review the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
Growing frustration with how our government currently pursues the duties laid out by these founding documents I spent a little time this morning reviewing our National Security Strategy as well. Here are some observations I found interesting and feel are worth discussing here:
1. Article I lists the specified duties and responsibilities of the Congress. These two items under Section 8 of that article are worth studying word by word:
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
I confess I had never paid much attention to this before, even though I am a fairly vocal advocate for the position that the US does not need, nor do the people want, a standing army in times of peace. We were forced to carry an army into the peace following WWII because we decided to implement a Containment strategy of the Soviet union (yes, decided, there were other options on the table that were far less onerous to implement). Having a standing Army for the past several decades has, I believe, contributed significantly toward shifting the intended balance of power in our government from the Congress to the Executive. It has also enabled Presidents to start or expand wars without having to go to congress and ask the congress to perform their duty as described in item 12 above. Would there have been a Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, or expanded state building in Afghanistan but for this anomaly? We'll never know, but all would certainly have played out very differently.
Note the language of the constitution and the tremendous difference between Congress's duty regarding "Armies" (not "the Army, but Armies as in many different ones raised for specific conflicts and purpose.).
“Raise and Support” various “Armies” as needed is very different from “Provide and Maintain” an enduring “Navy” for reasons that are still valid and fundamental to our national ethos and geostrategic reality.
Today we plan equal cuts to the Army and the Marines, but the fact is that the entirety of those cuts should fall upon the Army if we follow the constitution. In fact, the Navy could make a case that to cut the Marines while leaving Army forces on the books is arguably unconstitutional.
Also interesting is that Army funding is not to exceed 2-years in duration, with no such constraint applied to Navy funding. This reinforces the framer's intent for those who find the specific language to subtle.
Second, in comparing these founding documents to our current National Security Strategy I searched and counted a few key words. Granted, the NSS is significantly longer than the other two documents, and these numbers are not normalized to take that difference into account, but they still serve to make a point.
It is my belief that at the strategic level the United States has a significant disconnect in the Ends-Ways-Means of our national level strategy. I believe this disconnect is the primary source of much of our security-based frustration that we have been dealing with in the post Cold War era.
Our Ends have become too ideological; our Ways have become too controlling; and our Means have become too militarized. This did not happen over night, but grew one decision at a time shaped by events and exacerbated by the changing global security environment. This word search highlights that a bit:
We can disagree on all that verbiage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
Sorry Ken, that semantic thicket you are hiding in provides thin cover.
I don't hide.
Quote:
...Simple incompetence is an alternative and I believe very definitely a more plausible explanation in my view.
That's certainly a factor but it doesn't explain the political power of either the Navy and Marines or of the National Guard, does it?[
Quote:
Which, in my opinion, is wrong.
Dueling opinions --as usual, others will make up their own minds. Fortunately.
Quote:
I did note your words about all democracies. I just disregarded them because we aren't talking about all of them, only one.
What's this "we" stuff. You may be talking about one of them, I am talking and have consistently talked about all or certainly most of them in this context. However, I acknowledge that "disregarding" the inconvenient helps give your opinion a slightly enhanced position. ;)
Not to intrude but that's a fair and valid question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
...we have the same two citizens and they have differing ideas. Should the ideas of citizens be weighed upon the merits of the ideas, or should the ideas be weighed upon what the citizens have done in the past? I think the variant ideas should be weighed upon the merits of the ideas themselves, not the rep of those who hold them.
I'd opt for basing the decision on the merit of the ideas. Thus, you lose. Bob's idea is to return in large measure to a formula that worked well for the US for the bulk of our 225 years. Yours, as nearly as I can ascertain, is to maintain the status quo -- a status you continually denigrate -- and / or expanding the Navy.
Personally, I think both your ideas have merit but I also think neither is in accord with political reality... :wry:
The likely outcome is a melding of both ideas with a slight tilt towards the Bob solution.
That's all an aside, I intruded due to this misperception:
Quote:
In Desert Storm we moved a very large force very quickly half way around the world because the civilian leaders thought that is what we should do....I do remember reading that it was a good thing the big army from the cold war was still around.
Your recall of part of what you read is, as always, correct but your summation as occurs frequently is not. That BTW is not an insult nor is it an indication of lack of sophistication or even of ignorance, it is an indicator IMO of nothing more than a lack of experience in the mechanical aspects of fighting wars.
The bulk of the troops in DS/DS came from Europe as the to be disbanded VII Corps was moved from Germany to Saudi Arabia. It bears mentioning that the Corps was inactivated immediately after DS/DS and the large Cold War Army largely disappeared very quickly. That Army continued to disappear in smaller increments for the next nine years plus, the decline in numbers being halted only by the attacks of 9/11/01
However, your major error is "quickly" though I acknowledge that word is relative -- in the context of DS/DS, it was 'quick' only because Saddam Hussein was not very smart. Had he attacked early on and in force, even with the Iraqi Army in the sad state that it was, the outcome might have been very different. It was nice of him to allow us over six months to get deployed, train and organize for the limited objective attack . To any military guy, that six months is not quick. Picture, for example, the difference in actions during the six months from December 1941 until June 1942... :rolleyes:
It's amazing that most units are as good as they are, even the 'bad' ones...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
Maybe incompetent is too strong a term, but then again maybe it isn't.
You can't compare AC and RC units directly. You could compare an RC unit that half way through a combat tour in Iraq with a nearby AC unit that'd been there the same length of time. Folks tell me there was little difference -- and both of them were almost certainly different in a matter of months due to personnel rotation... :rolleyes:
Quote:
You correctly point out that there are active duty units that are poorly led and not combat ready...
I suspect that a fair testing would indicate only a very slight tilt toward the AC but we're not going to test -- or relieve poor commanders (which would provide a comparison statistic of sorts) -- because to do so would upset the Personnel system which by Congressional direction is skewed to give virtually everyone remotely qualified a shot at command. :mad:
Thus, there's no way to know.
Quote:
...so the toxic leader syndrome is alive and well.
One of the SF ODA I was on in the early 80s was not combat ready due to inadequate equipment and training due to being poorly funded...
After my time. During my time, most SF and other units suffered from marginally competent Officers and NCOs far more so than from equipment or funding problems. In units, SF and conventional I later worked with as a DAC, I saw the same thing through out the 80s and 90s. My Son and his friends, most of whom have been at it more than 20 years contend its still true. Both AC and RC units suffer from that.
My observation has been that AC units are generally not nearly as tactically and technically competent as they like to think they and say they are. Proof of that? Read combat award citations -- almost invariably they cite a series of screwups that led to the action. Or just cruise You Tube... :D
Quote:
...so basically I agree, but still think our nation's security for an immediate response is in much better hands with the active duty force. Over time the reserves and NG can be honed into effective units, but rarely is that the case from a cold start.
And I agree with that. We need both, the mix is the issue. We'll see what sorts out...
Both components suffer from excessive parochialism internally between Branches and communities and externally between the components. That parochialism is not helpful to anyone...
Your idea of fun and mine differ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
Well at least there is one thing I get right.
Note it was not a military assessment...
Quote:
"Gee, really? Who knew... :eek:"
Knowing and not doing could lead others to think someone didn't know...
Quote:
That is the point isn't it. There really is almost no comparison between a large standing army that is well equipped and trained vs. a smaller army that is not.
Sigh. Yes, that's true and it's also self evident -- yet you continue to try to compare the DS/DS force to an Army seven times its size but less well equipped and trained -- and that well equipped is based on weapon quality, not quantity. You're mixing Watermelons and Kiwi Fruit. It is Fruit Salad -- but it sure ain't good Fruit Salad...
Quote:
Just as an aside, doesn't total military power include available lift? I should have said at the beginning "a large standing military force" rather than army. My mistake.
"Imprecision in choice of words..." :D
Quote:
I don't think so. In any event I got to the right place didn't I?
Of course you don't, you never do. As usual you got to a place that isn't terribly wrong -- that's not the same thing as the right place.
Quote:
Absolutely, which is why I brought it up. :wry:
Eh? I sure missed any congruity in this...In thy opinion, perhaps. To me it's wasted effort undertaken only to preclude others from adopting your illogical IMO forays to strange ends by providing an alternative view to let them make up their own minds... :wry: