Changing the Army for future wars?

Hello

I am working on a paper that debates making changes to the current formation of the Army to an Army suited for War and Nation building. My premise is as much as the population doesn't want to admit it the Army needs to incorporate units that nation build. I am advocating that the Army add units to either guard or active duty that can come in and help nation build. I know the first argument I got was the Army has engineers, Jag officers, ect. If any of you have been in the Army you know that the majority of engineers don't know how to work with power lines or sewers systems. Jag Lawyers barely know how to litigate much less judge on disputes in other country. The idea is the Army could make units that can be brought into a city and take over all major utilities and law operations. Basically these new units will free up combat troops for security operations while professionals work on civil systems. These specialized units would be helping to promote good will within the local population. My question is does anyone know of any other research being done on this subject? I appreciate any information anyone can provide. Thank you

on this page. You'll find many discussions on your topic of interest. Here are links to three threads that address it to one degree or another:

NGO and Humanitarian Thread LINK

Lessons not Learned Thread LINK

Foreign Internal Development and working with Indigenous Forces Thread LINK

After you look at those, find some or all your answers using the search function and before you post again on this thread, you might go to this LINK and introduce yourself -- preferably with a little more detail than the previous two folks provided... :wry:

Robodoc, please clarify why you think the Army should have standing units/organizations that should support nation building? The council can then better assist you with your research.

First, I recommend you go on-line and research what the Department of State and Department of Defense are doing in an attempt to address this noted shortfall. Both are looking at hiring mostly civilians and putting them on standby to support such contingencies.

IMO I doubt that it is possible to recruit, train, sustain technical proficiency, then retain these talented technicians in the depth and breath required to support potential contingency operations.

Electric power as one example, what skills should the army nation building organization have? All of them? How to run a Hydroelectric plant, a fossil fuel plant, a nuclear plant, be a line man for the county, etc. Every situation could require different skills, so it would seem more efficient to contract based on the location and problem set, and when possible contract locally to put people to work and facilitate a smoother transition when we hand over the reigns. Your comments on the Army's lawyers were off the mark, and hardly relevant unless your version of nation building is that we're going to "impose" our legal system?

I'm not anti-nation building, though I think we should be very careful when choosing to get involved in this type of activity, but I'm probably one of those who currently believe the Army doesn't need a standing organization for nation building due to the breadth and depth issue. Our nation has the capability to do this already through contracting as required. We need to fix the contracting process. What reportedly happened in Iraq in some cases is that contracts were given out to persons and companies based more on political affiliation than capability to execute the contract. I'm sure that happened in every war, but if an effort is made to clean this process up instead of throw it out, I think it would be a more efficient fix than standing up a new Army organization.

I'd be curious to know what you mean by nation building. Some of things you described are infrastructure development and political change.

If you mean nation building in the more traditional sense - that of creating a social or cultural community composed of members who have a sense of loyalty to a larger community with a shared history and linkage to a piece of land - then I don't see how this could possibly be a job for the military. The military exists for the use of force and coercion. You cannot coerce a feeling of community, loyalty, or belonging.

Addendum...
As a starting point, you may want to look at instances of nations being "built." Years ago I took a course titled, "Nation Building" and I recall two examples that we read about were Estonia and Greece. Unfortunately, I cannot remember many of the details. Look at how the nation was built and see whether this (or a portion of it) is appropriate activity for the military. I highly suspect that the answer will be no.

Thank you for the links and information. It has already given me some new ideas and directions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

on this page. You'll find many discussions on your topic of interest. Here are links to three threads that address it to one degree or another:

NGO and Humanitarian Thread LINK

Lessons not Learned Thread LINK

Foreign Internal Development and working with Indigenous Forces Thread LINK

After you look at those, find some or all your answers using the search function and before you post again on this thread, you might go to this LINK and introduce yourself -- preferably with a little more detail than the previous two folks provided... :wry:

---

First, thank you for all your comments. It has given me some new insight and things to think about. I now see I have started off wrong from the beginning. My idea of Nation Building in retrospect is actually State Building by definition. Let me address some of the questions that have been raised.

I understand that we currently rely on contractors to do most of what I propose the army start doing. Working with these contractors overseas I have found that the majority of them are in it for the money and don’t like to answer to people. My idea is having units of civilians with critical skills that want to serve our country. They would not be subjected to basic training or advanced training like regular military members. They can practice as teams and be inserted together into towns and cities immediately once the city is secured by combat troops. You could have a units that specialize in electrical, sanitation, education, legal and police. When they come in to set up the basics they can be paired with a shadow from the population to teach and foster goodwill immediately.

The reason I come up with the idea was talking with guard members currently serving. I spoke with several members that are members of an artillery unit. Three of them were line men for the local power company. All three didn’t particularly care to be in artillery they just wanted to serve. Two of the three said they would jump at the chance to be in a unit that dealt with their electrical skills and be able to serve. The third said he would have to see how it worked. He also told me that he thought he was going to be an engineer and use his skills but found out they rarely do anything outside of blowing up obstacles. So he joined the local artillery unit with his friends.

I became more interested in this subject and visited members of the local Military Police guard unit. I was told that 12 people of this unit were actual law enforcement officers. I spoke with two of them and they both were interested in my idea especially if the pay was higher and they got to exclusively work their law enforcement skills. These examples got me thinking how many other people are in the guard with skills needed for state building that are in units with friends or doing something just to serve. If these people could be harnessed into units I think we could be ahead with local populations. When my unit went into Iraq the people were happy for the most part and only wanted our help. Unfortunately, we had no experts to rely on. One of the lieutenants was put in charge of the getting locals together for sanitation jobs. Needless to say he tried hard but going from Infantry to sanitation was a challenge. If we could have called in a unit with those skills right away from Kuwait I think Iraq would be a different place today. An alternate purpose for the units could be to go into cities like New Orleans or Greensburg and do the same type of work immediately.

I know there are short comings to this idea. I think these units would have to be guard units at first. Pay scale would have to be dealt with. I don’t think basic and advanced training is a problem because I have seen guard units today with members that attended that training 15 plus years ago and couldn’t tell you anything but their graduation dates. A possible answer for that would be some type of army indoctrination and cross cultural programs. I know that you could contract out this work but as it was pointed out that system is flawed. Maybe you could contract out after the units moved in and the contractors would be subjected to the unit’s supervision.

That is my line of thought at this point. I appreciate your comments and look forward to any ideas as well. Thank you.

Robodoc,

Quote:

---

A possible answer for that would be some type of army indoctrination and cross cultural programs. I know that you could contract out this work but as it was pointed out that system is flawed. Maybe you could contract out after the units moved in and the contractors would be subjected to the unit’s supervision.

---

Great minds think alike. Your line of thought is very similar to what the Dept of Defense is looking at, as well as the Dept of State. Understand your frustation with the current system, and I think your proposal has some merit. If your unit is responsible for Area BB, then based on the civil intelligence your unit develops (and that provided to you by higher) you prioritize what needs to be done to fix the various civil infrastructure problems, then request the expertise in the capacity required (sort of along the lines of request for forces RFF process we use now for the military). As you identified that expertise is generally not resident in the military, with the National Guard being a possible exception, but can we afford to remove a Co Cdr or Plt Sgt who is a sewer technician from their unit? On a small scale we probably can, but I have to assume that we need to keep the units structure in place as much as possible so they can accomplish their military mission.

The system needs to be responsive (we can't afford to wait 4 months for help), so ideally at least some of these contractors would have already had their 2 weeks of military familiarization training, so there predeployment training would consist of last minute preparation (wills, cultural intro, study of the local infrastructure system, etc.), then they're shipping out. When they arrive, they work for the military unit, but their administrative control is retained by a contracting command of some sort at a level yet to be determined. This isn't perfect, but it is better than what we had. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Keep pushing your proposal, you'll find that will you have friends in high places to are eager to see your ideas.

The first hurdle you need to make sure that you can clear is a justification of why the Army should be involved in nation-building in the first place. I'm not saying they should/shouldn't, just that you need to be very clear in your justification of why they should be. If you can't do that, then rest of it is a bit of a mental exercise, but little more.

Once that is done, you need to describe what you think 'nation building' should consist of. There's a big, big difference between building infrastructure (power, sewer, etc) and building the working institutions of government (legal, law enforcement, commercial, revenue, military, etc).

And once you get past ALL of that, you get to explain why the existing Civil Affairs guys are the wrong ones to do it, because nothing in your Q&A has shown any acknowledgement of their existence. We already have exactly what you're advocating for; it's just not where you would prefer to put it.

that you take a look at the work being done by Thomas Barnett as well. He has an idea about the USG maintaining a "Leviathan" force for major combat operations and a "SysAdmin" force for everything else (e.g. nation building, peace enforcement). Google the name for his blog and the titles of his published work.

I appreciate your responses. They are very helpful in my attempt to write this paper. A few of them really made me rethink some ideas and strengthen my subject. As for the Civil Affairs comment, I have worked with Civil Affairs in other countries. I respect what they do but they are not big enough or capable of moving into a city and taking over the required public works to get it up and running to help win over the populace. But thanks for the comment because now I can make sure that is addressed. Please respond back if any other road blocks come to mind I love to cover the bases.