Not as good as we think we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
So why doe the US Army consistently choose not to maintains the required expertise across the full spectrum of operations?
The failure to be ready to fight an Irregular Threat was a failure of training. Almost all US Officers knew they should be doing it. They just CHOSE to ignore it, because no one forced them to study their profession in an objective sense.
Failing to admit this has left the door wide open for the "COIN Club" and stuff like FM32-4, which are failures of exactly the same nature. Until the US Army understands that their job is WARFARE, then all the other sophistry and pontificating will make no difference. Being skilled at "fighting" - in it's broadest sense, is what counts. All else is rubbish.
....and let us not fall back on the idea that the US Army was "good at fighting regular threats." There is no evidence that they were. They managed to beat the Iraqi Army. That did not required great skill. They were 4th rate in 1991 and 10th rate in 2003.
Well said. Simply put we are pretty good but not as good as we think we are.
William you are getting at a core failure of our profession. We have managed to muddle through the last nine years not because the profession was expert in warfare or even adapted to areas where expertise lacked; but, rather any success came on backs of individuals who maintained personal professionalism in war.
It is a failure of imagination to attribute the professional success of individuals to the profession of arms. Part of being a profession is seeing ourselves clearly enough to recognize our failures and then fix them.
Not so fast, there, Wilf...
Let's see how the "fix" part of that goes... :wry:
Fuchs assessment is correct -- we have done okay, not great. Largely thanks to opposition of even lower quality than ourselves. The reason we aren't as good as many like to think we are is that we accepted -- nay, fostered -- mediocrity. :mad:
In fairness to the Army, a part of that is societally induced political correctness and an even large part is the fault of an intrusive, over politicized Congress. However, those contributions are exacerbated by the Army's too willing acceptance of those foibles and refusal to counteract them -- mostly in an effort to curry favor, popularity and an increased budget.
If you want to be a profession, you must act professionally and police yourself. The Army consistently avoids both those things, acting socially and trying to hide rather than fix shortfalls...
The object should not be to protect the institution, it should be to improve it.
What Bob's World said. In fact,
I'd go for the loss of a higher percentage of Flags -- and Sergeants Major. :wry:
Wilf's succinct comment really encapsulates the problem well. He made it with respect to shaping the civil situation but it really applies far more broadly than to just that:
Quote:
That is utterly wrong, and clearly proves that the US Army is confused as to its purpose, and the US Government does not understand the use of armed force. Fix that and the rest will fall into place. (emphasis added / kw)
Absolutely correct on both counts.
That statement has been true for most, not all, of my adult life. That 'most' encompasses the vast majority of the last 50 years almost precisely (it'll be 50 years next January...) and it includes Administrations from both parties with only rare and tantalizingly brief interludes of good sense from some. :rolleyes:
In fairness to the Army, that is in part due to a series of unintended consequences mostly caused by Congress, due in large measure to their shameful pandering and to their budgeting chicanery. Not least of of the problems is the literal shoving of DoD into foreign affairs and civil policy roles they should not have. Congress may change; the voters are getting fed up with their foolishness (long overdue, that...) but it is incumbent upon DoD and the Army to take a hard look at themselves and totally scrap the outmoded World War models of mediocre to poor education, training and personnel mismanagement and the post World War excessive intrusion into the civil realm.
In summation, what we are missing is that the world has changed significantly since we instituted those models and tinkering around the edges has exacerbated all the problems and will not allow adequate adaptation, much less optimal adaptation.
Oh, and do NOT try to 'fix' it with a Congressional Panel, a massive QDR like effort, a PBAC / POM exercise, a GOSC or a Council of Colonels. Those are precisely what put us where we are... :mad:
Constitution and Authority
I received a digital copy of the white paper the other day. Most of it is very good. One thing though, that will come across initially as lawyer-like nitpicking, but I think has gargantuan weight, especially if you are considering the role of our Army in the United States: On page 16, the white paper gets into the source of authority for the Army. It states -
All Soldiers swear to support and defend the Constitution. However, the Constitution alone is not the source of their authority. The source of military authority flows from the American people through the Constitution, through elected and appointed officials, to the officers they appoint, and finally to those Soldiers entrusted with executing orders. There is a dynamic relationship in this authority hierarchy. The people have the power to amend the Constitution and to elect the political leaders who both authorize and fund the military. The military remains loyal to the people and the Constitution by fulfilling its function in accordance with the guidance, laws, and regulations passed by those with the authority to do so.
This chain of authority argues against the idea that the ultimate loyalty for Army professionals is simply to the Constitution. Rather, Army professionals are loyal to the Constitution, and thus to the people, by being obedient to elected and appointed officials and the Commander-in-Chief. Thus, being willingly subordinate to civilian authority is based on loyalty to the source of its authority. This principle was perhaps best exemplified by General George Washington in his resignation to Congress at the close of the Revolutionary War. By this act he ensured that his immense national popularity as a military leader and hero would not overshadow the necessary power of the fledgling Congress. Thus the American military has long recognized and embraced a moral tradition of subordinating service to country.
The constitution and treaties signed by the president and ratified by the senate make up the highest law in the land. It is the constitution that establishes in the law the components of the federal government. It states how senators and congressional representatives are chosen, describes the powers of congress, describes the powers of the president, describes the means by which the constitution itself may be amended.
Most importantly, for this discussion, the constitution restricts the powers of the federal government to those things explicitly granted to it by the constitution which are not explicitly forbidden to the states or the people:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The very existence of an armed forces controlled by the federal government requires explicit authority, which is given in Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(...skipping through stuff not militarily-related...)
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
(...skipping stuff not militarily-related...)
You could also consider the powers granted to the president as commander and chief, but without the express authority to tax (and therefore spend) to fund a military, there wouldn't be one for the president to be commander-in-chief of. There is no legal way for the federal government to form and maintain such an armed forces except through the powers expressly stated in the constitution. So, it is illogical to see some other sources of authority - there aren't any.
What you have instead is a stream of authority that flows from the wellspring of constitutional law. Everything starts there. The appointment of officers, funding for operations, training, and the procurement of equipment, facilities, and materiel, the uniform code of military justice, so on and so forth...even the process for entering into, signing, and ratifying treaties that affect how our Army conducts itself originates with the constitution.
This is all very significant, and in opposition to the material on page 16, because congress and the president are bound by the constitution. (Again, look at the 10th amendment.) They don't have any "extra-constitutional" powers. If they did, then there wouldn't be any point to even having a constitution. The whole point of the constitution is to establish rule of law, rather than rule of man - aka mob rule. The whitepaper mentions that the "people" can amend the constitution through their representatives - yes, if it is done in the manner described in the constitution, but until they have done so, their whims don't mean diddly-squat.
Mob rule and populism are serious threats to the freedom of individual citizens. Rabble-rousing is a favorite tactic of murderous and oppressive strongmen the world over, the manic speeches of Hitler and Mussolini being the most famous, instantly-recognizable examples. The Soldier must have no confusion on the subject of constitutional supremacy. No order, if it violates constitutional law, is legal and no such order should be carried out.
When the Army starts writing about the profession of arms and the Army's position and role in our society, this stuff needs to be crystal clear and absolutely accurate.
1 Attachment(s)
Mark, I've no disagreement with your theory, ....
But ....
I'm attaching a pdf snip of 4 pages from the 2010 Crim-Law-Deskbook_V-2.pdf (available from CLAMO; navigate from here for the whole manual), which covers Lawfulness of Orders (A through E in the attached snip):
Quote:
XI. THE LAWFULNESS OF ORDERS.
A. Presumption of Lawfulness. Orders from superiors requiring the performance of military duties are presumed to be lawful. MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 14c(2)(a)(i); United States v. McDaniels, 50 M.J. 407 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (order to not drive personal vehicle after diagnosis of narcolepsy); United States v. Nieves, 44 M.J. 96 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (order prohibiting discussions with witnesses); United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (order requiring soldier to wear United Nations blue beret and insignia).
....
(B through D provide specifics)
....
E. Litigating the Issue of Lawfulness of the Order. Lawfulness of an order, although an important issue, is not a discrete element of a disobedience offense. Therefore, it is a question of law to be determined by the military judge. MCM pt. IV, ¶ 14c(2)(a). United States v. Jeffers, 57 M.J. 13 (C.A.A.F. 2002); United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2001); But see United States v. Mack, 65 M.J. 108 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (while the lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge, submitting the question of lawfulness to a panel is harmless error when the accused fails to rebut the presumption of lawfulness).
Now a question for you all (not just Mark) after reading through the snip - how many service members have the professional competence to determine whether an order is constitutionally lawful ?
Regards
Mike