Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
...the military can achieve clear military objectives, it is the rest of our system that is broken. The military, was effective in achieving its objectives in Grenada (despite the high level of incompetence that eventually contributed the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act), it was effective in Panama, Desert Storm, and a few other situations post WWII.
I essentially agree that we do better with clear objectives and that "the rest of the system..." is, if not broken, generally less effective. With the stipulation that the political and / or policy level is the weakest link.

You're correct about the incompetence in Grenada but I disagree that we were effective in those other situations -- had you said adequate, I'd agree but effective not so much as to me "effective" entails competence and while we were and are today slightly less incompetent than in Grenada, we still need a lot of work -- the system is corrupted...
When objectives are clear and achievable we do well, when we decide to intervene in situations that are not clear like Lebanon (not unlike Syria now) we tend to put troops in harm's way with vague goals and high expectations that often lead to great disappointment.
That's the rub, isn't it? "Clear and achievable..." We do not assess achievability very well in too many cases. We can do the big stuff but the smaller fine points trip us up...

Lack of strategic thought capability IMO.
I realize there will always be those situations that are vague, but we need to think twice, three or more times before leaping.
Yes. Others not withstanding, military force is not appropriately applied to every situation some do not like. In fact, it is generally inappropriate and that is particularly true if it is ineptly applied -- which is what we do more often than not...:

I have long contended that the potential for ineptitude MUST be a planning consideration. None of us, as Leaders would send our most incompetent Troopie on a sensitive effort; we would not just say "Phugaboski, it's your turn, Go..." Yet at the macro level, that's precisely what we do.

I believe our major flaw in that regard is that we assume that we can and will do the mission -- the old 'can do' attitude reinforced by pride and egos. I suggest that in the METT-TC formulation, at the strategic level -- where that formulation is as if not more important than it is at the tactical level -- the most important thing is not the Mission. The critical factors, strategically, are the last three letters:

- Troops available. Quite simply, have we trained and practiced to do this or can we do so in a timely manner and are the Troops capable of the effort required. For example, the GPF will never be able to do FID very well nor should it be able to do so.

- Time. How long will this take and will the Voters and more importantly, the Politicians, continue to support the effort pretty much unequivocally for that period. If the answer for either group is less than a firm 'yes,' we better have a Plan B...

- Civil considerations. At both ends; both the US polity and the target area or mission focus denizens. In a major war, that last becomes somewhat academic, in all other types of combat, it is a 'must consider with full knowledge' aspect. As examples in Viet Nam, Somalia and in recent actions we had access to pretty comprehensive knowledge of the target area population -- but we mostly ignored knowledgeable persons due to the pride / ego problems -- that's just foolish...

While those factors merit far greater consideration than we have apparently given them in the past, we really have a broader problem. Wile there are many very competent people in the services, the institutions that are the US Armed Forces -- all of them -- have not adapted well to change. We're still saddled with a 1917 model personnel systems and training systems that are in too many cases only slightly improved from that same year model. Until those are fixed and the quality of the forces -- people and training; the other stuff is ancillary -- is improved, things will be no better. We will continue to take four steps forward and three back...

The good news is that 'adequate' is acceptable and still puts us most always a notch or several above all potential adversaries.