SWJ Small Wars Survey 2012

[Ken White]

"1. ...how do we creatively engage the larger world so as to increase justice?"

That's a dangerous and leading question. How do we American xenophobes, insulated as we are, determine or even have the right to talk about increasing justice? Moot question. Our political system will provide answers (multiple) that not every one will like...US domestic political concerns rule and the players change constantly. That is by design and it generally works acceptably if not well for us. It almost never works well for the others in the world.
...

'Justice' elsewhere as envisioned by the question posed depends thus totally on US domestic politics and there will be no constantcy. All things considered, our mixed record on this score will continue and we will probably continue to do a bit more good than harm -- hopefully recalling that when we decide to do harm, we often get carried away. We just need to develop a bit of restraint...

"2. What can the United States actually do to restore order to the world without having to engage in either global policing or nation-building?"

Aside from the raw arrogance of the question, from the fact that it is NOT our job to 'restore' such order -- I question that it has ever existed... -- and from the naivete disclosed by the question, it serves as an exemplar of why the answer to question 1 and particularly to question 3 are resigned chuckles. Unfortunately, that naivete is shared by far too many in the domestic political arena and in the Foreign Policy establishment -- not to mention the Armed Forces. That naivete combined with overlarge egos and arrogance in those establishments are the factors that drive us to inconsistency in many things, to dumb interventions we did not need to undertake and fuel resistance to changes in the budgeting system which cause us to stay off balance much of the time.

Who defines "order?" What are the parameters; what happens if it is achieved to the satisfaction of 'A' then 'B' dies and the system tilts to unstable...

A better question is 'What can the United States actually do to adapt to and mesh with the world without engaging in either global policing or nation-building?'

We can best adapt to the world if we get ourselves squared away -- for a variety of reasons, we need some changes in a good many respects and areas of endeavor. We can improve our capabilities and our image if we do that. We are perceived as hypocritical because we advocate sweetness and light and yet launch assaults here and there. We can do better. we can stop trying -- and trying is appropriate -- we do not do nation building or global policing, we do selective things along those lines that suit us and those not well...

We are big, we are powerful and we are truly our own worst enemy.Those are two things we do not do at all well, do not need to do and with which we continue to play even though both are proven inimical to our interests almost always. Again, that naivete and the budget process are along with egos the culprits.

"3. Are their (sic) gaps and disconnects between what the United States says and what it does, how it wants to be perceived, and how it is perceived?"

Fuchs and Dayuhan have it right. We're a joke in the eyes of many...
...

That said, as noted in the comment on question 1, above, our political system is inimical to world norms today. I would not change it so I believe we have to accept we will always be perceived as reactionary, slow off the mark, prone to indecision and, as reality does not accord with the soaring rhetoric of our Politicians who tailor their speeches to the domestic audience and forget -- or ignore -- the potential misunderstanding of foreign audiences. I might add that I've had a number of foreign acquaintances over the years comment that our domestic media and entertainment industry are part of the problem. The portrayals and the media do not sit well with many and tend to make us look like a collection of clowns. There's a lot of misperception due to all those things and there's little we can do to fix it -- short of draconian political fixes and those are not going to happen.

We'll just have to keep plugging along and try to more good than harm -- most in the world will grudgingly admit we do that...

"4. What should be the United States military role in foreign policy?"

To advise the NCA and DoS (and it incumbent upon those folks to listen to that advice. As an aside, they might be more prone to do so if we'd slow down our rotation of key personnel a bit).

Get the CoComs out of the arena. They are overly involved in foreign policy because Goldwater-Nichols gave them the ability to do that and our totally dysfunctional budgeting system so beloved of Congress to buy votes force feeds them more money than they need and it is to their advantage to enhance that flow. There's a bit of hyperbole in that but just a tiny bit.

"5. Outside of the United States mlitary (sic), what other institutions MUST be fixed in order for the United States foreign policy to be successful?

The US electorate.

6. What reforms are needed within the United States military?

That they can control: More selectivity in accessions for fewer but better quality people; Improve initial entry training, Officer and Enlisted, all services; work with Congress to improve the personnel system, reduce grade creep, refine pay, stop allowances, vest retirement earlier, encourage active and reserve crossover service, slow the rotation cycles; reduce the stifling bureaucracy; relearn how to trust and delegate -- we seem to have forgotten how to do those things...

The Armed Forces of the US basically know everything I just wrote. The question should be why aren't they doing something to correct the wrongs of which they are generally aware...

ADDED for this post on the Council:

I strongly disagree with American Pride's responses to questions 5/6. National Service is a terrible idea. Aside from the questions of involuntary servitude and 'addressing problems' that are generally transitory, the complexity and cost of administering such a program in peacetime and with lack of an existential threat is monumental. The Armed Forces need to be smaller, not larger...

[Steve Blair]

I strongly disagree with American Pride's responses to questions 5/6. National Service is a terrible idea. Aside from the questions of involuntary servitude and 'addressing problems' that are generally transitory, the complexity and cost of administering such a program in peacetime and with lack of an existential threat is monumental. The Armed Forces need to be smaller, not larger...

Couldn't agree more. National Service has always been a historical "blip" for the US. Our Army has historically been a small, volunteer force. Where things started to go seriously south (personnel system, for example) can be tied almost directly to the creation of a conscript army to fight large overseas wars. We went further off the rails when we tried to maintain a conscript-size army without conscription.

[AmericanPride]

The military is dying institution.

First, the chief problem with the military is economic. It is not the size of the force, which is constantly shrinking (that in itself will become a problem in the future in the current trend), but the cost per man/unit to train, equip, and maintain, which continues to balloon. There is substantial literature describing the gross inefficiencies of the defense economy. The knee-jerk reaction currently flooding the literature in light of this libertarian kick America's right-wing seems to be on is to simply reduce the size of the force and its budget and retreat into a make believe return of isolationism. That is treating the symptoms, not the causes. And, quite frankly, in order for the US to maintain its privileged economic and political position in the world, it requires a large, well-equipped force capable of operating anywhere in the the world under complex conditions. America's strategic focus will continue to shift towards East and Southeast Asia and Africa; environments which will require completely different approaches and assets.

Second, and this problem is partly related to the first, the politicization of the military continues to undermine its objectivity and focus on strategic priorities and global security trends. The military is itself invested in the outcomes and relationships of the inefficient defense economy, and therefore corrupts the policy-making process. This also has produced an acquiescent military leadership that is incapable of challenging its own assumptions. The self-selecting recruitment, evaluation, and promotion process will preserve this problem to the bitter end.

Third, the military is becoming increasingly isolated from the culture it defends and (claims to) represent. This is partly due to the self-selecting recruiting, but also because its the shrinking middle class that is picking up more of the service burden. There is also the problem of public perception, which to some degree views the military as automatons incapable of independent thought. And this is not helped when the military culture actively promotes itself as the nation's top 1%, etc despite higher rates of suicide, domestic violence, divorce, drug abuse, and so on.

Quickly, to recap, the military is becoming more expensive to maintain for a lesser amount of combat power, the leadership has no incentive to change course, and it is having a great strain on military personnel and the public's relationship with them. This will lead to military, and perhaps political, disaster.

None of these issues are "transitory". They are structural and permanent and are trending downwards.

Why is national service a viable answer? It will force reformation of the defense economy and legitimation of political decisions to use force by creating an immediate and direct stake in those decisions for every single American. It will also infuse the military with the diverse skills and backgrounds of the American people. This will become increasingly necessary in a complex, Eastern-izing world. Lastly, it will re-focus American energy and innovation on nation-building at home, where education, healthcare, and infrastructure continue to decline.

National service is a part of the American tradition; from the original colonies into the 20th century. It should not be the right or obligation of a tiny minority to contribute to this nation's defense and prosperity.

[Ken White]

The military is dying institution.

What was it Mark Twain said..

First, the chief problem with the military is economic.... the cost per man/unit to train, equip, and maintain, which continues to balloon.

And IMO should be perhaps a bit higher per person if anything. The problem is not what's spent per capita but is instead that on which it is spent. Our priorities are terribly skewed. Partly the fault of the military, no question -- but even more the fault of Congress.

One should not forget that the US armed Forces are a reflection of the society from which they come and that the Congress controls -- often hidden -- strings that reach everywhere.

The knee-jerk reaction currently flooding the literature in light of this libertarian kick America's right-wing seems to be on is to simply reduce the size of the force and its budget and retreat into a make believe return of isolationism.

That's a long recurring thread in the American polity; it generaly works out okay. Only the Left gets upset when the Right slews that way. Later, when the left does the same thing as they did in the 80s, for example -- the Right can get upset. We are an equal opportunity upsetter...

And, quite frankly, in order for the US to maintain its privileged economic and political position in the world, it requires a large, well-equipped force capable of operating anywhere in the the world under complex conditions.

I agree with all but the 'large.'

I'll also point out that 'large' is difficult to transport and supply and will likely not do well under complex conditions if history is any guide. Been there, done that...

America's strategic focus will continue to shift towards East and Southeast Asia and Africa; environments which will require completely different approaches and assets.

Quite true and also a correct focus for us at this time. Consider that large forces we could field in that area will never be able to mach others there quantitatively...

Second, and this problem is partly related to the first, the politicization of the military continues to undermine its objectivity and focus on strategic priorities and global security trends ... The self-selecting recruitment, evaluation, and promotion process will preserve this problem to the bitter end.

I broadly agree but likely differ considerably on specifics. Regardless, it is a problem and the Forces need to grapple with it.

Third, the military is becoming increasingly isolated from the culture it defends and (claims to) represent ... And this is not helped when the military culture actively promotes itself as the nation's top 1%, etc despite higher rates of suicide, domestic violence, divorce, drug abuse, and so on.

Agree with the last part. The first is correct as a statement but I've seen that isolation far more pronounced in earlier times. I do not see it as an earth shaker unless someone wishes to make it so for domestic political purposes.

Quickly, to recap, the military is becoming more expensive to maintain for a lesser amount of combat power, the leadership has no incentive to change course, and it is having a great strain on military personnel and the public's relationship with them. This will lead to military, and perhaps political, disaster.

A little hyperbolic but not much. I totally agree the leadership must change its focus or things will get worse, not better.

None of these issues are "transitory". They are structural and permanent and are trending downwards.

Agree with the trend, do not agree that they aren't transitory. I've seen all the things that concern you in far worse shapes than they are today. The year 1958 was not a good one even with the then extant national service...

And 1949 was far worse...

Why is national service a viable answer? It will force reformation of the defense economy and legitimation of political decisions to use force by creating an immediate and direct stake in those decisions for every single American

Interesting theory. It did not hold true in earlier times when we drafted -- recall also that the vaunted post WW II Mil-Industrail complex got going while that draft existed. Big forces drew big bucks -- and provided big bucks...

It will also infuse the military with the diverse skills and backgrounds of the American people. This will become increasingly necessary in a complex, Eastern-izing world. Lastly, it will re-focus American energy and innovation on nation-building at home, where education, healthcare, and infrastructure continue to decline.

We had those diverse skills and background aboard in earlier times. I recall no significant advantage, perhaps this time could be different but I'm skeptical. I will note that those who are concerned about our state of training should be wary of a decline if national service persons are inducted into the Armed Forces. Mother's of volunteers may complain about conditions and treatment; Mothers of inductees WILL complain.

And Congress will listen...

Nor do I see where there will be a "re-focus" -- unless you propose that some national service persons will be involved in all those areas admittedly in decline. If so, could you tell me how they will integrate and work with the AFT / NEA and various college faculty associations...

Also interesting would be who, precisely, in this Federal Republic with its government / commercial mix of services would employ, administer and direct the Health Care and Infrastructure workers.

Oh, and where will they sleep?

National service is a part of the American tradition; from the original colonies into the 20th century. It should not be the right or obligation of a tiny minority to contribute to this nation's defense and prosperity.

That "tradition" bit is not totally correct as you well know. As for the right and / or obligation of the 1% (±), we successfully navigated the world for 190 plus of our ~ 230 years (depending on when one starts the counts) with that approximate percentage of voluntary service persons. I see no major problem in continuing that until there's a need for national service in an existential situation.

I think that means the odds are not on your side...

[Steve Blair]

I would contend that the Army today is much less political than it was in the period after the Civil War (say 1870 through 1890 or so). If you look at service publications (and the Army and Navy Journal) from that time you'll find any number of political rants, fears about worker uprisings, and other bits and bobs. The Army also found itself entangled in a number of civil uses during that time (riot control and the like) that would not be tolerated today. The Army of that time also recruited from what were considered the "dregs of society," with a fair percentage of the enlisted ranks being of foreign birth (Irish and German mostly, but with a good sample of the other waves of immigrants from that time). It was also physically and socially isolated from American society of the time, and often (at least in the officer ranks) believed that it was superior to that society in terms of conduct, morals, and general bearing. What we're seeing could be taken in some ways as the Army (unwittingly, perhaps) returning to its real roots.

National service is not part of the national tradition by any means. It's always been viewed as a desperation or crisis measure. I think you may be confusing the state troops or militia movements with national service. Those were in theory mandatory but in practice were usually anything but. And in any case, it was always expected that a standing military would exist to provide officer cadre and other support to any "minute man" army. Conscript armies might have been part of the national landscape during the early Cold War and through Vietnam, but they have never been a part of the nation's history on a larger scale. To suggest otherwise really misses the point and leads to a tragic misstatement of the US's military history.

[Dayuhan]

The knee-jerk reaction currently flooding the literature in light of this libertarian kick America's right-wing seems to be on is to simply reduce the size of the force and its budget and retreat into a make believe return of isolationism.

A reduction in military force does not necessarily equate to a retreat into isolationism: there are all kinds of options for engagement that do not involve military force.

How large a force do we really need? For the last few years our forces have been stretched, but they've been stretched in wars of choice: Iraq was purely a war of choice, and while our initial engagement in Afghanistan was arguably necessary, it also did not involve large force commitments. Those came with the decision to occupy, which was entirely a choice.

If our military is being stretched to capacity in wars of choice, do we need more force or better choices?

[AmericanPride]

If our military is being stretched to capacity in wars of choice, do we need more force or better choices?

That is the origin of the problem. Despite increased military spending, the output has sharply declined. Estimates of the War on Terrorism range from three trillion dollars up to eight trillion (if we are to include annual defense budgets, homeland security expenditures, etc). In comparison, the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan cost the United States 3.5 trillion dollars (when adjusted for inflation). The inability to produce favorable outcomes in so-called "small" wars (the costs and consequences are anything but) is a clear indicator of institutional failure. The usual obsession with training quality and high-tech weapons systems dismisses the failure to properly identify threats and trends, leverage the appropriate resources, and implement an effective strategy. The military is being "stretched to capacity" because it is declining in strategic effectiveness despite the nearly asymmetric advantage in tactical capabilities. America is disarming itself because the defense economy is consuming the country's fiscal health.

How large a force do we really need?

A military is not useful in only destroying and deterring enemies, but depending on the circumstances, can be effective in building national capacity and engaging in the domestic economy. On a small scale, this is true for the National Guard and the Corps of Engineers. My point here is not to offer a specific number, but instead to suggest that there are multiple internal advantages in addition to the obvious external uses of a military. The problem is not defense participation in economic activities, but the presumption that governments must operate like businesses or households. The military can potentially train people in valuable skills in trades or services, promote education, provide widespread employment, and coalesce increasingly fractured elements of society.

I would contend that the Army today is much less political than it was in the period after the Civil War (say 1870 through 1890 or so). If you look at service publications (and the Army and Navy Journal) from that time you'll find any number of political rants, fears about worker uprisings, and other bits and bobs. The Army also found itself entangled in a number of civil uses during that time (riot control and the like) that would not be tolerated today. The Army of that time also recruited from what were considered the "dregs of society," with a fair percentage of the enlisted ranks being of foreign birth (Irish and German mostly, but with a good sample of the other waves of immigrants from that time). It was also physically and socially isolated from American society of the time, and often (at least in the officer ranks) believed that it was superior to that society in terms of conduct, morals, and general bearing. What we're seeing could be taken in some ways as the Army (unwittingly, perhaps) returning to its real roots.

I would offer that the military has never been as quite apolitical as presumed by the general public, and although in the past military leadership has been more outspoken, today such public display is not practical nor desirable. Defense assets constitute approximately 70% of all federal property. We all know the immense size of the budget and the profit (and waste) of defense companies. Both parties are a part of this system. Prominent members of Congress have millions invested into these contractors. Senior leaders often retire to join the ranks of these companies as consultants and advisers. What need is there for a public display of politics when the military is complicit in the biggest play in town? Politicking and profiteering might be tolerable were it not directly resulting in the slow decline of America's ability to defend itself.

The military is in need of substantial reform. I believe that inviting the participation of the American public in that reform would deliver the most desirable outcomes. The current trends are not sustainable and the poor outcomes and high costs during the War on Terrorism are severely negative indicators of our declining military capabilities. I do not think it is because Americans can't "do" counter-insurgency, but that the structure in place is incapable of adapting to meet pressing national security requirements.

[Steve Blair]

I would offer that the military has never been as quite apolitical as presumed by the general public, and although in the past military leadership has been more outspoken, today such public display is not practical nor desirable. Defense assets constitute approximately 70% of all federal property. We all know the immense size of the budget and the profit (and waste) of defense companies. Both parties are a part of this system. Prominent members of Congress have millions invested into these contractors. Senior leaders often retire to join the ranks of these companies as consultants and advisers. What need is there for a public display of politics when the military is complicit in the biggest play in town? Politicking and profiteering might be tolerable were it not directly resulting in the slow decline of America's ability to defend itself.

The military is in need of substantial reform. I believe that inviting the participation of the American public in that reform would deliver the most desirable outcomes. The current trends are not sustainable and the poor outcomes and high costs during the War on Terrorism are severely negative indicators of our declining military capabilities. I do not think it is because Americans can't "do" counter-insurgency, but that the structure in place is incapable of adapting to meet pressing national security requirements.

And again none of this is new. Military officers commonly transitioned into profitable slots before the rise of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" (which was in no small part a direct outcome of HIS defense policies), and I could name any number of "outbreaks" and "outrages" on the Frontier during that period that were either manufactured or exaggerated by locals who wanted to profit from a military presence in their region. Contracting graft is nothing new.

If you broaden your horizon from a Cold War focus, you start to see just how many cycles there are in American history.

[MikeF]

And again none of this is new.

And the Native Americans didn't get much choice or freedom as we pushed them into reservations.

[Dayuhan]

That is the origin of the problem. Despite increased military spending, the output has sharply declined. Estimates of the War on Terrorism range from three trillion dollars up to eight trillion (if we are to include annual defense budgets, homeland security expenditures, etc). In comparison, the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan cost the United States 3.5 trillion dollars (when adjusted for inflation). The inability to produce favorable outcomes in so-called "small" wars (the costs and consequences are anything but) is a clear indicator of institutional failure. The usual obsession with training quality and high-tech weapons systems dismisses the failure to properly identify threats and trends, leverage the appropriate resources, and implement an effective strategy. The military is being "stretched to capacity" because it is declining in strategic effectiveness despite the nearly asymmetric advantage in tactical capabilities. America is disarming itself because the defense economy is consuming the country's fiscal health.

Disagree on most points.

Defense is a burden on the economy, but that's not why the economy is shaky: there are much more important economic issues at hand.

The institutional failure I see is not on the part of the military, but on the part of those who repeatedly send military forces to accomplish that military force can't reasonably expected to accomplish (e.g. "nation building") and bite off commitments that we haven't the political will to complete. The military has been effective at the tasks it's trained and equipped to accomplish. It's been ineffective at tasks it's not trained and equipped to accomplish. This should not be a surprise. Using a hammer as a screwdriver is likely to be ineffective and messy, but that's not the hammer's fault.

The military can potentially train people in valuable skills in trades or services, promote education, provide widespread employment, and coalesce increasingly fractured elements of society.

True to some extent, but is it the most cost-effective way to accomplish these goals?

The current trends are not sustainable and the poor outcomes and high costs during the War on Terrorism are severely negative indicators of our declining military capabilities.

The poor outcomes and high costs in the "War on Terrorism" are to me indicators of bad policy decisions, rather than of declining military capabilities. Start with the whole ridiculous idea of a "War on Terrorism"...

I do not think it is because Americans can't "do" counter-insurgency, but that the structure in place is incapable of adapting to meet pressing national security requirements.

Is counterinsurgency necessarily a pressing national security requirement? I see no reason why it must or should be.

[AmericanPride]

Defense is a burden on the economy, but that's not why the economy is shaky: there are much more important economic issues at hand.

I did not state that the defense economy is the primary or direct cause of our current economic problems, though it is a major contributor to America's gradual economic decline. For economy in general, the most important issue is the regressive tax and financial policies that have resulted in the largest transfer of wealth in American history. For the defense economy specifically, the problem is that budgets continue to grow while output and quality decrease. The GWOT has brought into sharp focus the inadequacies of the military establishment. Trillions of dollars have been spent but there are zero favorable political outcomes from the conflict. That's the bottom-line.

The institutional failure I see is not on the part of the military, but on the part of those who repeatedly send military forces to accomplish that military force can't reasonably expected to accomplish (e.g. "nation building") and bite off commitments that we haven't the political will to complete. The military has been effective at the tasks it's trained and equipped to accomplish. It's been ineffective at tasks it's not trained and equipped to accomplish. This should not be a surprise. Using a hammer as a screwdriver is likely to be ineffective and messy, but that's not the hammer's fault.

It's been the military that has been the largest proponent of "counter-insurgency" and targeting the population instead of the enemy. The political leadership empowered the military to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has not occurred. And so it has been the military wrestling internally about what to do next since our doctrines, technologies, wealth, and combat power is relatively ineffective. Blaming the political leadership for the "nation building" mission is a convenient defense for inviting that obligation by assuming the "counter-insurgency" mantle in the first place.

True to some extent, but is it the most cost-effective way to accomplish these goals?

Cost-effectiveness is not the only measurement of success, nor the most desirable one. I certainly think a national service program should not be limited to military service. All departments can benefit from such a program.

The poor outcomes and high costs in the "War on Terrorism" are to me indicators of bad policy decisions, rather than of declining military capabilities. Start with the whole ridiculous idea of a "War on Terrorism"...

There is no defending military ignorance on how to define the GWOT. It's fairly well understood that the intent is/was to prevent or deter another catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil and more specifically, to defeat Al-Qaeda and its allies. The military is not the sole responsible party in the GWOT, but it is the responsible party for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which have produced desirable political outcomes despite high costs in treasure and lives. The military's sole purpose is to use violence to achieve national political objectives by producing victory (i.e. defeating the adversary). This has not been accomplished. In comparison, the intelligence community, and departments of Justice and Homeland Security are doing fairly well in their mandates.

Is counterinsurgency necessarily a pressing national security requirement? I see no reason why it must or should be.

It is when the military is/was actively engaged in two simultaneous "small" wars that have profound political, economic, and security consequences.

[wm]

As others have noted, the underlying assumptions of the survey exemplify overweening pride, aka hubris. Dilbert's pointy-haired boss has a lot in common with what seems to undergird the subject survey's questions.

I'd also like to remark on the following:

National service is a part of the American tradition; from the original colonies into the 20th century. It should not be the right or obligation of a tiny minority to contribute to this nation's defense and prosperity.

The idea of national service as a duty of citizenship is fundamentally at odds with the principles that led to the formation of America, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That document identified rights as fundamental, not duties. If the nation's principle value set is based on rights, which logically implies that one is free (not obliged), then obligatory national service is fundamentally unfair and unjust. I make this last assertion because 1. an obligation limits one's rights to life, liberty, and pursuing happiness, and 2. justice and fairness define each other.

Fortunately for the US of A, enough of its residents seem to believe and act on the the concept that "freedom isn't free," that sometimes obligations are more important than permissions. I fear that the pool of folks who hold this belief may be shrinking too quickly, fueled by the rise in entitlements that started with the spoils system of Andrew Jackson's administration, built up a massive head of steam with the New Deal, and has continued to mushroom since the Kennedy administration.

[MikeF]

WM,

To add to your post, I think the best thing at SWJ for me has been Ken's wisdom reminding us that these things come in cycles

[AmericanPride]

The idea of national service as a duty of citizenship is fundamentally at odds with the principles that led to the formation of America, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That document identified rights as fundamental, not duties. If the nation's principle value set is based on rights, which logically implies that one is free (not obliged), then obligatory national service is fundamentally unfair and unjust. I make this last assertion because 1. an obligation limits one's rights to life, liberty, and pursuing happiness, and 2. justice and fairness define each other.

I think freedom is frequently inaccurately equated with choice. In essence, freedom is the absence of coercion and fraud. While I agree that rights are natural and inalienable, this acknowledgement comes with implicit understandings. We accept traffic laws to enable freedom of travel on America's roads. We accept regulations on goods and services to protect consumers against fraud and criminal conduct. This is not a reduction of freedom because no man is endowed with a right to endanger or defraud others, which are forms of coercion. Rights are endowed, but freedom is empowered. And this is accomplished through the proper construction of government. It is not an obligation to obey the moral laws of a legitimate political authority. It is through such obedience that freedom is practiced because the citizen refrains from coercive and fraudulent activities against others. Without law, there would be anarchy. By consequence, anarchy becomes rule of the strong through coercion and fraud, and hence dictatorship. Law and obedience to it is the foundation of liberty. National service is just as well not an obligation, but an exercise in freedom.

[Ken White]

I think freedom is frequently inaccurately equated with choice ... Law and obedience to it is the foundation of liberty. National service is just as well not an obligation, but an exercise in freedom.

That strikes me as the classic small 'l' liberal approach. While I'm inclined to take the large 'L' liberal view, I certainly accept the fact that about 30 percent or so of my fellow Americans tend to the former persuasion and they're welcome to do so...

I'm with WM on that issue. Further, from your earlier post:

The military can potentially train people in valuable skills in trades or services, promote education, provide widespread employment, and coalesce increasingly fractured elements of society.

That too is a 'liberal' -- and IMO, quite dangerous -- construct. That approach has been followed several times in the past by the US and is in part cumulatively responsible for many of the flaws you decry in the Armed Forces of today; excessive Social Engineering culminating (I hope) with Robert Strange McNamara's Project 100,000 whose reverberations are still being felt today -- our terribly flawed "Task, Condition and Standard" training model derives directly from that intake and as those folks moved up in rank they significantly harmed the NCO Corps of the Army.

The military is in need of substantial reform...

I totally agree. I suspect we differ significantly on just what those reforms should be -- but we can probably agree that a big financial hit is in order.

I believe that inviting the participation of the American public in that reform would deliver the most desirable outcomes.

Had the educational system that existed at the end of WW II been improved instead of debilitated and prostituted in part by design, I'd agree. Since it was not improved, I suspect you'd get little of real merit from such an approach, indeed, I can make the case that such involvement over the years has greatly contributed to the malaise you note.

The current trends are not sustainable and the poor outcomes and high costs during the War on Terrorism are severely negative indicators of our declining military capabilities.

While I broadly agree, I will here note the War on Terror is a political not a military construct conceived by a small 'l' liberal administration about 10 years ago (that was not a conservative admin in any sense...). That is in keeping with many of your other here stated positions which are essentially political and not militarily oriented. Nothing wrong with that, just trying to preclude confusion.

I do not think it is because Americans can't "do" counter-insurgency, but that the structure in place is incapable of adapting to meet pressing national security requirements.

In reverse order, I agree; and no one can "do" counter insurgency today because it's a concept whose time has passed.