What we support and defend

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Ken,

Let me put the ArNG and the USAR, all the Reserve Components (RC) in perspective. It is quite common for Active Component (AC) folks to dismiss them as incompetent.

Maybe incompetent is too strong a term, but then again maybe it isn't. We all come to this forum with our own histories, and my experiences with National Guard and Reserve units in combat and training has been less than impressive, and often sadly comical. There are reserve units that have great reputations, unfortunately I didn't get to work with them. Regardless, they are not an adequate replacement for a standing professional Army in my opinion. Were there good individuals in those units? Certainly.

You correctly point out that there are active duty units that are poorly led and not combat ready, which is also true, but the percentage of those is lower in the active ranks, but the fact that any such units exist is unacceptable. We still have units coming back from combat (SF included) where the leadership was so poor you have a mass exodous when they get back, and the piss poor leaders continue to move up through the ranks, 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, 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.

[Ken White]

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...

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.

Thus, there's no way to know.

...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...

...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...

[Bill Moore]

Ken,

You're right about the foolishness of comparing RC and AC units, and furthermore you are correct about some AC units not being as tactically proficient as they claim (we already had those discussions about good infantry units, and unfortunately not all AC infantry units are good due primarily to leadership).

Also true that SF had and continues to have many officers and NCOs who provide less than stellar leadership, and I'm not sure that will ever change. Special only applies to the type of warfare, it doesn't magically endow those with the title with leadership ability. It was suggested by a few trusted friends that the NG SF during a short period in the late 70s and early 80s was superior to AC SF because many of the battle hardened vets from Vietnam couldn't put up with the peacetime BS in the AC and went into the NG SF. No longer the case, but I suspect the NG and RC had periods, especially post conflict where they retained a greater percentage of combat vets. Still doesn't mean the units are ready to blow out on short notice, nor are they designed to, so as you wrote:

And I agree with that. We need both, the mix is the issue. We'll see what sorts out...

Posted by Bob,

WWII was very similar. The war did not begin on 7 December 1941. Japan took Manchuria virtually unopposed in 1931, and began active combat against China proper in 1937. Germany went into Poland in September of 1939. The US Army landed in North Africa in November 1942. I won't belabor the historical facts, but write this only to point out that our interpretation of the facts is highly skewed.

Bob you are absolutely correct about skewing history, much like your interpretation of historical facts spinning the facts about the effectivness of Ghandi ousting the British from India with non-violent action. Facts are the U.S. entered WWII after December 7, 1941. In both WWI and WWII we lost personnel prior to our official entry into the war, especially merchant marines, but the war for us started when it started. The U.S. entered the conflict in Afghanistan in 2001, but the Afghans have been fighting for decades, but it wasn't our war until we entered it, so in sum your spin is irrelevant. What you tried to say is that moving slow is to our advantage, which in some cases may be true, but in others we may miss out on a critical window of opportunity to win decisively and with less losses. We should have the choice of deploying quickly, slowly or not at all, and having a standing Army doesn't take that choice away, it makes it possible.

We argue how a lack of a standing army made it slow for the US to arrive in a fighting form in these wars. True and moot.

We also talked about the effectiveness of a standing Army compared to a militia, a point you conveniently fail to address. During the NW Indian wars in Ohio the militia performed terribly, and President Washington had to authorize a larger standing Army, because the Regulars were the only ones fighting well. This has happened throughout history, so the value of the standing Army has proven its worth. However, you recently changed your argument from no standing Army to a smaller standing Army, that is major change and most would agree we can and will downsize.

The US was also never significantly threatened in those wars, certainly not of ground invasion, and the US was the decisive total force of military power (industry, naval, air, land) in both.

That is your opinion, I'm not exactly sure what would have stopped the Japanese or Germans from crossing the ocean to reach the U.S. once they secured victories in Asia and Europe. We certainly crossed the oceans to get their lands, and both had very lethal Armies that were eventually defeated. To think that Japanese and Germans weren't capable of defeating our militia if they invaded is a bit of a stretch, especially with the tactics they used. Even if it turned into a long bloody resistance the Japanese and Germans eventually lost it surely was in our best interests to win the fight far away from our shore. Additionally, since when did our national interests get reduced to defending the homeland?

The Army made the same arguments between every war for why they needed to stay large, and the Army lost those arguments.

Not without reason, the TF Smith argument isn't a myth even it is does involve some spin. Again your original argument was no standing Army period, but now that your argument is more reasonable and focused on the appropriate size and mix of the Army, that can and will be debated.

This will make our allies squirm. They love not having to secure their own interests and have been pissing away the American peace dividend like drunken sailors while we fore go that dividend and outspend the world on a system of global defense funded solely by us.

So you're advocating making our allies squirm as good policy? I guess if we don't need those allies you would be right, but if it is in our interests to maintain those alliances, then maybe making them squirm isn't such a good option?

This is illogical and unsustainable. This is the worst kind of leadership as well. We need to lead by example, not by physically jumping into every conflict, not by setting moral standards, not by providing all the hardware and most of the manpower.

Where have we done this? You are confusing Bush Junior policy with American policy, but his approach to Iraq and Afghanistan was and remains an abberration in our history. There are many prior and ongoing conflicts that we refuse to get involved in despite requests from our citizens and the global community to get involved in, so it is a great exaggeration and even a lie to claim we jump into every conflict.

As for providing the hardware to others, unfortunately that is good business for the death merchants and we won't overcome their lobbies in D.C.. They'll simply argue if we don't provide the weapons someone else will, and unfortunately it is true. You cautioned already that we should pursue our interests, not ideology, so are you now arguing that our interests should be based on ideology?

Oh yeah, and our current approach is also arguably unconstitutional.

Perhaps, but again the Constitution was written over 200 years ago in a much different world. By no means do I concur with our current approach, but I'm not sure the unconstitutional argument will carry much weight in today's world.