The Army Capstone Concept: the Army wants your comments

[Infanteer]

Ahh...good ole uncertainty. I'm pretty sure Tuthmose III was uncertain as his chariots rumbled into Megiddo. Isn't uncertainty just a by-product of human (thus, not always rational or predictable) interaction. How is uncertainty new?

[wm]

Ahh...good ole uncertainty. I'm pretty sure Tuthmose III was uncertain as his chariots rumbled into Megiddo. Isn't uncertainty just a by-product of human (thus, not always rational or predictable) interaction. How is uncertainty new?

Uncertainty is most definitely not new. But the following may be worth pondering.

The more uncertainty one has, the more risk to which one is exposed. One way to reduce risk is to reduce uncertainty. I suspect that in an organizational milieu characterized by a low tolerance for risk (the organization is very risk averse), the reduction of uncertainty tends to assume a large role in the thinking of that organization's members.

On the move to Megiddo, Thutmose III may well have faced uncertainty about which road through the mountains was best to take, but the fact that he chose the narrow middle route seems to demonstrate that he was not risk averse.

[Red Leg]

While uncertainty is war is definitely not new, the things about which we are uncertain are: What are out national goals in Iraq and Afghanistan? When will the remaining components of national power start contributing? What is the military's endstate? Does the Global War on Terrorism have an end in sight, or will the military be deployed indefinitely? How long can our economy support the current spending in Iraq and Afghanistan? What will our nation's stance be if Iraq's elections go south or Maliki loses but refuses to give up power?

[Infanteer]

I'm sure Roman consuls asked the same questions, just with different names and places.

[marct]

While uncertainty is war is definitely not new, the things about which we are uncertain are: What are out national goals in Iraq and Afghanistan? When will the remaining components of national power start contributing? What is the military's endstate? Does the Global War on Terrorism have an end in sight, or will the military be deployed indefinitely? How long can our economy support the current spending in Iraq and Afghanistan? What will our nation's stance be if Iraq's elections go south or Maliki loses but refuses to give up power?

Have you noticed that all of these areas / sources of uncertainty are political and not the purview of the military (with the possible exception of #3)? I'll also note that the uncertainty contained in these points is derived from uncertainty about the actions of US politicians....

[Red Leg]

Have you noticed that all of these areas / sources of uncertainty are political and not the purview of the military (with the possible exception of #3)? I'll also note that the uncertainty contained in these points is derived from uncertainty about the actions of US politicians....

While these areas are political, they are very much the purview of the military in the operational environment in Iraq and Afghanistan (whether they should be or not is another topic - see ADM Mullen's comments to KSU http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/us...html?ref=world). US military commanders oversee the Gov of Iraq up through the Provincial level, and the MNF-I commander has considerable influence and responsibilty at the Iraqi national level (though he does have an Ambassador beside him).

[Ken White]

While these areas are political, they are very much the purview of the military in the operational environment in Iraq and Afghanistan (whether they should be or not is another topic...)...

That it is another topic. If one accepts that as true and the default position, perhaps. OTOH if one accepts that much of that 'default position' is due to budget and turf battles in DC as opposed to what makes sense in the wider world or even in Afghanistan and Iraq -- which I do -- then one might come to the conclusion that the priorities AND the developmental and implementing authorities are skewed.

While you're correct that the US Armed Forces are directly involved in making political policy (domestically and internationally), I think the question ought to be "should they be doing that?" Many would say that's an immaterial question, they are.

However, I ask why they seem to want to continue to make policy in a realm that is not and should not be theirs. I don't like the answer I keep coming back to...

[marct]

However, I ask why they seem to want to continue to make policy in a realm that is not and should not be theirs. I don't like the answer I keep coming back to...

Neither do I Ken, which is why I raised the point. Just what does the concept of the military being subordinant to civilian control mean when the military is exercising powers, for whatever reason, which are clearly the responsibility of civilian groups without the umbrella of something such as "military occupation"?

At the conceptual level, and that's really where a lot of this discussion is at, should political decisions of this type be part of the military's decision making process with the assumption that they are (potentially) under military control? Wouldn't it make sense to categorize uncertainties by source where the "source" is the group that (supposedly) have "control" (whatever that means! ) over the decision?

[Red Leg]

While you're correct that the US Armed Forces are directly involved in making political policy (domestically and internationally), I think the question ought to be "should they be doing that?" Many would say that's an immaterial question, they are.

However, I ask why they seem to want to continue to make policy in a realm that is not and should not be theirs. I don't like the answer I keep coming back to...

The military commanders with whom I have had contact (up through division) never seemed like they wanted to make policy, foreign or domestic. I cannot not speak to commanders at corps and above (far above my paygrade). Not sure which answer you come back to Ken, but the answer I keep coming up with is: because nobody else will.

Wilf is correct

OK, but Armed force serves policy. The Army has to provide what the Policy maker requires - NOT provide what would work if the policy was easier to fulfil by military means. Armies are contractors, not clients.

though our contract is fairly open-ended. The issue comes back to "what do the policy makers require?"