A Battle Over 'the Next War'

[SWJED]

A Battle Over 'the Next War' - Barnes and Spiegel, Los Angeles Times

Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. is not a fighter pilot, wing commander or war planner. But he is waging what many officers consider a crucial battle: ensuring that the U.S. military is ready for a major war.

Dunlap, like many officers across the military, believes the armed forces must prepare for a large-scale war against technologically sophisticated, well-equipped adversaries, rather than long-term ground conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan.

First, however, they face an adversary much closer to home -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates...

Many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan side squarely with Gates. They believe future conflicts will look like the current wars, and argue that the U.S. must not lose its newfound expertise in counterinsurgency warfare.

"I think that nation-state and conventional war is in a state of hibernation," said Marine Gen. James N. Mattis, who commanded U.S. forces in Fallouja in 2004. "I don't think it's gone away, but the most likely threats probably today are not going to be conventional or from another state."

Mattis argues that the current fight is not an interlude.

"I recognize some people want to say: 'Let's hold our breath. The irregular world will go away, then we can get back to good old soldiering again,' " he said. "Unfortunately, in war, the enemy gets a vote."...

[William F. Owen]

Dunlap, like many officers across the military, believes the armed forces must prepare for a large-scale war against technologically sophisticated, well-equipped adversaries, rather than long-term ground conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dunlap is correct. We should prepare for a large-scale war against technologically sophisticated, well-equipped adversaries, but who are they?

Should we also prepare to face the Borg and Klingons?

I am far more worried about 16,000 white Toyota Land Cruisers, each carrying an MRL, MANPAD, ATGM post, or HMG, than I am about X number of Armoured Divisions that no likely enemies have the competency or budget to employ effectively.

[J Wolfsberger]

"A Battle Over 'the Next War' " is, in fact, a battle over budget and prestige.

[Hacksaw]

and organizational culture (which might be the one that hurts the most).

[John T. Fishel]

The US has fought only 5 declared interstate wars in its entire history. If you include the American Revolution, the Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm that makes a total of 10 major wars against peer competitors. Every other military action falls into the Small Wars category beginning with the Indian Wars and the Whiskey Rebellion.

One could reduce the number of BIG wars by considering the Revolution our insurgency, Vietnam as COIN, and DS as a simple police action. But even if you don't, small wars are the most likely fights and have been throughout our history. Dunlap (and Gian) are correct that we should not let a peer threat grow to the point where we will have difficulty meeting it but, historically, that has not been the problem at least since 1945. Our problem has always been one of forgetting, ignoring, refusing to recognize the small wars threat and having to learn old lessons all over again - as in deja vu!

Cheers

JohnT

[Rank amateur]

"A Battle Over 'the Next War' " is, in fact, a battle over budget and prestige.

Maybe we need to build cement barricades around the various factions in the Pentagon and not let them out until they reconcile.

[Tom Odom]

Maybe we need to build cement barricades around the various factions in the Pentagon and not let them out until they reconcile.

Only if we are allowed to water board at will...

[jkm_101_fso]

and organizational culture (which might be the one that hurts the most).

The Army was the worst about this...but the AF has us beat.

[Old Eagle]

It doesn't help that the author reports on relationships he really doesn't understand. There is no absolute dichotomy between preparing for future wars and fighting the currnet one. Like it or not, we have to do both, and like commanders at every level, our senior leadership needs to decide where to accept risk.

[Entropy]

"A Battle Over 'the Next War' " is, in fact, a battle over budget and prestige.

...I think it's more a battle about the future of US foreign policy and what role the military has in that policy, but you're right that budget (and therefore Congressional politics) and prestige play into that.

[Ken White]

a priority sort -- and that is driven by J. Wolfsberger's ""...Battle Over 'the Next War' " is, in fact, a battle over budget and prestige.""

Entropy is, I believe, partly correct with ""...I think it's more a battle about the future of US foreign policy and what role the military has in that policy..."" but I'd suggest that Congress and the budget are extremely significant impactors on what passes as US Foreign Policy today.

Unfortunately...

[stanleywinthrop]

The borg are scary!

Seriously, I think people on both sides of this have forced us into a false dichotomy.

I believe I read somewhere that Chesty Puller (A guy who went on to have plenty of experience with symmetrical conflict) is supposed to have said, "The Marine Corps never designed such a good school as Haiti and Nicaragua."

[Fuchs]

The US has fought only 5 declared interstate wars in its entire history. If you include the American Revolution, the Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm that makes a total of 10 major wars against peer competitors. Every other military action falls into the Small Wars category beginning with the Indian Wars and the Whiskey Rebellion.

One could reduce the number of BIG wars by considering the Revolution our insurgency, Vietnam as COIN, and DS as a simple police action. But even if you don't, small wars are the most likely fights and have been throughout our history. Dunlap (and Gian) are correct that we should not let a peer threat grow to the point where we will have difficulty meeting it but, historically, that has not been the problem at least since 1945. Our problem has always been one of forgetting, ignoring, refusing to recognize the small wars threat and having to learn old lessons all over again - as in deja vu!

Cheers

JohnT

That's likely all true, but here's another statistic:
How many of these wars were really vital for the nation's well-being and the shaping of the international environment?
- The involvement in WW2 and possibly Vietnam.

The other wars were unnecessary.

COIN proficiency is really only necessary if you ally with weak states or intend to invade & occupy foreign nations. Both doesn't seem to be advantageous for your nation's well-being.

It's furthermore a strange assumption that no peer should be allowed to rise. Why not? That sounds more like a world domination adventure plan than reasonable policy.
The economic structure and development of the USA doesn't allow for such grandiose expectations anymore. The U.S. military expenditures aren't sustainable (real expenditures including some DHS budget and such is quite as big as the trade balance deficit and a bit larger than the federal budget deficit) and the industrial base is simply absent.

Did you look at the shipbuilding industry of the U.S. recently?
It's less than a per cent of world-wide production capacity.
Even Polish, Croatian and Danish shipbuilding industries are bigger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipbuilding

The real U.S. industrial value added is inferior to PR China's.
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....ial-power.html

It's reasonable if a power doesn't want to be inferior militarily, but that needs to be seen in context of alliances, possible arms control and conflict prevention/solution.

[Entropy]

It's furthermore a strange assumption that no peer should be allowed to rise. Why not? That sounds more like a world domination adventure plan than reasonable policy.

It's not a question of not allowing a peer to rise - it's a question of having a military force capable of defending the interests of the US and its allies.

The economic structure and development of the USA doesn't allow for such grandiose expectations anymore. The U.S. military expenditures aren't sustainable (real expenditures including some DHS budget and such is quite as big as the trade balance deficit and a bit larger than the federal budget deficit) and the industrial base is simply absent.

Not true at all. Defense expenditures are less than 4% of GDP. That's quite sustainable and the low figure is all the more impressive considering the significant military commitments the US has to defend allies around the world.

It's reasonable if a power doesn't want to be inferior militarily, but that needs to be seen in context of alliances, possible arms control and conflict prevention/solution.

Alliances are a major reason why we have a comparatively large military. The US taxpayer is essentially subsidizing the defense of several countries around the world, including some of the world's biggest economies. If the US didn't have all these commitments to defend allies, then the US could have a much smaller military.

[Fuchs]

Not true at all. Defense expenditures are less than 4% of GDP. That's quite sustainable and the low figure is all the more impressive considering the significant military commitments the US has to defend allies around the world.

It's close to 6% if not only the most obvious costs, but also Coast Guard and some other costs are counted.
The trade balance deficit and federal budget deficit are clear indicators that the current U.S. economy and state are not sustainable. There's nothing to argue about it, both is evidence - defining indicators.
The high military-related expenditures (of which only a small part can be considered as investment into economic development - all else is state consumption) can easily be identified as a probable cause.

Alliances are a major reason why we have a comparatively large military. The US taxpayer is essentially subsidizing the defense of several countries around the world, including some of the world's biggest economies. If the US didn't have all these commitments to defend allies, then the US could have a much smaller military.

Not really. It's still a free choice. Many allies have saved a lot of their military expenditures after 1990. The NATO is not a one-way alliance. The alliance members have the same obligations - but some governments/parliaments chose to keep expenditures high.

Alliances are usually understood as lowering the need for defense expenditures. To believe that the opposite is true seems to require somee kind of political brainwashing in my opinion.
I've herd this subsidizing idea before (and it is somehow true), but it's still a free choice, and nothing that could be blamed on partners. I doubt that Taiwan could force the U.S. to have more than three CVBGs, for example.
Most of the U.S. military power is in fact excess power - European forces are strong enough to protect Europe, South Korea is superior to North Korea, Australia, Taiwan and Japan can take care of themselves with their strong economies and island geography as well.
In fact I cannot think of any alliance conflict that would require any U.S. forces at this time.

[Tom Odom]

That's likely all true, but here's another statistic:
How many of these wars were really vital for the nation's well-being and the shaping of the international environment?

The involvement in WW2 and possibly Vietnam.

That is hardly a statistic. It is very much a slanted opinion and an inaccurate one at that.

American Revolution:I would hazard that the American Revolution was vital for the nation's creation.

Civil War: The Civil War resolved a near unresolvable problem and cleared US entry into global relations

Korea: Maybe it was unnecessary to the NKs who invaded but the SKs and the US troops beside them found it necessary to fight. It is still shaping the international environment as it is still technically not over.

Vietnam: for all its tragedy and the lingering controversy surrounding it, Vietnam was very much an offshoot of the Cold War as was Korea. Europe would be a very different place had the US as part of NATO and a golbal effort fought the Cold War

Desert Storm: Again last I checked Saddam invaded Kuwait and we responded to the threat. Certainly that effort shaped the regional context and we are dealing with that shaping today.

other wars:

WWI--late entry rendered inevitable by actions at sea. Necessary? Hard to say other than in a larger "Guns of August" theme, no participant really chose to get into WWI as it turned out versus how they thought it would be. As for shaping the international environment, you have to take the bad with the good. Probably would have been no WWII if there had been no WWI.

Spanish-American: Here you might have one. The serendipidity of the USS Maine blowing up with a jingoistic press gave the US that glorious little war the US seemed to need at the time.

Tom

[John T. Fishel]

I'll join Entropy in his remarks.

I'd rather return to your initial point, that all wars of the US - save for WWII and Vietnam (possibly) - were unnecessary because they "were not vital for the nation's well being or shaping the international environment." The Revolution established the country; the Civil War ensured that it would not be half slave; th e War of 1812 protected independence from the UK, the Mexican War established the southern US boundaries and American pre-eminence in N. America - something that protected Mexico from France in 1865, the Spanish American War made the US a World power; WWI redrew the maps of the world and set the stage for WWII as well as the Cold War. The Indian Wars both subjugated indigenous peoples and protected settlers from terrorism. BTW have you been to an Indian casino recently? I call them revenge takers on the "pale faces" The Banana Wars protected a number of states in the Caribbean from the predation of such European powers as the UK and Germany (albeit at a price but America never annexed these independent states). El Salvador was, I submit, a quite necessary war and the US intervention served to not only reduce the barbarity but helped the Salvadorans on both sides to achieve a much better and healthier society. Panama, in 1989, was a Just Cause and we left the place better than we found it. So, too was Desert Storm which was a classic resistance to armed aggression.

Even if you disagree with some, most, or all of the outcomes, the results of these wars did change the structure of international society (if not the rules of the game).

Cheers

JohnT

[Fuchs]

I'll join Entropy in his remarks.

I'd rather return to your initial point, that all wars of the US - save for WWII and Vietnam (possibly) - were unnecessary because they "were not vital for the nation's well being or shaping the international environment." The Revolution established the country; the Civil War ensured that it would not be half slave; th e War of 1812 protected independence from the UK, the Mexican War established the southern US boundaries and American pre-eminence in N. America - something that protected Mexico from France in 1865, the Spanish American War made the US a World power; WWI redrew the maps of the world and set the stage for WWII as well as the Cold War. The Indian Wars both subjugated indigenous peoples and protected settlers from terrorism. BTW have you been to an Indian casino recently? I call them revenge takers on the "pale faces" The Banana Wars protected a number of states in the Caribbean from the predation of such European powers as the UK and Germany (albeit at a price but America never annexed these independent states). El Salvador was, I submit, a quite necessary war and the US intervention served to not only reduce the barbarity but helped the Salvadorans on both sides to achieve a much better and healthier society. Panama, in 1989, was a Just Cause and we left the place better than we found it. So, too was Desert Storm which was a classic resistance to armed aggression.

Even if you disagree with some, most, or all of the outcomes, the results of these wars did change the structure of international society (if not the rules of the game).

Cheers

JohnT

I usually don't consider wars of independence as wars of the nation state, so I disregarded that one.

The Civil War was probably avoidable and even if the secession had succeeded, the slavery would most likely have ended few decades later.

The 1812 war was not decisive and avoidable.

The Mexican War was not necessary unless you consider expansion necessary. The Texan settlers had serious interests, but IIRC they were not fully U.S. citizens at that time?

The Spanish American war was the definition of useless and unnecessary. The USA got some colonies that it neither wanted nor needed and defeated an empire that was already in steep decline for a century. Furthermore, the reasons for the war were rather fabrications of the U.S. press than anything else.

WWI saw no decisive influence of the U.S. and was certainly not in the interest of the U.S. - the voters wanted peace, British propagandists/lobbyists wanted an additional ally.

The Indian wars were unnecessary as wars of expansion usually are, although it's obvious that they allowed an increase in power (ask Luxembourg citizens whether national power is really that relevant for well-being).

The Banana wars not really about deflecting European influence, but about raping defenseless Latin American states for the sake of some U.S. businesses like UF.
Btw, I don't understand the reference to Germany in context of Banana Wars. There's no relation at all.

Panama was an illegal invasion that didn't really serve U.S. interests simply because it was irrelevant. The people of Panama are slightly better off now; that doesn't mean that the war was necessary or good for the well-being of the U.S. Americans.

The 1991 Gulf War prevented that the U.S. economy got off the oil drug in time, caused a huge backlash with hundreds of billions economic damage so far, several thousand U.S. deaths and will continue to trouble the USA for decades. Hussein was about to invade Saudi-Arabia in 1991 as much as he was about to build nukes in 2003.

The USA wouldn't be as large or as powerful without these wars, but its people would not be less happy or rich.

[John T. Fishel]

can certainly disagree about their being "vital to the naion's well being" but the thrust of my critique of your assertion was that these wars all changed the international order (which was the second part of your argument).

I suggest you check out the history of German expansion during the period after the Kaiser dismissed Bismarck and before August 1914. I would also suggest that you look at the Zimmerman Telegram that was broken in Room 40 and given to the US in what has to be a major coup by British intel. Note, that the authenticity of the telegram is not in doubt.

[Jim Rodgers]

I think you can probably make a pretty good case that German influence wasn't exceptionally important, but "no relation at all"?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ezuela1902.htm

It doesn't seem like it was a small thing. I'm hardly an expert, but then again, I wasn't the one throwing around terms like "raping", a loaded term not conducive to debate\free exchange of ideas if there ever was one in English, and I suspect German as well.