Mechanization hurts COIN forces

[Rob Thornton]

. Full spectrum means what? BCTs are not deploying off their MTOE's, they are deploying off MEEL's and DMD's. I've always doubted the "speed of deployment/mobilization" argument - what good is it to get forces to point X that are not equipped, trained and manned properly?

Full spectrum means that we are talking across Enabling Civil Authorities thru conventional offensive operations - best example is 3-0 - its a big broad brush, but it helps define the range. WHile they may not be deploying off their MTO&E, thy are built around them - once we get back to a sustained OPTEMPO - beyond OIF (it will end sometime) that is what they will be manned and resourced off of - they may change based off of recent experiences - but that is still how we will do it. Right now we do what we do beause we need to based off the conditions.

2. The ARNG has already shifted its focus to IBCT's from Armored or Mechanized Brigades. 21 out of the 28 BCT's are Light Infantry with 1 SBCT and 6 Heavy.

I did not know that - I did know they had a SBCT in PA - I was just up there.

3. The USAR does not have a "closer connection" - please explain this throwaway sentence if you have the time or desire- with the AC. I don't understand where this line of thinking comes from to be honest. The ARNG has been in the Heavy BCT/formation business along with the AC since 1993. That's 15 years now. You've know just significantly increased the costs of reestablishing the USAR as a heavy Force provider. The USAR does not have the people, the facilties,the equipment, the schools, the leaders or most importantly, the desire to re-acquire combat structure.

What I mean is who pays the bills, and only that - I have several friends at the NGB. Ref. the latter - conditions should decide what component we use for what and how we man, equip and train it. Fiscal decisions will ultimately decide if its worth it. We rearranged things before for different reasons. COnsider how much BRAC is actually going to cost vs. how much was briefed - depends on what you want - which probably depends on why you want it.

5.Title 32 is a strawman argument - the ARNG is dual missioned and trains towards its MTOE METL. You train on very few "title 32" tasks in the ARNG. The whole "Homeland Security" mission is a bit of strawman as well - if you don't think active component units from all branches will not be involved...

My point is given the emphasis on Homeland Defense - maybe we need to enable the ARNG to focus more on its Title 32 responsibilites. It doesn't mean AC units won't be doing HD tasks - no more then it means RC will not be doing deployments - just a question of capabilities - who were the real heroes during Katrina? The preponderance of forces belonged to the ARNG - the 1st Army CDR may have go the press, but the Guard folks were there to do the heavy lifting.

6. FCS is an unaffordable pipe dream. I think this formation is going to end up in the same boat as the F22 - the service will ask for "we need 25 of these BCT's" and will settle for six because the services are about to price themselves out of business. Ask yourself this question - how would FCS help us win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Now see if you can really come up with a rational answer.

Its still the Army's #1 aquisition program - neither your opinion or mine changes that. FCS probably will not look like its O&O - but the tech that comes out of it will go forward - not as a revolutionary type impact - but as an evolutionary one. Good tech is the type that enables guys on the ground - read General Petraeus's comments from the Wired magazine article. All the robots that do Counter IED, all the comms that help push info fwd on detainees and help locate units, the GLMRS that hit targets with lighter payloads, all the UAVs, all that stuff is FCS like tech that has co-evolved. You have to get past the manned ground vehicle platform - that ain't it - that is the bumper sticker - and its constrained thinking. There are other new tech that is coming out of FCS - google FCS spiral - and you'll see how this really plays out. With regards to the larger stuff - like platform - also evolutionary and we've been doing that type stuff for a long time - developing and building better stuff that keeps us ahead - good tech helps us offset some of the advantages of the home teams for all the away games we play.

7

. As someone who's spent way too much of his career in force management, I don't think trying to predict for the future is a good or stable way to build an Army when it comes to structure. Brigade structures have been relatively stable throughout history. Just stick with something, and incrementally modernize the equipment, instead of looking at an end state and saying "this BCT can do X, Y and Z" and then change the force. There is little difference in the BCT structure from that of the 1940's, except they are now supposedly independent...

I'd agree with you for the most part.

8. The Army decided to build more BCT's instead of growing the existing BCT's by a third infantry battalion. I don't agree with that line of thinking, especially for the short term as we are in fights than are at the company and below. All BCT's were supposed to have 3 IN BN/CAB's and a RSTA/ARS SQDN, but it was unaffordable when the AC Force Structure allowance was 482K. Now it's going up to 547K (whether or not the Army can man that number is yet to be seen - all signs are pointing downward) and the Army wants to grow BCT formations instead of bulking up the force to where it should be doctrinally.

Again not decsisions we get to make, but I'll give them credit that Senior leadership weighed the options and decided upon a COA for reasons that are consistent with positioning the force where it needs to be - lots more to consider when you weigh in how you sustain the Institutional side, etc.

Anyway, force structure is the base of the pyramid in any army, and we've built an army that's probably very effective and deadly for conventional/3GW/maneuver warfare, but it's seriously out of whack for the fights in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem is that people are cautious on changing the base of the pyramid (and pyramids cost lots of money) based off the current conflicts (and their reality based force structure in theater).

And why besides the idea that the larger Army must not understand might we stick with the Golden Mean? When the policy folks agree to limiting our missions, or agree not to do the unexpected, or convince others not to do the unexpected - we can probably afford to focus exclusively on the next Iraq and Afghanistan. Until they do though - we have to be prepared to do the full range. I don't think we can afford to count anything out - some of it has to do with credible deterrence, some with having the flexibility to adapt - nobody else seems to want to "get our back" that kind of leaves it up to us.

We live in interesting times. There has been close to a decade's worth of force structure change...both codified and mission specific...where do you think we are at?

Its been longer then that - we're always evolving (always have been - just did not put a "transformation" bumper sticker on it) - new stuff and ideas come in and then comes back in later, etc. I suspect that is the nature of things.


Best Regards, Rob