PolarBear if you think I'm PC I'm seriously concerned about you. Please put down your crack pipe, that stuff isn't good for you

I wrote a long response to your comments and then lost it (you would have liked it). Damn my computer and my fat thumb for accidently hitting the mouse and then clicking something that resulted in the data loss.

In short, I think your comments are off from the topic being addressed. You seem to be talking about military operational strategy and I'm talking about national level strategy.

I went to classes that taught us about the National Security Act of 1947 and its amendments in 1949 and the G-N Act. The reason behind both Acts seemed perfectly logical, and the problems they were addressing were real. I don't think they solved the problems.

NS-Act 47/49

DOD being unified and falling under a civilian secretary that was empowered seems appropriate, and I'm a lukewarm proponent of the Air Force as a separate service. I don't think we would have developed our strategic bombing capability if they were left under the Army. On the other hand the ground forces have not been as well served by the Air Force as they have.

The bigger issues from this act in my opinon was the formation of the CIA and the NSC. Was the CIA a better solution than the OSS? The CIA remains an obstacle to the one team, one fight concept, but beyond that wouldn't it be better to have an overarching intelligence organization like the OSS that is a hybrid civilian-military organization that not only does intelligence, but can effectively conduct unconventional warfare (the DOD definition, not SF's)? It would address many of our current shortfalls in what we're now calling irregular warfare. As for the NSC, it is an appropriate body for developing and recommending National Security Policies, but what is missing (especially after the G-N Act) is an appropriate body to develop supporting national strategy.

G-N Act in my opinion was somewhat effective in forcing DOD to be more joint, but in the process it has overdone joint and we have unqualified officers based on background in key positions all in the name of jointness. Second it has empowered the COCOM's as strategic HQs and cut the nut sack off the Pentagon. I think something like a strategy development body under the NSC and physically located in the Pentagon (but not led by the Pentagon) is required to ensure we have an interagency strategy (not just policy), and a director (other than the President, he still retains overall authority) that has the authority to compell all agencies to comply with the strategy.

The shortfalls you addressed in our General Officer ranks has always been true. We have always had great Generals and we have always have Generals that represent the Peter Principle, and rarely are they held accountable, but that is really immaterial to the topic. Even a great General can't develop an effective operational strategy for a non-existant national strategy.

The SECDEF's directive for the services to get better at irregular warfare is the correct thing to do in my opinion, but we shouldn't confuse failure at the tactical level as the reason we're in the mess we're in. It can be argued that even expert execution at the tactical and operational level won't win the strategic objective when we don't know what it is.

Had a lot more in the original post, but this will suffice for now.