Dr. Metz brings up the cloying issue that haunts the halls of large five sided structures not that any would be willing to change things, but what if. I’ll be the first to say that force size and structure aren’t my areas of expertise but that’s never stopped me before.

Why do we have services at all rather than a national defense force? Why are there four national academies (Army, Navy, Air force, and Merchant Marine)? Dr. Metz puts this into the perspective of a budgetary exercise that offers up a few options regarding the geographic or mission objectives of each force but I think there is more.

I know it’s slightly pedantic but lets generalize heavily for a moment and then I’ll get to one almost original thought. The Navy is about the ocean above and below it and flies airplanes off and onto portable airfields called carriers. The Army owns the brunt of land-based warfare. The Air Force owns the atmosphere. The Marine Corps is special operations. Amphibious assault, small wars, counter-insurgency, police operations, protecting the mail, and securing embassies is what the Marine Corps does. Of course we find every other force stepping up and saying “me too”. Special forces, or special operations commands are stood up in each service to fill that role, and everybody agrees to disagree or vehemently argues the point.

You can have quick, cheap, quality pick any two

So what do we know? We set up the military during the cold war to fight a continental theater wide war against another super-power that didn’t occur theater wide but happened as hot spots, only to “transform” that large scale military force into a smaller highly flexible entity that has issues meeting the large scale military force issues in the current conflict, and only to look at the looming baby boomer draw down because grandpa will need his Viagra. I would argue that we need to look generations ahead and see where the next battles are likely to occur or might occur for how we should structure the services. If an aging populace and a hefty current debt are going to affect us let’s plan for the future well ahead and determine the areas of conflict. You can’t know the unknown so let’s build sustainable and flexible without sacrificing capable.

If catastrophic climate change is real and world wide flooding and coastal erosion decimate the world’s ports and cities a Marine Corps will be vital for fighting in that role or amphibious operations. A Navy capable of shallow water operations will be vital. If climate change causes substantial refugee populations necessitating strategic food or energy a flexible and deployable Army will be more important than Armor and close air support.

“The Cadillac Desert (1986/1996)” details the issues of fresh water and impending shortages in the Western United States. The Great Lakes represent one of the largest concentrations of drinking water in the world. Domestic and foreign enemies may find this a tempting target as water rights and issues of reclamation become larger. Take the range wars (water wars) of the American west and realistic or not globalize them. What kind of force structure do you need to protect vital resources like a lake?

Terrain is changing. Two thirds of the planet is covered by water (a point the Navy emphasizes often). There is a resource rich ocean floor that is currently mined and drilled for oil and other high value resources. Aquaculture has taken on a new emphasis as the ocean fisheries have given up to farmed resources that fill the gap. These become points of contention as they move away from the shore into international waters. With corn and other bio-fuel commodities exploding in cost it won’t be long until “vital interest” includes primary suppliers who no longer are national or the concept of national changes. What would infantry operations under water look like? Fanciful? Ask a SEAL.

Finally the atmosphere envelope is the purview of the Air Force. I’ve personally worked with SPACE COMMAND so I know the Air Force claims outside the atmosphere too. The fact remains that so does the Navy. As a Navy commander reminded me they’re called space ships. The treaty and pacts of space put a damper on military operations beyond satellite right up until somebody forgets about those niggling little details like diplomacy by treaty. What will this new terrain look like? Every body including civilians are getting into the space business. A decade or three from now what will we see? If you think about Burt Rutan Ansari X-prize winner as analogous to Orville and Wilbur Wright in about forty years manned space planes will be the owners of the combat high ground and satellites and such the observation balloons of a by-gone era.

All of this fanciful discussion and wild flippancy isn’t about the probable. I can’t prognosticate any better than others. What (and here’s the first almost original thought) I’m suggesting it as follows. Systems that are strong and capable have several common themes. They are made of components that are highly redundant. No component has a single use and multiple uses are good. The components may be specialized in their mission but their capability is generalized. Components in highly successful systems should be competitive in the sense that they provide naturally occurring evolution to the system. No one component should make the system fail. The components should integrate seamlessly without increasing complexity. Diversity in supplier and customer strengthens the overall system. Finally, highly successful systems are oiled by success and inter process communication.

Do you really want to trust your safety to the lowest bidder?

Should a draw down occur and I’ll be the first to admit that I expect one. So, when the draw down does occur, the reservists go home, the veterans of OIF sip spirits at the Marine Corps Ball there will be the primary services. Not because they are the most cost effective. A military is not about being cost effective. There will be the primary services because they make each other stronger and create a more flexible military platform in their entirety for response to new challenges.