What are the top 5 things we've learned from OIF

[Penta]

And now my bits, from an outsider's POV (well, mostly; my dad retired 4-5 yrs ago (in Jan 04, then left consulting in Jun 04) after 33 yrs as a DAC - an Engineer and Project Leader w/ US Army CECOM):

1. The US military's logistics system is among the world's best, no question. However, it seems a common yet unspoken issue that we have singularly failed to invest in strategic lift - be that airlift or sealift.

2. The populace may not like to hear that war will leave people dead, will cost money, and will take sacrifices from domestic programs - but we need to bite the bullet and tell them that, anyway. Goesh, I think, emblemizes a viewpoint that, well...scares me. "The civilians will never agree with us, so screw them." No, actually. Perhaps not any time soon, but in most circumstances, you can convince the American people to support military actions. But you need to be honest with them and play it straight. It may not be easy to skip the "fight for freedom" or "make the world safe for democracy" soundbites, but nobody believes those. The American people are not morons, and *can* digest mildly complex strategic rationales like "knocking out the government of Saddam Hussein will remove a symbol of 'anti-Western resistance'" or so forth. It was kind of insulting to hear Bush and the Admin speak of WMDs and democracy - no, morons, sorry. I can tell that's not why you're doing this, because if it was WMDs, you wouldn't wait. And democracy is so freaking overused as an answer it's obviously a lie. Would a more complex rationale be less amenable to soundbites, and maybe less of a feel-good? Yeah. But it'd be better for the country if we were to up our debate by a good bit.

3. The acquisition system is broken. It's a pathetic joke by this point, and needs severe reform from the root levels. We have got to find a way to untangle ourselves from the massive prime contractors we're dealing with. The services need in-house acquisition and contract management ability to a much greater extent - honestly, we should probably plan on needing to have engineering and design capabilities the equal of contractors, so that we can perform oversight. Relatedly: The thought comes to mind, in regards to supply shortages: We have the Defense Production Act. Why not use it, to force the manufacturers to work 24/7/366, for eample?

4. Languages. The old thing where a kid can go into the military at age 18 and come out at 21-22, maybe have gone overseas, and still speak only English fluently...Must die a rapid death. Whether it means issuing every new enlistee and ROTC cadet a copy of Rosetta Stone or expanding on-base language training (or, my preference, putting our tech-obsession towards improving language training by a massive extent) or whatever: Every soldier, by end of their first tour of duty, should be conversationally fluent in at least one language besides English - Fluent being defined as "No, I don't need a translator to talk to a native speaker of said language".

5. On contractors: If OIF has not made us allergic of contractors on the battlefield, we're hopeless. I must admit a liking of the British system, where all contractor personnel in the war zone are actually members of the reserves, under military orders and subject to military discipline while they're on contract. At the very least, every contractor that supports deployed forces, or is otherwise acting for the USG within an area where deployed forces are operating, should be under the UCMJ and under military command.