UK military problems & policies

[Ken White]

SWJ ED:

We did in WW II because that was the nature of that war; everyone that could be put in a uniform donned one and the Armed Forces did virtually all of it -- to include the OSS mission. That was by design and made sense at the time due to the total mobilization.

The only time between now and then that such effort has been required was in Viet Nam. There was no total mobilization and there were plenty of civilian agency folks involved to include such minor exotics as Agriculture, Commerce and Labor; Sate was heavy in it, USAID was was literally everywhere and into everything and the CIA was a civilian agency. I don't know the numbers, I do know there were a slew of civilian employees of the US Government all over SEA.

We let all that lapse because we were going to eschew nation building and COIN. Add to that the movement of the GeoComs into the foreign policy arena by default -- someone had to do it and they were there -- and the result was the chaos of mid 2003 and 2004. Yes, the Armed Forces filled the gap again by default because someone had to do it. That they have generally done it well is a tribute to all involved.

There is no question that in any entry operation, a degree of Armed Forces involvement in the Phase IV process is required for a period of time and that complete interface with that process will be needed as long as the US is in that nation. There's also no question that a capability to do that is required. Nor should there be any question that units and people can be trained to fight a war, enforce a peace and pass out food and blankets. That can and should be done.

That does not however address the problem. That problem is, simply, numbers. Force levels are finite. Every uniformed person devoted to post conflict duties is one less available for other missions. Therefor, it only seems sensible that a reinvention of a wheel is required and more robust civilian structure to cope with the long term FID / nationbuilding / restoration must be developed and sustained. It seems likely that similar requirements may crop up in the near future and that if they do, a full mobilization is unlikely. I submit that to take the attitude that we, the Armed Forces, "Can Do" it is to invite and allow others who'd rather not be involved to escape their responsibilities.

Far worse and more dangerous, it will also adversely impact, possibly far more significantly than today given another situation, the ability of the Services to fulfill their responsibilities.

The issue is not "can we do it" or "we have to, there is no one else" -- the issue is who should do it. The Armed forces, if given the mission will do it, no question -- but is it really their job? Should it be their reponsibility? Been my observation that if one is willing to accept a responsibility, even if it is not rightly theirs, the world will readily accede to that and walk away. I think that's probably the genesis of the phrase 'mission creep' and the word 'overcommitment.' Just because it can work doesn't mean it's right -- or should remain that way...

This is one of those 'be careful what you want, you may get it' issues.