Guest Post fromWESTHAWK
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 Westhawk
Tomorrow Admiral Michael Mullen, USN will be sworn in as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Admiral Mullen takes the top U.S. military billet at a very difficult time:
1. The U.S. is bogged down in one division-sized (Afghanistan) and one corps-sized (Iraq) counterinsurgency operation.
2. The totality of U.S. ground combat power is committed to these two operations; only in extremis is it usable for another surprise contingency.
3. With the exception of main battle tanks, the Army and Marine Corps need to rebuild or repurchase virtually all of their ground vehicles.
4. Secretary Gates and the Congress want to expand the U.S. ground force headcount by at least 92,000 at a time when recruit quality has plunged compared to just a few years ago.
5. Sufficient funds are not likely to exist to fulfill the Navy’s shipbuilding program.
6. Controversy remains over the relevance and necessity of the F-18, F-22, and F-35 programs.
7. There is a large doubt among defense analysts whether the current plan for the U.S. military force structure is even relevant to likely U.S. security threats and contingencies over the 15 years.
8. Admiral Mullen’s two predecessors as Chairman were widely regarded as excessively submissive to their civilian masters.
9. The Department of Defense receives minimal assistance from the rest of the government as it attempts to complete its missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
There are doubtless many more entries one could add to this list. Glancing at this list and reflecting on the very mediocre record tallied by U.S. political-military operations during the past 60 years, one is inclined to wonder whether the National Security Act of 1947, which created the current Joint Chiefs arrangement, is responsible for any of these problems.
What is the cause of the string of disappointing U.S. military outcomes since World War II? Is it because the standing U.S. military since then has been too large, too bureaucratic, and too slow to adapt? Is it because American’s enemies have learned how to function in the modern world better than the U.S. government has? Is it because America’s civilian leadership since World War II has failed to understand the uses and limitations of military power and has committed America’s armed forces to inappropriate missions or in inappropriate ways?
Admiral Mullen’s most important role as Chairman is to be the President’s top military advisor. Second, he is to work with the service chiefs, the President, and the Congress to organize and prepare the armed forces for the tasks they will face. If America’s problems applying its military force are due to the causes listed in the previous paragraph, the duties of the Chairman’s job should cover those problem sources. In theory, at least.
Are America’s problems with political-military operations due to a flawed organizational structure? Or is it a problem with the people appointed (and elected) to fill the boxes on the organizational chart?
Will Admiral Mullen make a difference?
He reports directly to the War Czar (currently General Petraeus), who reports to Congress on what Cheney is doing in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteLooks a bit like Howdy Doody.
ReplyDeleteHope the Ghost of Edgar Bergen is not in charge.
"Stage Door Canteen"
ReplyDeleteThe real Stage Door Canteen on 44th Street could not be used for the filming as it was too busy receiving real servicemen.
The storyline of the film follows several women who volunteer for the Canteen and who must adhere to strict rules of conduct, the most important of which is that while their job is to provide friendly companionship to and be dance partners for the (often nervous) men who are soon to be sent into combat, no romantic fraternization is allowed. One volunteer who confesses to only becoming involved in the Canteen in order to be discovered by one of the Hollywood stars in attendance, ultimately finds herself falling in love with one of the soldiers.
Star appearances range from momentary cameos (such as Johnny Weissmuller, seen working in the canteen's kitchen) to more substantial roles such as Katharine Hepburn, who helps advance the plot.
"Rudy Vallee’s Royal Gelatin Hour"
ReplyDeleteWhen Bergen asked a local carpenter to create a dummy, the wisecracking Charlie McCarthy was born. The duo began their career as talent show headliners, performing in Chicago while Bergen attended Northwestern University. Bergen eventually left Northwestern to concentrate on performing, but Charlie received an honorary degree from the school in 1938, a “Master of Innuendo and Snappy Comebacks.”
Bergen and McCarthy made their radio debut on Rudy Vallee’s Royal Gelatin Hour in 1936 and were an instant success.
It was already late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in South Dakota asked
ReplyDeletetheir new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild. Since he was a chief in
a modern society he had never been taught the old secrets.
When he looked at the sky he couldn't tell what the winter was going to be like.
Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going
to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared.
Being a practical leader, after several days he got an idea. He went to the phone booth,
called the National Weather Service and asked, "Is the coming winter going to be
cold?"
"It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold," the meteorologist at the
weather service responded.
So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order
to be prepared.
A week later he called the National Weather Service again. "Does it still look like
it is going to be a very cold winter?"
"Yes," the man at National Weather Service again replied, "it's going to be
a very cold winter."
The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of
firewood they could find.
Two weeks later the chief called the National Weather Service again.
"Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?"
"Absolutely," the man replied. "It's looking more and more like it is
going to be one of the coldest winters we've ever seen."
"How can you be so sure?" the chief asked.
The weatherman replied, "The Indians are collecting firewood like crazy."
Always remember this whenever you get advice from a government official!!!!!!!
Doug:
ReplyDeleteOn the way to your Hitch link, I was sidetracked first by the Kidman layout then the Annie Liebovitch gallery on the new Hollywood film noir movie. A lot easier to look at than Hitchens in mud cake.
This might be better than a border fence, if word gets out.
ReplyDeleteDoug, you have to get up to speed. It is a matter "of morals and world domination through coercion", don't forget that. Don't forget that when considering the totalitarianisms around the world that we have fought. And defeated.
ReplyDeletexxxxxxxx
Rat, good joke, the kind that makes sense to me!
Amend that to "global domination through coercion" and you have it right, Doug.
ReplyDeleteMs. T.--ones heart goes out to a guy like that. What to do, what to do?
ReplyDelete1/10 of Texas planted in THIS CROP would replace 25% of our nation's gasoline.
ReplyDeleteYou ain't gonna believe this one, Rat!
2,000 gallons per acre per annum
ReplyDeleteWhut hoppened to our Blogroll, Buppy?
ReplyDeleteI think we should have years ago initiated a round table discussion, say at Geneva, with Bill Clinton, G.H.W Bush and some other luminaries on our side, and Ahmadinejad and the Iranians on the other, to begin a dialogue on these issues. I think that when one is not feeling well, one should eat fresh food, and get a lot of rest.
ReplyDeleteThat looks like one heck of a plant, Rufus.
ReplyDeleteDon't need much water, either.
ReplyDelete1. The U.S. is bogged down in one division-sized (Afghanistan) and one corps-sized (Iraq) counterinsurgency operation.
ReplyDeleteForces from both places should be withdrawn immediately. There's no rational reason to keep them there.
-
2. The totality of U.S. ground combat power is committed to these two operations; only in extremis is it usable for another surprise contingency.
See above.
-
3. With the exception of main battle tanks, the Army and Marine Corps need to rebuild or repurchase virtually all of their ground vehicles.
Nonsense.
-
4. Secretary Gates and the Congress want to expand the U.S. ground force headcount by at least 92,000 at a time when recruit quality has plunged compared to just a few years ago.
See above.
-
5. Sufficient funds are not likely to exist to fulfill the Navy’s shipbuilding program.
Patrolling the high seas should not be a responsibility just for the US and its Navy. It should be carried by ALL trade partners. Those that refuse should be levied with additional tariffs to cover the cost.
-
6. Controversy remains over the relevance and necessity of the F-18, F-22, and F-35 programs.
Both the F22 and F35 are obsolete programs. Air superiority is gained by over the horizon Air-to-Air missile capability. Such missiles can be mounted on any air platform.
-
7. There is a large doubt among defense analysts whether the current plan for the U.S. military force structure is even relevant to likely U.S. security threats and contingencies over the 15 years.
The real security threat is Jihadism and the dollar deficit. The military as a giant consumer of petrol contributes significantly to both. Certainly the US defense structure is top heavy, since it has long ago become one giant welfare program.
-
8. Admiral Mullen’s two predecessors as Chairman were widely regarded as excessively submissive to their civilian masters.
If military commanders have problems with their civilian masters they should resign.
-
9. The Department of Defense receives minimal assistance from the rest of the government as it attempts to complete its missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Most government agencies are worse than useless. These agencies can and should be eliminated. For starters: CIA, DOS, NIS, IRS, DHS, NASA.
"What is the cause of the string of disappointing U.S. military outcomes since World War II?"
ReplyDeleteMy short and probably incorrect answer: Cultural changes have sapped the American people of the will to fight.
good response mat!
ReplyDeleteWOBBLY: Cultural changes have sapped the American people of the will to fight.
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, US leaders have been nosing around in other country's civil wars, casting Americans in the role the redcoats played in the earliest wars of this country.
I dunno. The US involvement in Vietnam was critical to Southeast Asia, especially my own country. Otherwise we would have been swamped in a red tide all the way from China. Heck, LKY admitted it himself.
ReplyDeleteAlso unfortunately, most people here even my country don't realize that, even if our leaders do. Much of the anti-americanism here is knee jerk, shaped by CNN and BBC propaganda, and more than a bit of silly holdover chinese pride. Push the critics a bit and you realize they know absolutely nothing.
Tes, you make an interesting argument.
ReplyDeleteThose that want to fight, should be provided with the means to do so. Those that do not want to fight, should equally enjoy their decision. The problem with American intervention is that it comes too late. As an example, if weapons were provided to the Kurds, Saddam could have been defeated without an American ground incursion. I don’t know enough about Southeast Asia to make a sound judgement, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the same applied there.
There were roughly an equal number of Tories in the colonies, early on. Mass evacuations out of New York City when the British fleet sailed, it was packed with Royalist refugees.
ReplyDeleteIf the British had vigorously pursued Washington after New York and destroyed his Army, instead of allowing it seasonal sanctuary to regroup, the results of that Revolution would have been vastly different.
The Redcoats would have been the heros, in the history of the Americas.
I thought this comment was interesting:
ReplyDelete"With the exception of main battle tanks, the Army and Marine Corps need to rebuild or repurchase virtually all of their ground vehicles."
True enough, but somewhat misleading. The United States Military has employed the HMMV (Hummer) series of vehicles for over two plus decades now, and has literally hundreds of thousands of these vehicles fully functional; however, most of them sit unused in motor pools across the United States of America, while the military scrambles to field systems that provide Soldiers more protection against RPGs, IEDs and the like. The reason for this, more than anything, is a lack of prioritization in the decade leading up to 9/11 and the aftermath; billions of dollars were invested and lost in systems like the Crusader artillery piece, the comanche helicopter, and the like; rather than prepare for situations like the military was experiencing again and again in the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti, and elsewhere, the big ground force expenditures were on outmoded artillery pieces and helicopters whose role had largely been usurped by newly fielded aircraft (ie UAVs).
SO instead of developing better body armor and lighter, easily deployable vehicles that afforded some protection, the Army prepared to fight in the Fulda Gap.
All that being said, the military has done a decent job of catching up in the materiel department. Better body armor continues too be fielded all the time (and to all Soldiers and Marines), the military continues to produce/procure improved light armored vehicles and communications systems have improved dramatically over the past decade as well.
And Wobbly guy, I disagree wholeheartedly with your hypothesis that the reasons for post World War II outcomes is a lack of will in the American people. The American people still field a military that is first rate, motivated and lethal; strip all the technological advantages away from a Marine Corps or Army infantry company and put them on any battlefield and they still be deadly.
American history is replete with examples of mixed outcomes of U.S. military campaigns. Read Max Boot's "Savage Wars of Peace" for many numerous examples of the latter. WWII is the exception, not the rule, in U.S. military ventures. And the Cold War followed fairly quickly on the heels of WWII, how awesome was that??
Bob,
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with the M113?
Wait, won't UAVs be also far more effective in the Fulda Gap, packed to the gills with missiles and ready to take out enemy armor, artillery, and aricraft?
ReplyDeleteCan somebody comment on the effectiveness of UAVs in Europe in the event of Putin getting frisky?
Bob W. - Only a segment of the American population still has the guts and courage to fight/support a sustained war. Note my use of the word 'sustained'. Most americans support a legal war now, but only if it is easily won ala Gulf War 1.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not mistaken, I remember Kaplan saying that the majority of the US armed forces is drawn from the rural and the South, much less so from the urban cities. These are your warrior stocks, but everybody else is soft(relatively). And it is the majority that control the government that directs the military.
If it wasn't for the surge that brought some good news from Iraq, the american people might well have given up on the venture and we'd be hearing very different rhetoric from the presidential candidates.
And we'd seen what happens when the US loses its nerve: Vietnam. Don't blame Carter and the other lame-duck presidents, blame the voters who got them in. Why should it be just their fault?