Hollowing Out The U.S. Military Again

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, center, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, left, and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, meet with senior Defense Department and combatant commanders at the Pentagon, June 14, 2013. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo

A Hollow Military Again? -- James Kitfield, National Journal

The looming postwar drawdown of the U.S. armed forces will prove the most challenging of modern times.

Even in the best of times, U.S. leaders have stumbled trying to manage the tricky transition between war and what comes after. Following every “war to end all wars,” the American people demand a “peace dividend” that often cuts defense spending too deep for too long, eroding military preparedness. Congress resists shuttering unneeded bases, stopping unnecessary weapons production, or decommissioning excess reserve units that represent jobs in home districts. The result is military forces that are unbalanced and inefficient. The Pentagon plans to fight the last war, only with a smaller force, rather than adjusting adequately to new limitations and threats on the horizon.

Read more ....

My Comment: A depressing read .... because hollowing out the U.S. military is happening .... compounded further by the huge debts and obligations that the U.S. government is now faced with but not willing to confront.

The U.S. Military's Mission And Size Is Downsizing

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama visit Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Va., Sept. 10, 2011. Section 60 is reserved for military personnel who have lost their lives while fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Obama Transforms Mission As Military Struggles To Remake Itself -- Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer, NBC News

In two major speeches, President Obama sent strong signals this week about what he envisions for the military in a post-Sept. 11 era, a new path which can be described in a word: downsized.

The president said the United States will have stricter limits on drone attacks overseas and telegraphed a new emphasis on fighting terrorism, based more on focusing on targeted, isolated threats and less on an over-arching projection of force.

Just as the government’s mission is changing, so is that of the U.S. military.

Both are shrinking in scale.

During Obama’s four and a half years in White House, military spending has declined and the military active duty force has shrunk by about 29,000. American soldiers and Marines are no longer engaged in combat in Iraq and in Afghanistan their presence will soon dwindle to a residual force. “A perpetual war -- through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments -- will prove self-defeating,” the president said in a speech Thursday at the National Defense University in Washington.

Read more ....

My Comment: The U.S. .... and the world for that matter .... is now entering uncharted space. And unlike the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of their military and foreign policy mission (which .... speaking as one whose nationality is Russian .... I was relieved to see) .... the downsizing of America's military and it's mission abroad is making me nervous.

Are U.S. Military Leaders Too Cautious?

The Real Scandal Of Benghazi Is The Plodding Caution Of U.S. Military Leaders -- Bing West, Best Defense /Foreign Policy

Re Benghazi and the military (a matter of much lesser import than the deceptive talking points): On ABC on 12 May, George Will and retired General Cartwright excused the military by saying 10 hours was not enough time to react. The general said it takes up to "a day or two" to arm an F-16, file flight plans, arrange for refueling, etc.

Therefore the solution is to pre-stage the right kinds of forces, which requires a much larger military and a knowledge beforehand about the location and severity of the threat. By this reasoning, we do not have general purpose forces; we have special purpose forces.

Benghazi thus raises the question: Do we need more forces staged around the world or do we need senior officers who can respond to emergencies outside their normal checklists?

Read more ....

My Comment: Kudos to Thomas E. Ricks for having Bing West as a guest commentator. As to his analysis .... Bing West is on the money.

Is The U.S. In Danger Of Breaking It's Military For The Sake Of Debt Reduction

President Barack Obama shakes hands with Sailors, Marines and other service members after delivering his remarks during a rally held on board Naval Air Station Jacksonville. (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Anthony C. Casullo/Released)

Obama's Dangerous Defense Experiment -- Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, L.A. Times

The United States has cut down the military so rapidly and so blindly, we're in danger of breaking the back of the force.

Mindful of the repeated rounds of cuts the military has already endured, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, recently delivered a grim warning: "If you want [the military] to be doing what it's doing today, then we can't give you another dollar."

His worries reflect reductions that started in 2009 and have reached crippling levels, even in President Obama's proposals to avert sequestration. I take the general at his word, but I am concerned that the president does not.

Read more ....

My Comment: Even if one eliminates the U.S. defense budget in it's entirety .... the U.S. will still be running massive budget deficits. America's debt problem is huge, and while it may be politically expedient to focus on programs like cutting the military and increasing taxes on the top 5% .... the problem will still be there.

Firing Generals

2012 State of the Union Address. Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff listen to the president outline his goals for 2012. USA Today

Firing Generals -- Jim Lacey, NRO

When is a general to blame? And even if he is, should he be fired?

To paraphrase Shakespeare: “The first thing we do, let’s fire all the generals.”

This is the basic prescription of military journalist and writer Tom Ricks, who, in his new book, The Generals, blames our lack of success in Iraq and Afghanistan on the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s and our political leaders’ having lost the ability or willingness to fire failing generals. Unfortunately, many commentators are accepting this formula as true without asking some hard questions, such as: When and for what reasons should a general be fired? Should the Continental Congress, for instance, have sent George Washington into an early retirement after his dismal performance defending New York City? Should Lincoln have cashiered Grant after his less-than-stellar performance at Shiloh, or possibly a bit later, when he wasted six months flailing about in failed attempts to approach Vicksburg? Was General Lee ready for the scrap heap after his early failures in what is now West Virginia?

Read more ....

My Comment: An excellent analysis and commentary. My must read post for the day.

The United States Cannot Afford An All-Voluntary Military

The Air Force Honor Guard Drill Team rehearses on Joint Base Andrews, Md., Jan. 11, 2013, to prepare for the 57th presidential inaugural parade. President Barack Obama, who was elected to serve a second term, will be inaugurated Jan. 21, in Washington, D.C. More than 1,000 airmen will provide support for inaugural events. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Erin O'Shea

Paying For The All-Voluntary Military -- Walter Pincus, Washington Post

The United States can’t sustain the pay, allowances, retirement and health benefits that the all-volunteer military force and their families enjoy, according to a study by the Defense Department’s Reserve Forces Policy Board.

“The all-in cost of the all-volunteer force is one of the time-ticking bombs that could explode our defense capabilities if not dealt with responsibly,” said Arnold L. Punaro, chairman of the board, a former top staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee and retired Marine Corps major general.

Read more ....

My Comment: I know that cuts are going to happen .... I also know that this is not going to go down well .... soldiers losing their benefits at a time when politicians are keeping their pensions and benefits untouched.

Is This What Our Top Military Leaders Are Thinking?

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, brief the press at the Pentagon, Jan. 10, 2013. Panetta and Dempsey discussed the effects of sequestration if it were to take effect at the end of March. DOD photo by Erin Kirk-Cuomo

Unimaginable Statements And Signs Of Surrender -- Information Dissemination

As Leon Panetta approaches retirement I just want to say that I believe he has been one of the great public servants in modern American history. Until he retires however, he is still the Secretary of Defense and unlike some folks who approach retirement, he has not 'checked out' mentally and is still actively engaged in the responsibilities of his job. This time sequestration.

“We really have no choice but to prepare for the worst,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at a Pentagon news briefing Thursday. “Regardless of what Congress does or fails to do, we still have an obligation to protect this country...”

Earlier this month, Congress came to an agreement to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, but instead of eliminating the threat of sequestration, the deal simply delayed the automatic, across-the-board cuts until March 1.

Read more ....

My Comment: This is not our father's Army anymore.

11 Years Of War Have Taken Their Toll On The U.S. Military

U.S. troops receive a pre-mission brief on Forward Operating Base Farah before a mission in Farah City, Afghanistan, Dec. 2, 2012. The soldiers are assigned to Provincial Reconstruction Team Farah. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Petty Officer Josh Ives

The Post-9/11 Wars Have Taken Their Toll On The U.S. Military -- David Frum, National Post

Has the U.S. military been pushed too far?

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have taken a heavy toll on the U.S. armed forces.

About 6,650 Americans have died in those two wars, as have 1,390 allied personnel, Canadians prominent among them.

That’s tragically a big number. The roster of the slain would have stretched even longer, but for the amazing advances in military armour and military medicine over the past generation.

More than 50,000 Americans have been wounded in battle since 9/11 — 16,000 of them so seriously that they would certainly have died had they suffered an equivalent wound in any prior conflict.

Read more ....

My Comment: Yup .... it has been a long 11 years.

A Brutal And Blunt Commentary On America's Military Leadership

General John R. Allen, left, incoming commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)/U.S. Forces- Afghanistan (USFOR-A) and General David H. Petraeus, commander, ISAF/USFOR-A, attend a meeting in Kabul, Afghanistan in this July 9, 2011 file photograph. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, is under investigation for alleged inappropriate communication with a woman at the center of the scandal involving former CIA Director David Petraeus.Nov 14, 2012. Photo: Reuters

Pentagon Peacocks -- G. Murphy Donovan, American Thinker

The Davis Petraeus saga is another urban legend; a myth about a great man felled by a single flaw or indiscretion. The truth is that Petraeus is a bit player in a larger, uglier drama, the political corruption the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and that exclusive four star glut that sits atop the military. And the rot didn't start with Petraeus.

Recall Army Chief-of-Staff George Casey taking to the airways to rationalize the Fort Hood Islamist massacre in 2009. Somehow "diversity" and Muslim sensitivities were more important than twin dangers of domestic sedition or troop safety on American bases. Casey was thrown at the Sunday chat shows, like the more recent Susan Rice mendacity tour, to spin a politically correct message.

Read more ....

My Comment: Ouch.

The Revolving Door Of U.S. Generals In Afghanistan

General Petraeus in Afghanistan

Afghan Revolving Door: 5 US Generals, 5 Years -- Yahoo News/AP

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — For former CIA director David Petraeus, it was a one-year stint as top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. His replacement is scheduled to leave next year after 18 months in the job.

And now the sex scandal that draws them together — Petraeus' career toppled and Marine Gen. John Allen's possibly on hold — also has placed greater attention to the quick turnover of American battlefield chiefs in the 11-year war.

Read more ....

My Comment: This constant flow of new faces must perturb our Afghan allies to no end. How can you establish relationships when you know that he or she will be gone in a year. But then again .... who wants to work/live in Afghanistan for 2,3, or 4 years .... definitely not today`s group of generals.

Why We Need To Select Better Generals

General Failure -- Thomas E. Ricks, The Atlantic

Looking back on the troubled wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many observers are content to lay blame on the Bush administration. But inept leadership by American generals was also responsible for the failure of those wars. A culture of mediocrity has taken hold within the Army’s leadership rank—if it is not uprooted, the country’s next war is unlikely to unfold any better than the last two.

On June 13, 1944, a few days after the 90th Infantry Division went into action against the Germans in Normandy under the command of Brigadier General Jay MacKelvie, MacKelvie’s superior officer, Major General J. Lawton Collins, went on foot to check on his men. “We could locate no regimental or battalion headquarters,” he recalled with dismay. “No shelling was going on, nor any fighting that we could observe.” This was an ominous sign, as the Battle of Normandy was far from decided, and the Wehrmacht was still trying to push the Americans, British, and Canadians, who had landed a week earlier, back into the sea.

Read more ....

My Comment: A long but sobering essay. Read it all.

Why Are U.S. Troops Still Stationed In Europe?

Why Are American Troops Still Stationed In Europe? -- Doug Bandow, Forbes

REGENSBURG, GERMANY—Washington has sharply reduced the number of American combat forces in Europe since the end of the Cold War, but a large U.S. military footprint remains. The Soviet “Evil Empire” has collapsed, Eastern Europe has switched sides, and America’s European allies now possess a collective GDP and population larger than the U.S. Why are American military personnel still stationed on the continent?

Regensburg once was a Roman garrison town and is a celebrated tourist site. More important for Americans, nearby sits the U.S. Army’s Hohenfels training facility.

Read more ....

My Comment: I agree with the above question .... why are American troops still stationed in Europe? If the roles were reversed .... Russian troops in eastern Europe .... we would all be asking ourselves .... what is that all about. But in this case .... the Russians are smarter. They are not spending (and wasting) money on defending Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, etc .... we are.

Today's U.S. Generals Do Not Measure Up To U.S. Generals Of The Past (Book Review)

A Few Good Leaders of Men -- Andrew Roberts, Wall Street Journal

No military leader can be expected to win without bloodshed.

"American generals were managed very differently in World War Two than they were in subsequent wars," writes Thomas E. Ricks, the former Pentagon correspondent of the Washington Post. "During World War Two, senior American commanders were given a few months in which to succeed, be killed or wounded, or be replaced."

Mr. Ricks rightly puts this policy down to Gen. George C. Marshall, U.S. Army chief of staff from 1939 to 1945 and one of the chief architects of the defeat of the Axis. During World War II, 16 generals were relieved of their command out of the 155 who commanded divisions, as well as no fewer than five corps commanders. By contrast, the most senior soldier to be relieved during the eight years that the United States fought in Iraq after 2003 was a colonel, Joe Dowdy. "As matters stand now," Mr. Ricks quotes another colonel saying, "a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses his part in a war."

Read more ....

My Comment: My favorite general (historically speaking) is this one .... followed very closely by this one. The U.S. general that I have always admired the most .... is this one.

Facing Change, No Bold Moves From The Pentagon

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta speaks with sailors aboard the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis in Bremerton, Wash., Aug. 22, 2012. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo

With Military At ‘Turning Point,’ Defense Chief Leon Panetta Avoids Bold Moves -- Greg Jaffe, Washington Post

For most of the past year, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has stressed that the vast military complex over which he presides is at a “strategic turning point.”

A decade of grinding guerrilla war is drawing to a close. Defense budgets are shrinking. The implication is that major changes are coming to the military.

So far, however, Panetta has cut few major weapons programs and steered clear of any bold moves aimed at remaking the military for this new era. The watchword for Panetta’s tenure, senior defense officials said, has been “humble.”

Read more ....

My Comment: Everyone is waiting for the results of the U.S. elections .... the Pentagon brass included.

F-22 And The F-35 Are Two Very Troubled Fighter Jets

F-35 and F-22. Photo from Military Photos And Photoshops

Two Very Troubled Fighter Jets -- New York Times editorial

Economic pressures are forcing justifiable cuts in military spending. The budget control act passed by Congress in 2011 mandated $480 billion in cuts over 10 years, with the possibility of $500 billion more in reductions, beginning next January. After a decade of unrestrained military spending, the Pentagon needs this rebalancing.

With such cuts looming, it is more important than ever to ensure that every defense dollar is spent wisely. Yet problems with two major weapons show how far the Pentagon is from that goal and how dysfunctional its procurement system remains.

Read more ....

My Comment: The New York Times is a bit late in covering the problems of the F-35 and F-22 program .... but this editorial is a start.

Embracing A Soldier's Ambition

U.S. Army Should Embrace, Not Repress, Soldiers’ Ambition -- Bloomberg

In his landmark 19th-century treatise “On War,” Carl von Clausewitz asked “whether history has ever known a great general who was not ambitious; whether, indeed, such a figure is conceivable.”

Clausewitz knew that ambition had gotten a bum rap: “Other emotions,” he explained, “may be more common and more venerated -- patriotism, idealism, vengeance, enthusiasm of every kind --but they are no substitute for a thirst for fame and honor.”

Read more ....

My Comment: I agree .... the U.S. Army should embrace (not suppress) a soldier's ambition. But in today's culture .... this is not vogue .... especially when the Commander in Chief himself talks about "the poverty of ambition" (see above video).

Can We Have A Smaller And Smarter Military?

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno observes soldiers conducting military operations during an urban terrain exercise on Fort Campbell, Ky., April 12, 2012. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Teddy Wade

A Smaller, Smarter Military -- Doyle McManus, L.A. Times

The best-equipped army in the world can still lose a war if it doesn't understand the people it's fighting.

President Obama has called a halt to the decade-long rise in defense spending that began after Sept. 11, and has proposed shrinking the Army and Marine Corps by about 14%.

Congressional Republicans (not to mention Mitt Romney) say that would be disastrous and that it could jeopardize American troops abroad.

But the military brass has stood behind Obama — literally. When the president announced his proposals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff lined up behind him in the Pentagon's briefing room. There has been no audible dissent from the officer corps.

Read more ....

My Comment: I take issue with Mr. Mamanus' assertion that ....

.... But the military brass has stood behind Obama — literally. When the president announced his proposals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff lined up behind him in the Pentagon's briefing room. There has been no audible dissent from the officer corps.

Trust me .... if Mitt Romney is the next President and he proposes a significant increase in defense spending .... there will also be no audible dissent from the officer corps.

As to what is my opinion ..... I have always been saying that trillion dollar deficits are unsustainable, and everything will need to be cut (besides but include defense spending). As to a "smaller and smarter" military .... good luck in accomplishing that.

How Did An American Hero Become A War Crime Suspect?

At Home, Asking How ‘Our Bobby’ Became War Crime Suspect -- New York Times

He was not the star, just a well-regarded young man who seemed to try to do the right thing. That was Robert Bales, “our Bobby,” friends said. He was a busy, popular kid, but he made time for the autistic man down the block. Other neighborhood boys admired him. As a high school linebacker, he was good enough to be captain, but also gracious enough to help a more talented player take over his starting position. It was good for the team, he said.

That solid-guy reputation followed him into the Army infantry. He joined at the relatively seasoned age of 27, just a few weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and became respected for his maturity and calm, including in battle. “He was a damn good leader and a damn good soldier,” said Zachary Parsons, who served with Staff Sergeant Bales in Iraq in 2007.

Read more ....

Update: The Sergeant in Question: A Portrait of the Accused Shooter of Kandahar -- Time

My Comment: What strikes everyone about this case is that he is .... quintessentially speaking .... the boy next door. If it could happen to him .... it could happen to anyone.

In response, I have say yes and no.

This soldier has clearly gone through a lot .... multiple deployments, being injured in Iraq, stress at home, redeployment to a war zone that he thought that he was not going to be sent to, being deployed thousands of miles away while his financial problems back home escalated, the stress of seeing close comrades injured or killed. But while these experiences are extreme, many others in the military have also experienced them, and they have never gone out and committed a war crime.

In the end .... when the story is finished .... I suspect that this case will become the poster child on what went wrong for the US in Afghanistan .... and more to the point (and one that I can only hope for) .... a realization on the limits of putting our soldiers into a situation where the conflict appears to be perpetual .... with no end in sight.

Too Many Wars With Too Few Soldiers (Commentary)

Afghan commandos conduct a two-day presence patrol in Sar-e Takht village in Afghanistan's Farah province, Feb. 27, 2012. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Kyle McNally

Too Many Wars, Too Few U.S. Soldiers -- Robert H. Scales, Washington Post

Robert H. Scales, a retired U.S. Army major general and former commandant of the Army War College, is president of the consulting firm Colgen.

I guess I knew it would eventually come down to this: Blame the Army’s institutions in some way for the horrific and senseless slaughter of 16 innocent Afghan civilians in Kandahar, allegedly by a U.S. infantry non-commissioned officer (NCO). In their search for a villain, the media seems to be focusing now on Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state, where the accused soldier was stationed before his fourth deployment to a combat zone.

Before we get too involved in attacking institutions, perhaps it might be right and proper to suggest that the underlying issue here is not about failure of our Army. Perhaps the issue might be that no institutional effort can make up for trying over the past 10 years to fight too many wars with too few soldiers?

Read more ....

My Comment: A General with 40 years experience of fighting wars sums it up perfectly in this post on what is happening in today's U.S. military.

Is America's All-Volunteer Force About To End?

Soldiers negotiate a wire obstacle during an assault to secure a mock village as part of premobilization training on Fort Drum, N.Y., Sept. 24, 2011. Army National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Peter Towse

Defense-Cut Projections Seen As Risk To Recruitment -- Washington Times

Looming defense budget cuts not only threaten new weapons, ships and planes, but also endanger the all-volunteer force itself.

The Pentagon has been able to attract high-quality recruits by offering a buffet of financial goodies: free college education, lifetime pension checks after 20 years of service, and access to low-cost health care for retirees.

But analysts warn that projected defense cuts of $1 trillion over 10 years would force the Pentagon to curtail such inducements, which would weaken its ability to attract sufficient high-quality personnel for the 2.2-million-strong active and reserve force.

Read more ....

My Comment: Sadly .... with defense cuts and a lack of money in the system for recruitment .... we are now witnessing the end of an all-volunteer force. Soldiers have families and responsibilities .... if they cannot meet the basics, they will then look for alternative employment. The end result .... a depleted military filled with individuals who will only look at the military as a short term step to something better rather than a career.