Blueprints for a future military are piling up fast in Washington, D.C. It seems like not a week goes by that a new report isnt released by one think tank or another with the hope of grabbing the attention of defense aides with the incoming Obama administration. While some of these reports are eminently discardable, others actually have some value, if not for their prescriptions, then at least for who wrote the report.
An example of the latter is a new report titled Building a Military for the 21st Century, put out by the Center for American Progress, a largely Democratic staffed think tank that is also pulling double duty with the Obama transition team. For that reason alone it might carry more weight than others. So lets unpack this one.
The report could be called a progressive agenda, as it aims to rein in defense spending, which it says is out of control, and calls for cutting the familiar list of gold plated weapons systems dreamed up during the Cold War. It says lack of fiscal discipline has created an environment where the services are free to spend as much as they want and buy whatever new weapon they fancy.
One of the most important ongoing debates in defense policy circles is over the types of wars the U.S. likely to fight in the future. One camp says protracted counterinsurgency campaigns in failed or failing states on the order of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will dominate. The other says the military must prepare for full scale conventional fights against a regional power, which basically comes down to one of three countries: China, Russia or Iran. The answer to that question reveals where an individual or institution is going with force structure recommendations.
The CAP report comes down squarely in the counterinsurgency and irregular warfare camp. While proficiency in conventional fire and maneuver skills, this applies to the ground forces of course, cannot be allowed to lapse, preparedness for stability operations should take precedence.
CAPs solution for bringing defense spending under control is a little fuzzy. They say pulling troops out of Iraq will save $140 billion over the next two years, although $22 billion will need to be redirected to operations in Afghanistan; much of the hoped for savings will come from cutting or slowing development of costly weapons programs.
Read the rest of this story over at DoD Buzz.
...
Ah, the “Progressives”. Such a wonderfully Orwellian name since they typically try and block all forms of actual progress.
I love it when rich Progressives try to raise energy prices for the rest of us and disarm our military. They feel guilty for their wealth so they try to punish the rest of us. Classy.
Germany has higher car and gas taxes (much higher) — and its automotive industry was forced to design more efficient vehicles (which — oh wonder — can actually be sold on the world market). Tax income by energy-related taxes replaces tax income on something else, so why not with a beneficiary side-effect?
BTW, the U.S. right wing has recently proved to progress only in one direction — south.
.
“America’s Defense Meltdown” — another relevant report, although not originating in a single think tank, but a network’s product.
I Haven’t read the entire report so I’m not going to make any sweeping judgments, but from reading their website I would say give or take, it’s pretty much in line with the approach being pushed by Robert Gates and company.
One contradiction that caught my attention was that they call arbitrarily setting defense spending at 4% bad policy(which it I agree with), but than do something just as arbitrary by saying,“The next administration should therefore keep the defense budget flat over the next four years, adjusting for inflation and fluctuations in the U.S. dollar.” Chalk it up once again to think tanks making the facts follow their politics.
How are we going to do this while we still fight two wars? Obama seems to feel a build up in Afghanistan is the way to go. That front historically shows signs of being even more opened ended and costly than Iraq. Equipment is also currently worn out and needs replacing.
They also mistakenly attribute all wasteful spending to the DOD. While the DOD needs to take responsibility for their lack of a real budget, I would throw most of the blame at past Congresses and the Executive branch. Pretending cutting
crap sorry but i forgot something this looks alot like a proposal that would say see we would never have to deal with a real opponent i mean reagular war far please its os wastful never happen.…Vietnam anyone? Korea anyone?
i have the answer make a balanced force and?.…train train train..
cause seriously wtf the UN does the peace keeping thing already i mean no accual wars happen under there watch and the light pewace keeping force thing works well for them?.…oh wait
It drives me mad when people say: “Counterinsurgency operations will dominate the next century, so we should focus the majority of our defence dollars on counterinsurgency weopons and tactics.” There is one fatal flaw to this. Last century, the United States was involved in only two major conventional wars against peer adversaries (WWI and WWII), and two smaller conventional wars with near-pears(Chinease-backed Korea and Soviet-backed Vietnam) Looking at these conlicts, it can be argued that major conventional war only occurs roughly once every twenty-five years. Sure, counterinsurgency opps will dominate, but if we let an adversary gain an advantage over the U.S in conventional power, then we risk fighting another long, bloody WWII type conflict. Since it is easier to adapt conventional forces to counter-insurgency forces than vice-versa, we should still devote the majority of our defence dollars towards winning the next conventional war.
“Counterinsurgency operations will dominate the next century, so we should focus the majority of our defense dollars on counterinsurgency weapons and tactics.“
I have problems with it for different reasons. The military should be used to wage war, not peace keep or occupy countries, which in essence is nation building. That’s what U.N. peacekeepers are for. Look at Israel’s performance in the 2006 Lebanon war to see what years of continuous occupation of the Occupied Territories has done to the Israeli military. We are focusing on becoming experts at occupying countries.
It really scares me when someone makes such a definitive statement about what war will look like for the next 100 years. 100 YEARS we might be invaded by Martians in 100 years, kidding of course. Think 1908 or 100 years ago. Horses and line infantry will be how war is fought for the next 100 years.
The US needs to prepare for all types of conflicts and not be so focused of any one type. The thing about near peer competitors is that the US cannot ignore or use other means to confront them. Meaning if China invades Taiwan or Iran launches missiles at Isreal the US pretty much has to act. However, about 99% of potential failed states can be ignored or left to the UN. My fear is a complete focus on counter-insurgency or failed states is just an excuse to justify downsizing the military and cutting needed weapons modernization.
Drake,
The problem with saying “we’ll only fight conventional wars” is that we’ve been saying that for decades and it doesn’t work. Why? Two reasons. 1) The enemy gets a vote to what kind of war it will be and 2) fighting a country, destroying its military and government and walking away without rebuilding it is a recipe for letting Al Qaeda types take over. Powell told Bush about Iraq “you break it, you bought it.” If we leave a country in anarchy after we win a war, we’re setting ourselves up for problems down the road.
————————————————-
And for those advocating leaving peacekeeping to the UN — have you seen their track record lately?
————————————————–
For those advocating we set a GDP % for spending — what if we don’t need that much money? Even at the 3% or so we spend now, we’re hundreds of billions in the red. Saying we should pile on billions more without defining what we need to spend the money on is horribly wasteful, especially for an organization that can’t manage its money already. Congress screws things up too by piling on both military and nonmilitary pork.
When I was taught financial management as a teen and military planning as an officer, I was told 1) define your mission, 2) decide what resources you need, and 3) set priorities. No branch of the government should get a dime of taxpayer money until they can fulfill those requirements.
“Shouldnt it be up to the men leading the soldiers and our military weather they should repeal dont ask dont tell? Not once not once have i heard a single military person i talk to say gays in the military is a good idea.“
They didn’t want African Americans in their ranks either. Why should it be up to a handful of bigots to decide which citizens get to defend the country they love?
Correction: What I said is that we should not focus future strategy around occupation(nation building).
Agreed that military occupation is a bad idea. There is a big difference (IMHO) between occupation and nation building if done correctly. If we get into a conventional war, win, and end up creating anarchy, then we better have a plan to set things right — whether we do it or get a lot of coalition help. With my UN comment, yes they have the mandate to do peacekeeping and nation building but they suck at it. I think if the US wants to depose regimes we don’t like and turn them into regimes we do like, then we better be prepared to do it ourselves.
If another country in Africa goes to shit on its own, then that’s the president’s call on whether setting it right requires our presence or let the UN have it. I just think Humpty Dumpty is our responsibility when its our army that broke him.
These intelligent idiots are what I like to call “Intellect held captive by Ideology”.
The best summation on the hazards of predicting future defense needs I ever heard was at the 25th Annual Hurley Military History Seminar last year. One of the two lecturers was Thomas A. Keaney, who went down a list of conflicts since 1900, and pointed out each one was basically ‘unseen’ 10–15 years before it happened, and then in retrospect each had signs that they could come about, but the signs wen’t unnoticed or maarginalized.
Bottom line. The war you get will be the one you didn’t plan for. I question the ideology behind this kind of ‘defense’ planning. If your plans are based upon NOT having the United States being the preeminent military power in the world with the full freedom to behave in a manner to protect and advance its national interests, then you are just looking to create a situation where somebody else can and will.
If anyone thinks this military looks anything like the Cold War military, they have no sense of history or perspective.
These guys are “tools” –whose tools are they?
Good Evening Folks,
The CAP gets it about right. The U.S. must be ready to deal with the full spectrum of possible military events the most likely at this time appears to be insurgency and its aftermath of stabilization and short duration occupation as the CAP indicates.
The thing not mentioned is how to deal with the insurgents. So far we have engaged in not to lost strategy who has taken Iraq longer then necessary to achieve stabilization and has yet to work in Afghanistan. In my opinion would be a fight to win strategy from the beginning of a conflict.
All out full scale conflict with a global power at this time, is the least likely military situation with in the short to medium future. The closest that we could come to this is being drawn into a regional conflict where we have only a limited interest. In that event our current land and navel forces are more then capable of dealing with the existing actors as we now know them. There is little need to advance capabilities ant further in this are then we already have.
As for short interceptors like the F-22 without nearby land bases they would be useless. Any foe that would consider drawing the U.S. into a conflict that would involve extensive air power would be very much aware of this limitation.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Better to be over-prepared and so avoid that pier conventional war and adapt to the non-conventional. When you are at disadvantage in pier competitor conventional war the cost is huge in blood and may even result in final ABSOLUTE defeat. When you are at disadvantage in non-conventional battle you usually can just adapt tactics but worst case you are forced to withdraw or go Roman.
It is better to prepare for the worst case and then adapt to the lesser than worst case any day of the week.
Maybe just maybe everyone should consider recent history were for the last 50yrs we have avoided major pier warfare almost entirely on the fact that is OUR GAME. Plan for the big show adapt to the little show.
Ohhh I remember now damm its late
Maybe the reason NON-conventional war is the only game of our enemy is that we are AT AND CURRENTLY HOLD/PLAN FOR OVERMATHCH of the pier conventional warfare. Conventional war is the one to avoid it cost not 3k in 4+ yrs it cost 30k in single river crossings.
I think we are forgetting that nuclear deterrence works. Why would a near peer fight us in a conventional war directly? Likely near peers all have nuclear weapons, so a direct conventional war would mean nuclear war. If there were a conflict, between near peers it would most likely be fought in a proxy war through a third party.
“God forbid anyone mention non-military approaches to problems, like actual human intelligence or humantarian aid, education.“
And they say Democrats are weak sisters when it comes to defense.
Okay, bust out Obama’s magical Kumbaya Doctrine and lets see if Putin, Chavez, Mugabe, bin Laden and Ahmadinijad don’t bust a gut laughing.
And here is for all the global warming ppl.…just because..hehe
no seriously best case yet against the whole evil ppl are causeing global warming
haha forgot linkage
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related
I READ the recommendations. The difference is I understand them.
Cherry picking from the list of things that need to be done is rather typical of the poseurs of the left. “Do this its easier”, “slow down that”, “push the envelope a little less”.
It’s called ‘slow rolling’, and it gives the opportunity for others to catch up and pass us by. But before that we’ll be faced with not being able to do what we need to do because some options are off the table because we will lack in some critical arrow in our quiver — like a beyond the beach capability of a V-22, or just not enough of those doggone F-22s. Playing fair is for suckers.
I’ll make a flat out statement that is supportable by historic fact. Since the 1970’s the so-called progressives (aka Liberals) always underspend n defense and hand out the money as freebies during their time in power playing poverty pimps and thus buying their votes so they can stay in in power. This leaves the Conservatives the chore of having to spend a lot on defense to recapitalize what the Libs let wither. Now this little cycle worked — kind of — until this last go around, where we were attacked (after having the Clintonistas let little two-bit 6th century thug-tards get into their punkin’ little heads the idea they could attack the US with impunity) right after a ‘moderate’ took office. Instead of the little boost to build up our defense after the Clinton-Aspin axis gutted it for some magical ‘peace dividend’ (when oh when will these morons realize that peace IS the dividend?) we have spent that time spending the $ fighting a war, while eating up and wearing out what we already have, because no one has the guts to say we need to spend more.
Let us be clear — this policy paper is ALL about budgets, and asserts that because we cannot see a direct threat, a minimum budget is not justifiable. this is akin to asserting because you do not have anyone in front of you on the highway, you do not need brakes.
I wonder-how bad will it get before it gets better? From what I’m hearing, its going to get pretty bad. It will be interesting to watch when the Audacity of Hope runs smack into the Paucity of Ideas.
BTW.… LOVED ‘the industry-controlled think tanks’ crack. Let me guess, you believe in the big bad mythical military-industrial complex?
In any case, at least I KNOW the industry is populated with a lot more retirees, reservists and guardsmen, parents and grandparents of volunteers now serving and very few of them with political aspirations. I can believe in the purity of their logic and motivations a lot easier than those of a politically-aligned think tank (so-called).
” Likely near peers all have nuclear weapons, so a direct conventional war would mean nuclear war.“
That makes sense if the pier competitor plans on invading continental US BUT and its a BIG BUT would X policriter (either side) really sign off risking/threatening/going nuclear right off the bat over say Taiwan, Georgia, Ukraine, S Korea, Japan, Baltics????
The quickest way to get a nuclear war is make it the only tool in the box.
The nuclear option only prevents total destruction unless they are ready for MAD, and restrains conventional war to the “limited” part.
The stronger you are the less you have to fight, the weaker you are the more you have to fight. You want a peace plan, prepare for overmatch to the point were no-one short the suicider will want war with you.
” Likely near peers all have nuclear weapons, so a direct conventional war would mean nuclear war.“
It also makes sense in regards to Taiwan and South Korea. Why hasn’t China invaded Taiwan despite all the threats and intimidation
That makes sense if the pier competitor plans on invading continental US BUT and its a BIG BUT would X policriter (either side) really sign off risking/threatening/going nuclear right off the bat over say Taiwan, Georgia, Ukraine, S Korea, Japan, Baltics????“
That’s why you have to keep some form of conventional force component. The question is what composition is that force going to be. Smart diplomacy backed up by smart sue of force, and strategic alliances also play a big part in keeping such situations(which you mentioned)from escalating. For example,China hasn’t invaded Taiwan despite threats and intimidation, because we have sent them (some subtle and not so subtle) signals that we would not tolerate such an action.
Likewise in the case of Georgia, we have a more powerful conventional force than Russia, yet it didn’t stop the Russian’s from invading Georgia, holding Georgia territory, and acknowledging their independence. What would happen if we started a “Desert Storm” type deployment in Georgia to evict the Russians?
“The quickest way to get a nuclear war is make it the only tool in the box.“
That goes without saying. Who would suggest that we get rid of everything and just rely on nukes? Nukes are one reason why despite tensions the Pakistanis and Indians are reluctant to start another conflict with each other.
“The nuclear option only prevents total destruction unless they are ready for MAD, and restrains conventional war to the “limited” part.“
“The stronger you are the less you have to fight, the weaker you are the more you have to fight. You want a peace plan, prepare for overmatch to the point were no-one short the suicider will want war with you.“
This all sounds good and has elements of truth to it, but such statements greatly simplify complicated issues.