Comments on: John Lehman’s Solution

By: anon

anon — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:24:35 +0000

lehman about america's disrmament : http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&q=leh...

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:37:04 +0000

Strike SecDef. Secretary of Navy.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:35:59 +0000

John Lehman has an immense talent for uttering many words while imparting little or no content. No wonder he was appointed to be SecDef.
The vision thing he had back in the day has definitely evaporated. As I understand it from the post, here is what he said:
Point one: create a really good navy.
Point one and a half: its better to blow things up from up close than from far away, because its good to be close and diplomacy is hopeless.
Point two: hire people who don’t suck; who cares if they’re abusive perverts if they can cut through red tape?
Point two and a half: the Army and Air Force suck even more than the Navy does.
Point three: make people who don’t suck want to work for you with cool uniforms.
Point three and a half: Buy more ships.
This is a plan?

By: seeker6079

seeker6079 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:09:40 +0000

gsak:
Thanks for the reply. Some points:
First, “traditional-moral subcultures” is a VERY loaded term. It is pretty much a synonym in the USofA for “conservative christian”, a group that is very over-represented in pretty much every power-leverage dynamic in America. The evangelization of the USAF caused waaaaaaaaay more problems than any potential benefits from its “traditional morality”.
Second, it sets one down a troublesome road in America. The word “moral”, in American parlance tends to have a specific religious tinge: what is godly, not a sin, (etc.). [ When I hear American christians talk to me about “moral” it’s pretty much a game of “who sleeps with who” rather than the more social activist portions of the Gospels.] That in and of itself is tied into a much-exercised meme in American political debate: that there are no ethics outside of a religious frame. That too is in error and dangerous.
—
That said, I cheerfully rise to the challenge about where to recruit from.
A — From amongst university graduates for the officer corps.* Every repeat every profession produces a mind-set amongst its occupants. One wants to bring in people who already have alternative worldviews, who bring in perspectives and talents outside the traditional military frames. This would be especially useful when picking from the fields of international law, conflict of laws, sociology and anthropology. (One could count theology if seen as a subset of anthropology: not “how many angels dance on the head of a pin?” studies but “why do people believe in angels and how do we deal with them?” types.)
B — From social service and international aid organizations. The military hires doctors and nurses knowing damned well that they will never lead a platoon or man an MG position. Why not hire people whose primary training and preference is for the community cooperation work which is the bread and butter of COIN operations?
C — Integration of recruitment efforts with employment agencies, job retraining centres and the like. I work with such agencies and tell you bluntly that people who are reconsidering their lifecourse are open to at least carefully listening to an alternative that they had not heretofore considered.
D — More attention within the military to proper streaming of recruits to their areas of speciality. An aid worker who wants to build villages to win in Afghanistan isn’t interested in learning how to operate a tank, so don’t force him to do so. (For that matter, young people who want to operate the tank aren’t that damned interested in village wells, so why make them do it?)
E — The military should shed its preference for the GOP. (Just one example among many: conservative radio shows get carried on AF radio where liberal ones are rejected.) The US and its military and foreign policies are not synonymous with the Republican Party, much as the GOP and much of the command structure would wish it so. If you want to recruit more people then you should visibly and meaningfully drop the notion that you’re only interested in true-red-state soldiers.
* — I should point out, though, that if the materials produced by the students at the staff colleges are anything to go by then the US has the least to worry about here. They show amongst the Army and the Navy’s junior officers a depth of cultural, political and military understanding of a complex world that puts their political and many-starred masters to shame. Petreus seems to be a VERY rare example of that sort of multifaceted thinking that makes it to a command position.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:10:17 +0000

Good Morning Drewb,
I can’t disagree with on the physical appearance of the Iowa’s. I worked on the U.S.S. Missouri when it was being fitted at the Naval Shipyard in Long Beach Ca. and yes, it was an impressive ship. I also san it in San Diego bay near the end of it last active life and it still cut an impressive figure as it steamed into the bay.
The question though is it’s operational value. In the end it had it’s nine 16″ Guns and Cruise Missiles. Since venery ship from Attack Submarine and DD on up became a Cruise Missile platform there seem little need for a 60Kt. Battleship. As for it guns, well the Navy long ago saw that the heavy artillery of the sea was of little tactical value to land forces and would unlikely ever again get close enough to another ship for a gun fight.
You are of course correct regarding the laying down of the Iowa’s keels, but the systems and ship design were of the 1930’s, which I guess might be called the “Golden Age” of the Dreadnoughts as far as design and development. In my opinion the post war Alaska Class Heavy Battle Cruiser, that never go built, is not even a close relative of the Iowa’s.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: gsak

gsak — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:00:19 +0000

My point was, seeker6079, that recruiters should (and should be provided the resources to) creatively-focus their efforts on traditionally-moral subcultures within America. We don’t need a “religious revival” in the military, but we do need an ethics revival; and that can come from anywhere you’d like. Church was my idea. What’s yours?

By: j

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:36:05 +0000

Mr. Lehman is an old man remembering another time and another plce that happened in the last century. The comments about the “diverse” carrier segragation is now. The enemy that they face is just like them too.
The other future is health care. 60% of personal bankruptcies are the result of illness and health care costs. Medicare/Medicaid is out of money right now as of this fall and the start of FY2010. It is in deficit spending then taking more money every day from then on.
That money and age issue will take most all the money from DoD. There is no other choice. The Navy today is just a taxi service for the Army and marines to CI wars. China is a merchant fleet that is buring the US in economic warfare that carriers and virginia subs have no power to stop.
This is not a replay of the Carter years. There is no money to fund health care and DoD both. Then throw in recession, energy, roads — DoD spending stands down because the enemy is large populations in marginal places with resource cartels that the developed world needs — and they export their people to the developed world at the same time across pouros borders.
A massive blue water navy is a relic of the past.

By: Drewb

Drewb — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:09:25 +0000

@ Byron Skinner,
The keels for the Big Four Iowa class battleships weren’t laid until AFTER Pearl Harbor. The best thing the could’ve done, when they did the refit, would’ve been to put reactors in. You have to admit, even if their time has past, they can impress the hell out of the natives.

By: Dogx

Dogx — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:36:39 +0000

IMHO, the navy leadership changed in mentality and corrupted because they relaxed, and they relaxed because after 1990 there was a lack of a serious threat: no USSR

By: lamar

lamar — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:43:16 +0000

test