Lost in the media herd’s coverage of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ Saturday speech at the Eisenhower Library is the fact that he gave a speech the day before, at Ft. Leavenworth, Ks., to the Army’s Command and General Staff College. Speaking to Army field grades at Leavenworth, Gates weighed in on the debate raging within the institutional Army about how its future unfolds after Iraq and Afghanistan.
“There has been a concern that our force is too focused on counterinsurgency, and has lost its edge for complex, conventional operations involving multiple brigades or divisions. The experiences of the British colonial army before World War One have been given as an example. This is a legitimate concern, and we continue to work toward finding the right balance. But the notion that the U.S. Army is turning into some sort of nation-building constabulary that is losing its core competencies – above all, to shoot, move, and communicate – does not reflect the realities of the tough combat that has taken place in Iraq and Afghanistan – as you know all too well.
To some extent, much of the debate between low-end and high-end misses the point. The black-and-white distinction between conventional war and irregular war is becoming less relevant in the real world. Possessing the ability to annihilate other militaries is no guarantee we can achieve our strategic goals – a point driven home especially in Iraq. The future will be even more complex, where conflict most likely will range across a broad spectrum of operations and lethality. Where even near-peer competitors will use irregular or asymmetric tactics and non-state actors may have weapons of mass destruction or sophisticated missiles.”
Gates’ message: quit drawing false dichotomies between types of wars, as current and future enemies don’t share the same need as the American military to neatly fit modes of warfare in specific boxes. Warfare’s many modes are blending and blurring; there is more convergence in warfare underway than divergence.
I thought Gates’ shot at the Revolution in Military Affairs crowd was particularly appropriate and seems to reflect his reasoning behind big program cuts.
“As we prepare for the future and pursue modernization plans, we must always recognize the limits of technology – and be modest about what military force alone can accomplish. Advances in precision, sensor information, and satellite technologies have led to extraordinary gains that will continue to give the U.S. military an edge over its adversaries. But no one should ever neglect the psychological, cultural, political, and human dimensions of war or succumb to the techno-optimism that has muddled strategic thinking in the past.”
The Army went into Iraq and Afghanistan with FCS as their most high priority program. Today, although having assumed a different identity, FCS remains the Army’s programmatic priority. For the Marines it was the EFV and Osprey. And eight years into the current wars, it still is the EFV and Osprey.
– Greg Grant
{ 44 comments… read them below or add one }
No comment on the F-35 for the Air Force instead of COIN planes?
Agreed. Its important to point out all the branches have a fair share of the blame.
How about a link to the text of the speech?
Our future military must be small and lightly armed. The nation just cannot afford a large, complex military, armed with heavy, expensive, weaponery, ships and airplanes. We have a huge deficit to pay for, national health care, and numerous entitlement programs. All of these must be funded from a shrinking base of tax payers. We cannot afford the a military which is the world's policeman, or expeditionary military forces. That job may have to be performed by the U.N.
That is a sure route to our destruction.
Agreed, peace through strength. A lightly armed military is the police
and they cant even protect my back yard.
OK Bob let's cut defense to zero!!! 2010 deficit STILL about ONE TRILLION. It is not defense. We are pretty much – not including war funding – spending less on defense as a percentage of GDP since WWII. So what's the problem ENTITLEMENTS, ENTITLEMENTS and ENTITLEMENTS.
Sorry for the "caps" but I am so tired of federal budget ignorance it is driving me batty.
ha the UN?! The UN cannot project its own power as is. The problem with the security element of the UN is that its dependent on assets given from other countries, you wouldn't give your top rated secret gear and tech to the UN would you? The UN is a joke, you send in peace keepers and ppl think that they actually fight directly with fighting forces, false. More ppl actually die because they stick around in conflicts that they think peackeepers will save them, until guerillas go through and massacre them..
I seem to recall the U.N. being absolutely terrible at that job. The reason anything ever gets done in a country is because the U.S. shows up.
How about we cut national health care instead, or the multiple entitlement programs, after all the country was founded on what you could do for yourself and the country, not what others can do for you. Someone had an idea and speech about that once, something or other about 'not what the country can do for you', I guess it fell on deaf ears…
Well maybe they should have given that speech to contractors like Boeing, BAE, and General Dynamics etc rather than the 'Greedy taxpayers'
fair comment. however while i have enormous respect for the US founding fathers, you have to admit that the worlds changed a hell of a lot since then, and i dont think they would have been that adverse to the current situation anyway, seeing as they went to war at least in part because economic conditions were crushing the lower echelons of society, much like today.
My, what an erudite admission that our "leadership" has become so thoroughly post-modern that they no longer possess the will to make war beyond the the constrained and limited definition thereof. For that is what the inability to discern between the need to fight LIC and a more conventional war admits. Such thinking will not make conventional war go away, but it will increase the likelihood you will have to fight them….and lose them. Gates has surpassed Clinton's token Republican SecDef as the greatest resident Useful Idiot of the era.
If we do not keep gaining technological advantace potentially incresively we will not win. Every war efort like Afganistan but expsecially like Ieaq will be countered as needed. If the war seems even a little bit less self harmfull than gaining considering that we get advantage and long term technological manouvering testing, some of their assets delayed, destabilize their zones, virulent and nano and genetic controll of their populations, secretive free resources, change to invade their country, control over our own population, tons of intel, long term affects and good training they do understand they have to ensure in group we will suffer more about it economically than we could ever gain. Do you think the oilrig is worth even half the oil advantage Iraq will sum to be?
We can gain suprising upper hand only on home turf. Other types of thinking forge the full group of people we even little oppose to unite in actions against or loose their ways. They do know when the action there ends we will be domestically inpenetrable for four decades.
They will not make mistakes thinking we do not gain hugely also internally from actions we take. I am affraid loosing their mids migth also cost coalition ecnomists more than some money including the USA.. :) :)
The problem lies on western leaders forgetting the freedom base from renaissance that allowed inventive solutions to be produced by the masses in the first place. This limiting of innovation, even more as technology allready compels us fro even more, will lead to catastrophe.
I personally think it is the moral rooth of being western versus being human is what we are forgetting here. We bring up issue of internet pedophilia when we are too affraid of the freedom of neighpour snooping to catch the real pedophiles in action. Logically that leaves no other option than intseads of attaking the griminals we attack the freedoms of people. Porn, even of real rape, is not a rape in itself.
Ironically the last chance is lost when we listen to the few childfreedom activists and block ourselves from implementing proper parental control tools possibilities to our software. Religious lack of parental education to preeducating their children against imminent damage from their normal human contakts and jailing the five year olds insteads is directly related but older problem.
Hahaha you moron. The real reason for the wars was that people would have started calling for solutions for these porblems or leaving USA and religious leadergroup tied into their childhood values of market being the only way and storybooks, television and cars being from satan wanted means to stop them.. :) :)
cool story bro
He is onto it. The US military has perverse view of the world and the threats that it contains. Like he said about porn, our peceptions are not reality like this News Scientist article proves.
http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/3/1/29/1/
As long as the US thinks that only the biggest defence budgets since the end of WW2 can save the US, then the country will decline just like the Romans and the British
The real reason for freedom of data hides in its necessity. Kids want to see porn as they know reproductive information is of most importance. One mention from mother how dad was bad in bed is enough to FORGE human to seek porn. This has been noticed by even some lower logical ability human and is probably the reason why al talk about sexuality used to be tabu in countires like China. Every boy knows younger women get irreversible orgasms wich is widely used by mothers or rapists to get upper decission power in the breeding cycle. People going against this freedom of (how to solve this/how to regognice raped nogood women ect.) are immediately understood to be only trying to gain upper hand by hiding their means of geining upper hand. Depending on your intelligense you also seek incresing number of other types of information for the same reason.
Gaining real information for example in science has been made difficult. You have to read between the lines of many articles to start to get a wiev what someone could=will collect and combine out of this. This has made understanding the world wery difficultand for example those petty Greek protesters are subject of everybody elses laughter as the cannot fully understand and so not even little bit affect to the robbery they claim.
Ofcourse subtances like porn are used more by rapists as more reliable source in the article you pointed claims. You migth not how ever know how in Japn and China where sex education is the enough little taboois and porn is that also for young men they know to seek the knowledge the other way. The tabooisnes is selfclearance of the nonindividual system. Having tiny bit of knowledge=any data priviliged or hidden will function only in these nonindividual societies. The only other option is massive education but the who could give that needs to understand everything all the way.. :) :)
Structurarily this does not mean I do not understand extensive implications of what I claim. Thecnology has and will continue changing the rules from what they used to be. All meaningfull movies should be free as they are data and include necessery stepin into modern societys robotized system. This nazi robot has two ways of evolving.
If it has leader USA is correct in dissappearing arabs and leader will e Hitler or Stalin type group with Hitler or Stalin for boss. This system is for group. Expansion is now impossible so this system could not eccist but getting people space or spaces comparative "recourses" from arab skin will suffice. for a moment……
If group has no leader the utopia ofcourse cannot exist. Law needs to be self value and we need to keep believing in existence of correct decission for every situation. This system is for individual. It accepts space is out and newer again without mass murder we get to society where phsycology was a tool. System needs to prevent use of incresively destructive capabilities in confined space meaning abolisment of privacy to the limit technology maximumly allows. The supervisor group cannot be anything but all people of the country as other grouping will form the Hitler/Staling group. The supervision can be mathematically proven to fail till complete destruction if all poeple cannot acces all data but the little that is needed to be kept privately in for example military companies private storage that no one can access unless needed. Society needs full reform as I often explain.
You choose but choose wisely. The first option will lead to such leaders being lobbyed out that do not enjoy a bit their given cababilities. They will how ever enjoy torture and waching people work buit would newer enjoy anything as they cannot decide to missuse the system. By mere random this, what I call experionist griminal system will survive for millions of years. Nazis are not to blaim. They were the neceesity of the moment as system didnt give up leadership and propertyownership both as institutions. World functions by the laws of physics. If you feel for a moment you would not enjoy lowsalary work in the states then keep thinking.
No use to say this to people who cannot see futher than their noses and accept that if you want to be led it means you can newer decide how you will be led. Some old Islamic and gypsie love submission songs migth do you good.. :) :)
Budget? Just for the sake of perception and perspective, just a few rounded off reminders. What's the latest federal budget? 3.7 Trillion??? Social Security costs much more than the appropriated defense budget. TARP and bailouts in the last 18 months have cost more than the defense budget. Medicare and Medicaid cost more than the defense budget, and that's not counting the costs left for the individual states to pay on top of the federal money budgeted.
If you entirely eliminated the defense budget, sent every soldier home, mothballed every plane, tank, and ship…. The federal budget would still be over 3 Trillion dollars…. That, and an acceptance of a more socialist view of the federal government's place in our live is what will put an end to us.
Finally, someone with the guts to call out our government for its socialist ways! I have to admit, it's so a revolutionary notion, so radical to even ponder: the government is now socialist! Surely you have attempted to release this hidden truth from its bondage, good sir; what was response from the citizenry? How soon will the chasm between rich and poor be eradicated, weeks or months, do you think? I know the vast reallocation of money will soon reduce our richest citizens to mere shells of their former glories! How blind was I that our socialist heaven looked more like a plutocracy–but that was before your clarifying blast of truth opened my eyes…WE ARE SOCIALISTS NOW!
Still less socialistic than the 1930's, 40, 50, 60, 70. We have a ways to go before we get too European, but it is inevitable given our demographics. Too many old people and not enough educated young people.
Wow, you're just not smart, and it sounds like you enjoy rambling in incoherent nonsensical ways. Re-budgeting has nothing to do with politics; it’s called auditing and it saves military and civilian lives. Stop trying to politicizing everything. Gates was there during the Bush administration, so there is no need to lash out with “I’m a republican and I love the military, so I must know everything.” It really makes us (Intelligent Republicans, that understand the fundamentals’ of republicanism) sound and appear awful. You sound entitled and apparently you are ludicrously incompetent. Just because you don’t see the merit in an action, does not make it “liberal”. Please stop commenting on articles with this attitude and general tenor.
P.S. Nice name
I appologize, that comment was only intended for Deathwalker, the apparent source of my frustration.
i mostly agree, but does liberal really need to be a dirty word?, i mean were not all out there sipping lattes and trying to bring down the western world with our degenerate liberal ways, some of us just believe in a slightly different version of politics, and in times past it was understood that consevatism and liberalism would balance each other out to come to a decision that was best for the country and reflected the values and attitudes of the populace at the time (you know, because they were elected). this is the central premise of a two party democracy as exists in most western countrys, including my own. in short, what the hell happened to bi-partisan politics and mutual respect for your elected peers, as existed in the time of Abraham Lincoln?.
Did I forget to mention that nationalized healthcare will cost more than our military within 5 years of full implementation as well? Ever see a 5 Trillion dollar budget? Feel free to hold your breath, you will not be in any serious danger of suffocation. Ever wonder at how you never seem to see any of the benefits you have been paying for and yet they all cost more than putting a man in space of maintaining a global military with all the cost overruns? Weird that the defense budget isn't even half the federal budget, isn't it?
It is weird that the defense budget isn't 85% of the budget. Useless eaters, old people, non-combatants, peace–these are all corrosive to my dream of killing everything in sight while peaceful society feeds itself on the crumbs from my sweaty belly.
Re the balance between "guns and butter", a couple points to ponder. First, we need to keep an eye on China, but right now and for quite awhile to come we are way more powerful relative to other "peer" countries than Great Britain was in the late 19th century. Second, if another major conventional war happens, I'll bet every time on the country that's most democratic, educated and economically competitive. For example, read the first 100 pages or so of MacPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom comparing the pre-Civil War North and South.
Right now I'm more worried about how we are doing relative to the 2nd point than the first.
The microprocessor, fiber optic communications, GPS, jet aircraft, miniaturized radars, the internet, military research has created a huge amount of value for our economy. There is not division between guns and butter, the search for better guns creates butter in the long run.
The real choice is between butter and guns in the future or getting government handouts now.
A Militia is the answer – a real militia, not the wacky kind you hear about in the evening news. If every young man in our country was trained as infantry, with some portable missiles for anti-tank and anti-air, who would invade the US?
I doubt we would even need half as many aircraft, tanks, and ships. Cut our costs way way down and stop being the world's police. If the rest of the world wants to go to war with each other, then let them. They will kill each other off and meanwhile we get stronger. Stay out of everybody else's problems.
The real trick would be not to isolate ourselves militarily and politically, but economically. That is why we get dragged into wars in the first place. What happens on the other side of the world affects us directly. We have to change that.
The military is but one way to solve the problem. Economic isolation is the other way. Not that everything needs to be economically isolated, but we need the important things to be here within our borders. If foreign companies want to do business with the US with critical things our country is dependent on, then let them invest their resources and build the factories within our borders. It is like taking hostages.
That is what has happened to us. We invest in other countries and then have to go there and protect our interests with a massive army. Even then the foreign countries sometimes take over our business investment. I say screw them.
Invest here. Do not let critical imports into our country unless we slap huge tariffs on them. However, if they manufacture and invest here, then have no tariffs. We provide them a way around the tariffs so they can't complain. Then when the world goes to war, we stay out of it all.
The world has changed. With nuclear weapons potentially in the hands of terrorists, there is no way to secure the safety of a country through military might alone. And even with nuclear weapons ourselves, there is no way to retaliate with mutually assured destruction, so nukes are not a deterrent. We have to look at non-military ways to secure ourselves.
Until we admit this and start economic changes, we are deceiving ourselves. We are trying to build better planes, ships, and weapons but they cannot ensure our safety. We have to be independent economically.
We also have to win the demographic war. We need to reproduce more then our enemies and we have to rear up our children to be smart, moral, fair, and loving. These are the real ways to ensure our nation's defense. Planes, tanks, and ships are not the answer.
Three thousand years ago, the Hebrew God told the Jews, "Do not put your trust in horses." Neither were they to trust in foreign armies to help. They were to have their own militia army that was primarily infantry based. They were to reproduce and multiply and train their children up correctly. I still find that the best answer even today. I am not Jewish, but I think this is great advice for our country to follow.
What a dreamer. Get your hand off it
Pete, love your intellectually challenging reasoning.
Anyone who quotes religious myths and superstitions as their reference and justification on how to conduct a modern war, is as credible as Mr Ben Laden confirming something about 72 virgins awaiting every one of his troops when they die in battle fighting the 'Great Satan'.
Having said that, at least he is on the winning side.
Again you did not deal with the arguments. Long term, the muslims are winning. We are going broke building war equipment that we cannot use, we are dependent and being held hostage by them for oil, and they are making babies faster then we are. Someday soon terrorists will have nukes and they will use them. We are screwed. We must take radical paths if we hope to even have a chance to survive. I was proposing such a solution, however unconventional.
And all you can say is anyone who quotes religious quotes is not credible? Again, great reasoning – not.
I quoted the religious source showing my advice was not anything new or unusual. Maybe for us today, but not in the scope of all of history. I could just have used other quotes and historical examples. Russia in WWII overwhelmed the Germans with numbers and inferior tech.
The alternative to cutting defense is killing "handouts" like SS, Medicare and the like. It's easy to say "let everyone take care of themselves", but in practice it's quite likely to have interesting effects amongst the elderly. The elderly cost more due to health issues, and those costs rise more rapidly than the cost of shipping out food stamps.
So what's the proposal? Cut off old people from SS and Medicare? I don't know what the world was like before SS and Medicare, but do you think AARP would let it happen without a fight? And who do you think votes reliably, asides from old people?
You could target target programs for the poor, go ahead. I'd love to see what happens to the crime rate as a result. Something has to be done however, and something has to go. Regrettably the US is no longer the manufacturing center of the world, so we lack the tax base to do all the things we used to. We could keep jobs here through long-term use of automation and increased efficiency, but there's nothing that keeps jobs in a country as well as paying the worker a dollar an hour and throwing him outside the gates to die when he breaks his arm in unsafe working conditions.
Are you willing to see that America? A powerful, yet soulless one? Is that the country you'd wish on your kids?
No is talking about cutting the defense budget much or even it all, but capping the growth. Though it does need a 100B haircut. If at least 700 billion a year, plus other US departments, plus Allies, does not give us superiority against any and all real, or perceived or known or unknown threats or even fantasy threats, then we are doing something wrong. Gates gets it. Reality bites.
Spending more or education will not make our kids smarter, and spending more on "defense" will not us as a nation any safer or solve any of our international issues. Nobody kills and destroys better than the USA, but that does not solve the issues, and may create more. That is point of 'WAR WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF EVERYTHING ELSE".
DoD deserves a max 4 percent of US GDP.
Funny you should mention that, 2010 budget for DoD as a percentage of US GDP is 3.7. That means they should spend more to meet that 4% max right? The saying "you don't use you lose it" applies with here.
"Are you willing to see that America? A powerful, yet soulless one? Is that the country you'd wish on your kids?"
Yes, that is **precisely** what many of these ignorant yahoos would like to see. Actually, that's not quite fair, because said yahoos don't even bother to think through the consequences of their "ideas".
But by giving them a place to spew, this site does perform at least one valuable service: We get to see the kind of mentality that believes that the society exists to serve the military, rather than the other way around. More a servile Stalinist mindset than an American one, but one that's all too common on these shores.
It is you leftists who want to strip the soul from America. You want to dismantle our entire military for the sake of social welfare and one-party leadership. You would leave us weak, unmotivated, and unwilling to defend our very nation.
We need new gear. That fact should come first. And that gear should be decided by the services, not people like Gates and Rumsfeld.
sglover is right, the military serves the people. I don't think anyone would argue against that so congratulations on making a completely and utterly useless point. However, those who protect you do need "tools" in which to protect this country's. The arguement of "we have weapons that are ten years head of the next country so we should cut back" is an interesting one. Considering it takes us 10-15 years to research new technology, you are asking the military to squander our lead in the hopes that more social spending will do what again? Make us feel better about our society? As I mentioned earlier, 3.7% people. three point seven fricken percent. Thats like those commericals for a cup of coffee fixing starvation in africa except on a national scale. By the way, thats a historic 60 year low. Just a thought
The fundamental problem is that our nation's "infrastructure" has been sorely neglected. This, coupled with loss or reduction of various capabilities, and other issues, places us in a position that must be changed if we are to maintain our status as a nation.
We no longer have the freedom to freely spend on the military or anything else.
As long as we persist in what is called a "service economy", we do not create wealth as a nation, merely redistribute it.
The classic problem is where to cut and where to spend. There is no real agreement. Each "special interest" segment has it's own view of what and where.
morpheous, i agreed with you right up to the point where you said "the muslims are winning." for F&#$'s sake how often does it have to be said were not at war with islam, were at war with a few nutjob radicals who try and use islam to justify their actions. this is not me being some kind of leftist PC police stereotype, im just stating a fact.
Day,
I hear what you are saying but I disagree. I know it is a few nut jobs radicals who are now our enemies, but I think those nut jobs will end up controlling all of islam. That is why I think we have problems long term. If you disagree, I understand. We are guessing about the future. But history gives us examples to compare.
Somebody could have claimed that Hitler was a nut job and our enemy but not the German people in WW2. That would be correct up to a point in time. But when the people start to support the nut job then the people become our enemies too.
The majority muslim people may not be our enemy now but they are not our guaranteed friends forever either. If nut job radicals start having success in a few areas, I think the majority of muslims will line up behind them. Thus the demographic problem and economic problems.
You might not think you are at war with islam but let me tell you – I am. And I am not just at war with islam either. I have a philosophy and worldview that conflicts with even many people here in America.
Many americans are lazy wimps who sit around and watch tv all day. They are losers. I do not want my children to be like that nor do I want them to marry people like that. I do not want my grandchildren to grow up to be like that. Nor do I want those looters to tax me or my hard working children.
If I am at war with people like that even within our own country, how much more am I at war against people who have a different religious and philosophic system. Would you support the return of the Caliphate? I bet most muslims would. I do not. It is the nut job radicals who want the return of the caliphate.
Maybe you have heard the saying, "The good is the enemy of the best." If this is so, then many times we should be at war against even things that are good. This is not only true about things like laziness and islam, but also true about military spending. Many of the expensive weapon systems people want to buy are good. but they stand in the way of what is best.
look i disagree but i can see what your saying and sort of understand.