Reactions to story from The Washington Post
Defense Secretary Urges Military to Mold Itself to Fight Iraq-Style Wars
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2008/ 05/ 13/ AR2008051301265....
COLORADO SPRINGS, May 13 -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates implored the U.S. military Tuesday to prepare more for fighting future wars against insurgents and militias such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than spending so much time and money
Reactions / posts that link to this article
View all reactions »-
15 May SWJ News, Op-Ed, Events & Blog Roundup (Early Edition)
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/05/15-may-swj-news-ope...IRAQ War Over Wall Goes on in Sadr City - Michael Gordon, New York Times Iraqi Leader Takes Charge of Offensive in Mosul - Associated Press `Angry' Iran Sharpens Tone with Baghdad's Leaders - Associated Press Bombing at Iraq Funeral Kills 20 - BBC News
-
The Hat Trick
http://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/2008/05/hat-trick.html"Which road should I take?" she asked the cat. "Where do you want to get to?" the cat asked helpfully. "I don't know," admitted Alice. "Then," advised the cat, "any road will take you there." --Cheshire Cat, from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland _____________ We all knows times are not good, so corporate members often have to wear many hats. Add to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's vita that of necromancer or magus. It is unclear if he matriculated an accredited program at the Hogworts School. Gates says, "today's enemies are the foes of the future," conventional conflicts are probably passe, and warns the Pentagon not "to fall back on Cold War mentalities." Are these diktats based upon intelligence, or is he pulling this out of his magic hat? Historically our enemies have morphed into trade partners, so what does he have that indicates the future would be otherwise? China, Italy, Germany were all enemies who now regularly trade and inhabit our world. When Gates says, "the armed services and their corporate counterparts should steer technology and resources toward battling insurgencies," exactly how and when did the U.S. become the epicenter of COIN? It is still the "Department of Defense," not "Department of COIN." The U.S. should not feel compelled to fight insurgents unless they're in the streets of America. Let other countries fight their own insurgencies; putting our horse in the race only complicates the bookkeeper's job. Gates also addressed the need to prioritize current needs versus projected ones: He mentioned the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected truck, a $1 million vehicle designed to protect U.S. troops from improvised bombs that Gates said met resistance because some officials said it would not be useful after the war in Iraq. He said that in more than 150 attacks on MRAPs, only six soldiers died, citing it as an example of a system that troops need now but that is "competing with the funding for future weapons systems with strong constituencies inside and outside the Pentagon (Defense Secretary Urges Military to Mold Itself to Fight Iraq-Style Wars.)" Just imagine if the U.S. would quit their job as Baghdad security guards. We wouldn't need the MRAPs and no soldiers would be dying. Saves lives, saves money. Sounds like an aphorism even George Bush could spit out. Similarly Gates spoke of the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, "which that service covets for its speed, agility and ability to battle advanced fighters from countries such as China, but which has not made a single combat sortie over Iraq or Afghanistan." In historical context, the British Hurricane and Spitfire planes didn't keep the Germans from conquering Western Europe in 1940, but they sure saved Britain during the Battle for Britain air campaigns. The M60 tank never fought in combat against the Russian hordes of 1960-75, but they served as a bulwark versus Soviet tank invasions. Only time can tell if the cost of the AF F-22 is justified. Gates has said we have untapped Naval and Air Force reserve power to "defeat any adversary who committed an act of aggression." While he conceded there would be a risk, "it is a prudent and manageable one." Perhaps wisdom from George H.W. Bush should be enlisted about now -- "wouldn't be prudent at this juncture." When Gates argues for success in Iraq -- "That is the war we are in. That is the war we must win" -- he forgets this is a war which defies all definitions and cannot be quantified in objective mission terms. How can you win if you don't know what winning looks like? Ranger, enjoying precision and commitment as he does in his daily life, would be happy if the U.S. could just state what it wants to win, in quantifiable terms. Retired Special Forces Officer opposes Iraq War.
-
http://politicsandscreeds.blogdrive.com/archive/182.html
Posted at 09:12 pm by politicsscree Make a comment Permalink
-
Aubrey Sarvis: Military Readiness and Common Sense
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aubrey-sarvis/military-readine...It's almost impossible to pick up the Washington Post, the New York Times or the Denver Post these days without seeing fresh evidence for what common sense told all but one of our NATO allies years ago and is telling us now: the federal statute banning gay men and women from serving openly in our stressed-out military is wrong and is at odds with military readiness Forget the moral and ethical grounds, or the fact that gays and lesbians are the last group to be discriminated against officially, by law. The statute is wrong for the most practical of reasons: it is hurting the ability of our military to fight the kind of wars we are waging now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the counterinsurgencies we are likely to be fighting in the future. In a widely reported story, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told a group of military officers and defense contractors meeting in Colorado Springs last Tuesday that United States ground forces will be growing by 90,000 over the next five years. Where are these troops going to come from? Will we -- the taxpayers -- be paying ever larger enlistment bonuses and granting more waivers to men and women who don't meet the educational and intelligence requirements for service? Will the military grant more waivers to convicted felons? Between 2006 and 2007 the Army and Marine Corps almost doubled the number of so-called moral waivers, from 457 to 861, according to the most recent figures from the Defense Department. We are not talking about traffic tickets. We are talking about serious crimes, ranging from manslaughter to armed robbery, from kidnapping to child molestation, from rape to making terrorist threats. Think about it. Would you rather be sharing your quarters with a thief (or worse) and his rifle or with a law abiding person whose sexual orientation is different from your own? It defies reason for the military to embrace people found guilty of such serious crimes while turning away an estimated 10,000 gay men and women every year and discharging a few hundred more, including those with essential language skills -- Arabic translators, for example -- as well as doctors, medics, and pilots. And who knows how many currently serving are living in fear that their sexual orientation will be revealed and they will be involuntarily discharged? Recent stories revealed that soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan were returning to conditions of squalor at Fort Bragg. "These were experienced, battle-hardened soldiers who may be considering whether they want to make a career of the army," the Secretary said, adding "troops we can ill afford to lose." At this point, the military can ill afford to lose a single man or woman. Nonetheless, the law -- a law passed by Congress -- requires that if that man or woman is openly gay, he or she must be discharged. President Truman broke down the barriers that kept the military racially segregated. It's time to break down the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" barrier too. Our military and our country will be stronger for it, and a little common sense will be restored.
-
http://2359-hrs.blogspot.com/2008/05/came-across-article-her...
Came across an article here in The Washington Post.Seems like the first time the SecDef is taking a public swipe at the U.S Airforce for wasting money, particularly on the F-22 which the USAF is pressing for more numbers to be procured, when they have not been contributing to the Coalition effort in A'Stan and Iraq. Personally, I cannot agree with the SecDef view of emphasizing a doctrinal and procurement shift towards low intensity conflict.Call me a Dinosaur but I still have this Cold War Mentality.Yes, you may say that it's been over for 18 years, the threat of a Conventional all out conflict is minimal.But with the rising Dragon(not that I'm a supporter of the China Threat Theory) and the resurrecting Bear, there is a need to keep pace with their technological advancements to maintain some form of parity(Already the Su-30 is already making a storm in the fighter market, rivaling and even beating some 4th Gen Western Fighters).Such a shift would only mean taking a step backwards. Not that i question investments in low intensity conflicts are not technologically benefiting(EOD has made tremendous advancements in the recent few years and countries are benefiting from it) or the lives they save(think MRAP), but rather their procurement is somewhat haphazard(think MRAP contract, i can count at least 10 defence firms providing MRAPs off my head now).Consider the fact that these money could have been better spent on a already sluggish R & D and the continued renewal of the fighter fleet, which is already progressing well into mid-age.The USAF is flying Tankers and Transports that are 20+ years old, it was until recently that the KC-X contract was finalized.Deliveries are not expected for a few years.Yet Operation Tempo for the Tankers and Transports are at its highest in recent years.The F-15C Eagles are going past their prime as their airframes age, despite extensive upgrades(AN/APG-63(V3) AESA) and another upgrade for a select fleet of "Golden Eagles".Yet the prohibitively expensive F-22 prevents a complete 1:1 replacement.With more money dumped into Iraq and the haphazard procurement for counter-insurgency equipments, funding for R & D has become a problem, forcing multi-nation pooling.And it's a nightmare with so many countries participating and all wanting to have a say. the JSF program is the perfect example, several countries in the multi-national project has threatened to quit if workshares or tech transfer are not satisfactory.This has in part contributed to the delays In the end, I'm all for continued investment in low-intensity conflict seeing how the US is involved in A'stan for at least another five years(the same cannot be said for Iraq) but don't do it at the expense of the future.I know it sounds harsh, especially to those budget crunchers.But F-22 helps you to win a War in the future, MRAP or EOD robots don't.
-
4th Generation Warfare? What about 5th and 6th Generation?
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2008/05/4..."In unusually strong language, Gates warned against what he described as a tendency in the Pentagon to fall back on Cold War mentalities and said he feared that lessons from the U.S. struggle against insurgencies in Iraq could fade unless military commanders understand that today's enemies are the foes of the future. Gates said there must be a balance between meeting today's demands and tomorrow's contingencies, but he expressed concern that the defense establishment is not concentrating hard enough on what might be needed in future conflicts. He said the armed services and their corporate counterparts should steer technology and resources toward battling insurgencies. " Washpost -------------------------------------------------------------------------- With respect for the opinion of my colleagues who count Gates among their close friends, (or at least close associates) this is not very profound. Yes, it is true that the military would prefer to deal with enemies whose vagaries are more easily perceived and estimated in mechanistic sensor driven and applied mathematical kinds of ways. The US Army did turn away from what it learned in the counterinsurgency wars of the 20th Century. That was a bad thing. Nevertheless, it seems clear that there is not some sort of evolutionary development in the nature of war. There never was such a thing. War is war. It has always existed in many forms and usually simultaneously. The metaphor of generational development in warfare is essentially flawed. This image was created in the last decade or two to provide existing military leadership with a psychological crutch that enabled them to say that they had not been so woefully ignorant of history as to not know that irregular warfare had always been a major factor in conflict. No. The "4th Generation" label allowed the generals to tell each other that something new had appeared on the world scene - guerrilla war. They could not be expected to have anticipated this new thing, guerrilla war, could they? Now, Mr. Gates, who seems to be a sensible man, is espousing the idea that the armed forces should configure themselves to fight guerrillas as the main kind of enemy. Such an idea is superficially attractive, but not a viable solution for doctrinal thought and force structure design. The future is not really knowable. It is, in fact, the undiscovered country. History gives us a ghostly image of what people have done over the millennia. Will people do the same things in the future? Perhaps they will not, but the record of the past is the only real indication we have of what mankind tends to do. War remains a social activity which relies on basic attributes of the evolved human beast. Weapons change but people do not in any time scale that is useful for contemplation. The record of the past indicates that future wars will be fought in many different forms and often in many different forms within the same war. Let us be careful that we do not prepare to fight only one of the many forms of war. pl http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051301265.html
-
Predicting the Future: Bob Gates and IEDs
http://lewisshepherd.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/predicting-the...FACT: There’s been significant media interest in yesterday’s address at a Heritage Foundation conference by Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. Today’s Washington Post story says Gates “implored the U.S. military Tuesday to prepare more for fighting future wars against insurgents and militias such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than spending so much time and money preparing for conventional conflicts.” ANALYSIS:The Post story isn’t inaccurate in characterizing Gates as using “unusually strong language” in the speech, but it is still better to go to the original text than to rely on a filtered media account, so here’s the actual transcript of Gates’s remarks. One thing I’ll note about his main point is that he gets right to it: “I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called ‘Next-War-itis’ – the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict,” as opposed to what we need in the here-and-now. In his eyes, what we need now is counter-insurgency tactics, capabilities, and mindsets. He doesn’t argue that other large nation-states will never be our adversaries, or that we’ll only face roving bands of anarchic terrorists. On the contrary, he argues that “even nation-states will try to exploit our perceived vulnerabilities in an asymmetric way, rather than play to our inherent strengths.” In a graphic defense of the need for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (MRAP), at around $1 million per vehicle, Gates noted its success rate and went on: “There is a strong case to be made that IEDs and suicide bombings have become the weapon of choice for America’s most dangerous and likely adversaries – and the need to have a vehicle of this kind won’t go away.” I had a furious discussion on this very topic several weeks ago, with my thesis (now echoed by Sec. Gates) that potential adversaries of the United States - and I’m talking nations here - must be watching and learning lessons from our experience in Iraq. In other words, they may say to themselves, “Hmmm, it appears that a superpower’s military force can be humbled very effectively, and cheaply, with a seemingly anarchic wave of IED assaults. What if we could try that on U.S. soil….” Perhaps we’ll be fortunate that they’ll “overlearn” the lesson, and miss the successful counter-insurgency approaches we have developed over time in Iraq. If their military establishments are anything like ours, and they generally are, they may blunder down that path for a while. But that doesn’t let us off the hook, from devoting some serious thought to the potential for homeland IED assaults, and in their wake chaos and fear (the essence of “terror”-ism). As I argued in several briefings while I was still in the Intelligence Community, we might expect that the most likely scenario in future “war” would be some derivative of past and current enemies, some amalgam of a powerful militaristic state and loosely connected terrorist cells. Ergo, you could wind up with a well-armed “State Actor” who had learned assymetric tactics from Iraq. If you squinted sideways, it just might look something like… elements of the American Revolution’s “Continental Army“ (the proverbial “well-regulated militia,” that can hide in the woods and strike without mustering). In my argument, when I went even further and posited the possibility of foreign governments sponsoring IED use on U.S. soil by front groups such as violent domestic gangs, my friend vociferously felt I was getting worked up over a non-existent threat. Ah, but that’s the essence of blue-sky thinking, for it drives you beyond the boxy bounds of traditional thinking. And in a roundabout way today I read Sec. Gates as agreeing with me.
