On Wednesday, Nov. 12, the Center for Defense Information will release a new anthology. It is titled “America’s Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for the New President and Congress.” The authors are 13 non-partisan Pentagon insiders, retired military officers, and other defense specialists, including myself. The book is edited by Winslow Wheeler, who as always, has done an excellent job overseeing the project and bringing together a great group of heretics.
The anthology identifies the serious deterioration of our defenses (at increasing expense), America’s mal-adjusted strategies to deal with both conventional and unconventional warfare threats of the 21st century, DOD’s archaic personnel policies and fighting force structures, and Pentagon management (and overseers in Congress) that make almost everything worse.
Each chapter also articulates principles and/or specific recommendations to help the new president and willing members of Congress find a way out of the mess.
Executive Summary:
Chapter Summaries and Recommendations
Chapter 1
Introduction and Historic Overview: The Overburden of America’s Outdated Defenses
Lt. Col. John Sayen (U.S. Marine Corps, ret.)
Our military forces have become high-cost dinosaurs that are insufficiently lethal against most of the enemies we are likely to face. Our forces have also broken free of their constitutional controls to the point where they have essentially become a presidential military. Congress exerts meaningful control neither in peacetime nor in wartime – and has lost all control over going to war. The large peacetime standing army established just before World War II (and maintained ever since) has become a vehicle for misuse by presidents, and multiple other parties both internal and external to the Pentagon.
The large standing forces were supposed to facilitate professional preparation for war, but the essential officer corps never truly professionalized itself. Thus, we were almost invariably unprepared, in mind set and in doctrine, for the conflicts we faced. In both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam, America hurriedly threw together unprofessionally led armies to fight – too often ineffectively. The result, especially today, has been notably mediocre senior military leadership – with only the rarest exceptions. At the same time, our armed forces have become ruinously expensive, as they simultaneously shrink, age, and become remarkably less capable. In Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, the Army and Marine Corps have been stretched to the limits of their strength to fight enemies not even a tenth as numerous as those they faced in Vietnam. We have become a pampered, sluggish, weak-muscled elephant that can not even deal effectively with mice.
Chapter 2
Shattering Illusions: A National Security Strategy for 2009 – 2017
Col. Chet Richards (U.S. Air Force, ret.)
Decisions by the last two Democratic and Republican administrations have left the country deeply in debt, depleted our military strength, lowered our national standard of living, and strengthened those around the world whose goals conflict with ours. Much of this can be traced to the initially politically-popular use of military force to attempt to solve problems that are inherently social, economic or political and therefore do not admit of military solutions. Chief among the examples are Iraq and Afghanistan, where the initial successes against third-rate military opponents have dragged on into separate occupations of a bewildering array of religious, political, and ethnic groups, few of which wish to be dominated by Americans. The solution requires the next administration to explicitly restrict the use of our military forces to those problems that only military forces can solve and that the nation can rally to, and to eschew the use of our forces to serve hubris, propaganda, or dogma.
The advent of nuclear weapons has limited the utility of military force against other major powers: there will be no replays of World War II. For smaller conflicts, history has shown that military occupations of developing countries or alien cultures will be expensive and very unlikely to succeed. Furthermore, the continuing epidemics of crime and political instability in areas where force was initially successful, as in the former Yugoslavia and the Middle East, show that the West still has no solution to the problem of rebuilding destroyed states.
Recommendations:
The new president needs to
- formally assess the policy objectives for which military force still has utility in today’s world, and
- propose a program of revamping our force sizes and missions, shaped by the essential requirement to act in concert with America’s national ethic and our allies on each of those missions.
In parallel with this presidential revamping, Congress and the president need to
- fundamentally change the preparation and presentation of intelligence so that misuse of force based on false pretext becomes far more difficult, and
- dramatically strengthen regulation of private contractors in the public sector, particularly in the military and intelligence services.
Chapter 3
Leading the Human Dimension Out of a Legacy of Failure
Col. G.I. Wilson (U.S. Marine Corps, ret.) and Maj. Donald Vandergriff (U.S. Army, ret.)
Institutional failures pervade the current management of military men and women, by far our most important defense resource. The end of the Cold War necessitated fundamental change, yet we remain hobbled by an archaic and dysfunctional personnel system in each of the active military services and their all-important reserves. That archaic system fails to recognize and benefit from the new realities of leading human resources in the 21st century. Without fundamental changes in how we nurture and lead our people, there can be no real military reform.
The military’s legacy system is built on flawed constructs: a centralized “beer-can” personnel system, lack of imagination in nurturing leaders, and faulty assumptions about human beings and warfare itself. This concoction is worsened by ingrained behaviors: adversity to risk, preference for the status quo and “group think,” preoccupation with bureaucratic “turf battles,” and valuing contracts above winning wars.
Recommendations:
- The fundamental reform requirement is to learn to lead people first and manage things second. Instead, today we administer people as a subset of managing things.
- The primary route to valuing people is to learn to nurture highly innovative, unshakably ethical thinkers. Sadly, in today’s armed forces such people, those who lead by virtue of their courage, creativity, boldness, vision, honesty and sometimes irreverence, are known as mavericks. The military services must learn it is admirable to disagree with, change, and improve the institution the individual serves and remains loyal to. Such change-seeking individuals are the ones who best adapt and prevail in humankind’s most stressful circumstance: war. They are the war-winning leaders.
Specific recommendations for bringing such people and such values to the fore are articulated in the chapter.
Chapter 4
Maneuver Forces: The Army and Marine Corps after Iraq
Col. Douglas Macgregor (U.S. Army, ret.) and Col. G.I. Wilson (U.S. Marine Corps, ret.)
Today’s Army and Marine warfighting structures have reached block obsolescence. The strategic conditions that created them no longer exist. The problematic structures are characterized by antiquated, inappropriate World War II-style organizations for combat, inventories of aging and broken equipment thanks to unaffordable and mismanaged modernization programs, heavy operational dependence on large, fixed foreign bases, disjointed unit rotational and readiness policies, and a very troubling exodus of young talent out of the ground combat formations.
Compensating for these deficiencies by binding ground forces more tightly within “networked” systems, such as the Army’s misguided Future Combat Systems, does not work and is prohibitively expensive.
Reform lies in changes that promise both huge dollar savings and powerful synergies with proven – not hypothetical – technologies and concepts fielded by the air and naval services. This means a laser-like focus on people, ideas, and things in that order.
Recommendations:
- Because defined, continuous fronts on the hypothetical World War II model do not exist today and because ubiquitous strike capabilities and proliferating weapons of mass destruction make the concentration of ground forces very dangerous, mobile dispersed warfare is the dominant form of combat we must be prepared to conduct.
- Needed organizational change means new, integrated, more fundamentally “joint” command and control structures for the nation’s ground maneuver forces. This approach expands the nation’s range of strategic options in modern warfare operations against a spectrum of opponents with both conventional and unconventional capabilities.
- Because Marines are now much more likely to conduct Army-like operations far from the sea than they are to re-enact Inchon-style amphibious landings, it is time to harmonize Army and Marine deployments within a predictable joint rotational readiness schedule.
- The authors focus on ways to reorient thinking, organization, and modernization in the ground maneuver force to:
- reshape today’s force for new strategic conditions (mobile dispersed warfare);
- exploit new technology, new operational concepts, new organizations, and new approaches to readiness, training and leadership; and
- fundamental reorganization and reform.
The authors do not pretend that the changes outlined in the chapter will gain easy acceptance. New strategies, tactics and technologies promising more victories and fewer casualties are typically viewed as threatening by general officers and senior civilians who are comfortable with the status quo.
Chapter 5
A Traveler’s Perspective on Third and Fourth Generation War
William S. Lind
While the United States Marine Corps espouses a doctrine of Third Generation (maneuver) War, it is organized and mentally prepared only for Second Generation (attrition) Warfare. The chapter proposes an alternative structure that reflects Third Generation doctrine.
Recommendations:
- Most Marines should again become “trigger pullers.”
- The size of the officer corps above company grades should be drastically reduced.
- A “regimental” system – based on the battalion – would provide mentally and morally cohesive units through unprecedented personnel stability.
- Reserve units should become as capable as active-duty battalions.
- Marines need to convert from line infantry to highly mentally and physically agile, true light (“Jaeger”) infantry.
- Marine aviation should be restructured and re-equipped to reflect the “Jaeger Air” close air support concept with far less costly and inestimably more effective task-designed, single purpose aircraft.
The chapter concludes with a brief look at Fourth Generation War concepts, for which the proposed Marine Corps force structure would also be suitable.
Chapter 6
The Navy
William S. Lind
America’s geography dictates that it must remain a maritime power, but today’s U.S. Navy remains structured to fight the aircraft carrier navy of Imperial Japan. Reform can only proceed from a fundamental understanding that people are most important, ideas come second, and hardware, including ships, is only third.
Recommendations:
- The main personnel deficiency of the Navy is an officer corps dominated by technicians. That reinforces the Navy’s Second Generation institutional culture. Reform requires adopting a Third Generation culture and putting the engineers back in the engine room.
- Fourth Generation War demands the Navy shift its focus from Mahanian battles for sea control to controlling coastal and inland waters in places where the state is disintegrating.
- Submarines are today’s capital ships, and the U.S. Navy must remain a dominant submarine force while exploring alternative submarine designs.
- Aircraft carriers remain useful “big boxes.” However, they should be decoupled from standardized air wings and thought of as general purpose carriers, transporting whatever is useful in a specific crisis or conflict.
- The Navy should acquire an aircraft similar to the Air Force’s A-10 so it can begin to effectively support troops on the ground.
- Cruisers, destroyers and frigates are obsolescent as warship types and should be retired; their functions assumed by small carriers or converted merchant ships.
- The Navy should build a new flotilla of small warships suited to green and brown waters and deployable as self-sustaining “packages” in Fourth Generation conflicts. (The Navy’s current “Littoral Combat Ship” is an apparently failed attempt at this design.)
Chapter 7
Reversing the Decay of American Air Power
Col. Robert Dilger (U.S. Air Force, ret.) and Pierre M. Sprey
The Air Force’s resource allocations and tactical/strategic decisions from the 1930s until today have been dominated by airpower theoretician Giulio Douhet’s 1921 assertion that strategic bombardment of an enemy’s heartland can win wars independently of ground forces.
The authors’ analysis of combat results and spending since 1936 shows the unchanging dominance of that strategic bombardment paradigm has caused the Air Force to:
a) leave close air support capabilities, which have proven far more effective than strategic bombing in determining the outcome of conflicts, essentially unfunded over the last 70 years;
b) habitually underfund effective air-to-air capabilities; and
c) engender serious U.S. military setbacks and unnecessary loss of American lives in each modern conflict America has fought.
The actual combat results of strategic bombardment campaigns in each conflict since 1936 show a consistent pattern of failure to accomplish the assigned military objectives – and often, no noticeable military results at all. Supporting these bombardment campaigns always entailed very high budget costs, far higher than the costs of close support or air-to-air. There were also consistently high losses of aircrew lives in pursuing strategic bombardment – far higher than the losses in close support or air-to-air. In every theater with sustained air opposition, neither strategic bombardment nor close support proved possible without large forces of air-to-air fighters.
Wherever we mounted significant close support efforts (invariably opposed by bombardment-minded senior Air Force leaders) in mobile battle situations-no matter whether we were retreating or advancing-the military gains proved to be remarkable, out of all proportion to the resources expended.
The implications of the last 70 years of combat results for future Air Force aircraft procurement are not hard to grasp.
Recommendations:
- First and foremost, we must abandon a business-as-usual procurement process hopelessly centered on aircraft specifically designed for-or compromised for – strategic bombardment.
- For the first time in U.S. history, we need to provide in peacetime for real, single-purpose close air support forces of substantial size. The only aircraft to succeed in real world close support have been ones that are highly maneuverable at slow speeds and highly resistant to anti-aircraft artillery impacts. High speed jets have consistently failed in close support.
- We must provide adequate air-to-air fighter forces to make close support (and perhaps some small amount of deeper “interdiction” bombing) viable in the face of air-to-air opposition.
To actually implement such forces,
- we must abandon wish-list planning that comes up with outrageously expensive, unimplementable procurement plans.
- Instead, we must fit our aircraft development and procurement plans within fixed, real world budgets – and make sure we develop and buy aircraft so austerely designed for single missions (and therefore much more effective than multi-mission “gold-platers”) that we can procure large, adequate forces.
- The authors present a radically new procurement plan, based on new close support, air-to-air, “Forward Air Control,” and “dirt-strip” airlift aircraft designs of greatly superior effectiveness and vastly lower unit cost. These will make possible buying over 9,000 new, highly effective airframes over the next 20 years – all within current U.S. Air Force budget levels.
Air forces based on these concepts will have unprecedented effectiveness in either conventional or counterinsurgency warfare.
Chapter 8
Air Mobility Alternatives for a New Administration
James P. Stevenson
The Pentagon’s current plans for air mobility should not continue; they are not plausible. The United States has the best air mobility capability in the world. Nevertheless, it comes at excessive cost. Even with record-level defense spending, current plans for air mobility are impossible to achieve without huge budget increases – increases which are unnecessary and even counter-productive.
Recommendations:
- To reduce the cost of the tanker fleet, the U.S. Air Force should start work on a smaller, cheaper, more tactically effective tanker (KC-Y) as quickly as possible. The Air Force should also stop the currently contemplated buy of large, too expensive KC-X tankers at about 100 aircraft. There exist other innovative ideas to provide more capability at lower cost.
- For strategic air- and sea-lift, the Pentagon should reduce the number of strategic airlifters to approximately 260, which implies retiring C-5As and stopping the buy of C-17s at about 205 aircraft. The Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) should be increased by at least ten percent. The capacity for fast strategic sealift should be doubled since it dominates the actual fast deployment capabilities of U.S. forces.
- Tactical airlift capability should be about 400 aircraft. The mix of aircraft should include faster retirement of older C-130s, stopping the egregiously high cost C-130J buy at about 100 aircraft, buying more of the smaller, cheaper, more useful-to-the-Army C-27Js, and pursuing a new commercial-derivative airlifter that is more cost-effective than anything in current Air Force plans. The Army’s Joint Heavy Lift program should be cancelled.
- For Special Operations air capabilities, the CV-22 should be stopped immediately, replacing them with one or more new, cost-effective helicopters. New variants of the C-130Js and C-27J should replace MC-130s and AC-130s. A new irregular warfare wing of small, manned aircraft should be started instead of less effective unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
The chapter advocates a strategic focus on aerial refueling and special operations air warfare, with less emphasis on strategic and tactical airlift. In all cases, innovative solutions that run counter to conventional wisdom allow us to lower costs without loss of overall capability.
Chapter 9
The Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve
Bruce I. Gudmundsson
The chapter lays out the broad outlines of a new approach to the recruitment, organization, and training of reserve forces. Essentially, it would mean a reserve component much more closely tied in outlook and mission to the citizenry it defends.
Recommendations:
- A somewhat smaller National Guard should focus on homeland security missions
- Most units of the Army Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve should be organized as “lifecycle units,” organizations in which members remain together for the entire course of their initial terms of service. As such, these units should receive much more training than they currently receive.
- Training schedules and benefits packages should be custom tailored to the civilian occupations of their individual members. For example, units composed of college students – of which there would be many based on the recreated incentives packages – will have longer periods of initial training as well two-month periods of training each summer. Similarly, units composed of people with seasonal occupations would train in their “off-season.”
Chapter 10
Long in Coming, the Acquisition Train Wreck Is Here
Thomas Christie
After more than four decades of supposedly well-structured defense planning and programming, as well numerous studies aimed at reforming its multi-billion dollar acquisition system, the Pentagon’s decision process governing our defense establishment is clearly broken. We need far-reaching, even radical, remedial initiatives. The evidence supporting the need for drastic action abounds.
Despite the largest defense budgets in real terms in more than sixty years, we have a smaller military force structure than at any time during that period, one that is equipped to a great extent with worn-out, aging equipment.
Granted, the employment of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has contributed to the wear and tear on our combat and support equipment, particularly for our ground forces. The bill for repairing and replacing that equipment (reported to be in the hundreds of billions) is mostly yet to be faced. And, more to the point, this only exacerbates the already severe modernization problems faced by all three services. Those problems have been on the horizon for decades and would have plagued our forces even if the war on terror had not evolved as ruinously as it has since 2001.
A fundamental source of DOD’s problems is the historically long pattern of unrealistically high defense budget projections combined with equally unrealistic low estimates of the costs of new programs. The net effect is for DOD’s leaders to claim that they can afford the weapons they want to buy. Thus, there is no urgency to face up to the needed hard choices on new weapon systems. In addition, there are other looming demands on the budget, such as health care for both active and retired personnel and planned increases in ground forces manpower. Any confidence that DOD’s in-house goals can be achieved in the future (even with increased spending) is sorely mistaken.
Recommendations: See below for Chapter 11.
Chapter 11
Understand, Then Contain America’s Out-of-Control Defense Budget
Winslow T. Wheeler
As Thomas Christie and Franklin C. “Chuck” Spinney have argued, major U.S. defense components are now smaller, older, and less operationally ready than at any time in recent history. This collapse has occurred in the face of the highest levels of defense spending since the end of World War II. This is not compensated by the (false) illusion that our smaller military forces are more effective due to their “high tech,” sophisticated nature. In fact, what many proclaim to be “high tech” is merely high complexity – at extraordinarily high budgetary and operational cost. The armed forces, Congress, and many others seek to solve the problems with still more money, which will only accelerate the shrinking, the aging, and the diminishing of combat effectiveness. In fact, if existing ways of thinking and current processes are employed, more money will guarantee failure. Decades of data make this counter intuitive conclusion unavoidable.
Recommendations:
- There can be no recovery without being able to track how DOD spends its money, which is not now done. The first order of priority is to force DOD to comply with federal laws and regulations that require financial accountability – without permitting the exercise of the many loopholes Congress and DOD managers have created and exploited.
- Analytical integrity based on real world combat history must be applied to the rigorous evaluation of DOD programs and policies, now riddled with bias and advocacy. In the absence of objective, independent assessment of weapons program cost, performance, and schedule (especially at the beginning of any program), DOD decision-makers have no ability to manage programs with any competence whatsoever.
- A new panel of independent, objective professionals (with no contemporaneous or future ties whatsoever with industry or other sources of bias and self-interest) should be convened by the president to assess
- the extent to which DOD programs and policies do or do not fit with current world conditions
- the president’s national security strategy, and – very importantly –
- a realistic assessment of the reduced budget that will be available for the Department of Defense.
- This panel should provide the secretary of defense his primary advice on how to proceed with DOD program acquisition and management until such time as the military services and the regular civilian bureaucracy have demonstrated sufficient competence and objectivity to re-assert primary control.
- The president should expect strong protest from the advocates of business-as-usual in the military services, the civilian Pentagon bureaucracy, Congress, industry, and “think tanks.” Many such individuals cannot now conceive of a U.S. national security apparatus run outside the boundaries of what they have grown accustomed to and what they have advocated. Most will refuse to adapt. Those who can adapt, especially in the military services, should be brought back into the decision-making structure. Those who cannot should anticipate a career outside the Department of Defense.
This sounds terriffic.
I hope that it’s published here, and/or on DNI
for our benefit.
However, to understrand the mentality of those you’re up against, this is the offical plan in setting the agenda for the next administration, coming from the Pentagon,
and in the face of the made in America, exported global financial collaphs.
All things considered, the permanent occupation of Iraq,
burgeoning defete in Afganistan, the stratigic missle defence initiative, etc, and this collpahs, I couldn’t make up a more utterly preposterous scenario, if trying to be festicious.
Imagine if you ran your personel finances on this basis ?
You wouldn’t tollerate this bahaviour from an 11 year old,,.
MC
“Pentagon Wants $450 Billion Increase Over Next Five Years”
http://tinyurl.com/3q4c2m
Next Five Years
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff
Pentagon officials have prepared a new estimate for defense spending that is $450 billion more over the next five years than previously announced figures.
The new estimate, which the Pentagon plans to release shortly before President Bush leaves office, would serve as a marker for the new president and is meant to place pressure on him to either drastically increase the size of the defense budget or defend any reluctance to do so, according to several former senior budget officials who are close to the discussions.
Experts note that releasing such documents in the twilight of an administration is a well-worn tactic, and that incoming presidents often disregard such guidance in order to pursue their own priorities.
And with the nation’s economy caught up in a global financial meltdown, it remains unclear whether either Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., Sen. Barack Obama , D-Ill., or a Democratic Congress would support such large increases for defense next year.
“This is a political document,” said one former senior budget official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It sets up the new administration immediately to have to make a decision of how to deal with the perception that they are either cutting defense or adding to it.”
Meanwhile,
http://tinyurl.com/4f7z8y
“World stocks drop on concerns about U.S. economy”
OK, half of the names are well-known to me.
I wonder why Spinney hasn’t been active for more than a year. He would have been a good choice for the acquisition chapter.
Sven,
You are right about Chuck, but he has been sailing the eastern Med with his wife and dog. That is his retirement dream, to sail the med, and they are doing well.
Don
Don, you might find this article interesting.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_coming_military_spending_surge
I will post a review of the report when it comes out.
A.E.,
Thanks, I agree in part. Of course, being a liberatarian, big government is not the answer. People have become to dependent on it, and expect entitlements from it (the ones who work their asses off). But, thank you.
I have never seen so much foolishness in one place before as applied to the military. The above is the antithesis of wisdom. The vision it portends is “screw you world, we are taking our toys and going home.” That said, there are a few nuggets hidden in the mud.
It misses the most important military problem. The failure to promote people based on their propensity to defeat their peers in increasingly complex levels of mock combat.
Technology is great, but without a winning strategy it can not deliver the goods.
Hilarious to read these kinds of discussions. They resemble arguments over the fine points of the hypothetical harnesses to worn by all the free ponies we’re going to give away to everyone at the start of the next fiscal year.
As a matter of practical reality, the U.S. military is going to go away. 97 trillion dollars in unfunded future liabilities for Medicare (primarily) guarantees this over the next 30 years.
It doesn’t matter whether we like this trend, or whether we want it — the trend is irreversible. By the mid-2030s, there will be money in the U.S. budget only for entitlements plus a few minor line items like highway repair. We are not going to have the money for a U.S. military anything like the establishment which current exists. Whether the U.S. military budget shrinks by 90% or 95% or merely 80% remains a matter for debate. But there can be no debate about the fact that the U.S. military budget will shrink, and drastically, far more drastically than anyone now believes possible.
A reduction of military expenditures across the board by well over 80% seems unrealistically optimistic. The real military budget within the next 30 years will almost certainly be much lower than 20% of current numbers.
In view of these realities, documents like the Quadrenniel Defense Review from 2006 represent a vision whih remains virtually hallucinogenic. Current defense sepdning, when we include DHS and the NRO and the CIA and the rest of the spending which really boils down to military expenditures, runs around 1.3 trillion dollars per year. The Pentagon recently put forward a proposal to add 0.4 trillion to that number, raising it to the mind-boggling level of nearly 2 trillion dollars per year.
During a period when the world economy is crashing, the U.S. economy is in meltdown, and the government is expected to run a 1 trillion dollar deficit next year, the only way to describe these kinds of proposed levels of military spending involves words like “demented” and “psychotic break with reality.”
A 30,000 man military (2:1 tooth to tail ratio, 10,000 actual combat personnel) with an annual budget of 200 billion is probably excessive, given the extent of the economic wreckage we’re currently facing, but that’s about as much America can afford right now. 200 billion per annum may be more than we can afford. Regardless, we’d better start moving in that direction in a controlled manner now, before budgetary constraints and a general flight from U.S. treasury securities and the dollar as a global reserve currency forces us to downsize our military in a more rapid and uncontrolled manner.
MClaren writes,
“It doesn’t matter whether we like this trend, or whether we want it — the trend is irreversible. By the mid-2030s, there will be money in the U.S. budget only for entitlements plus a few minor line items like highway repair. We are not going to have the money for a U.S. military anything like the establishment which current exists.”
“the only way to describe these kinds of proposed levels of military spending involves words like “demented” and “psychotic break with reality.”
Finaly, finaly, someone who gets it, who understands !
All the theories, wishfull thinking, hubris, in all of universal time and space will not change empherical economic reality.
As exactly what became of the Soviet empire.
Max.
Lol, this seems to be the refuge for people who remember that the foundation of military power is usually economic power.
I can show an old blog article as my club card:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2007/07/sustainability-of-military-power.html
Don
Would like to secure at least three copies of the book – one for myself and two for CGSC classmates who are looking for far more than what the system is offering.
I’m also going to send you an e-mail within 24 hours that describes how the economic collapse is going to occur from the point of view of one of the major investment/trading houses on Wall St. I think you will find it quite interesting to read, and perhaps give some insight to how this is going to pan out.
Ski
Ski : dude, send me an e – mail as well. Peace.
[…] in a new anthology put out soon by the Center For Defense Information titled “America’s Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for the New President and Congress”, William Lind (in the Chapt. 6 synopsis), offers a better way: Fourth Generation War demands the […]
[…] Galrahn is none too happy with this comment from military writer William Lind, which is part of a synopsis of a new anthology book from the Center for Defense Information titled “America’s Defense […]
[…] then is Col. Douglas Macgregor reaching the same conclusion: Because defined, continuous fronts on the hypothetical World War II […]
[…] Continue Reading » […]
Regarding naval strategy.
The traditional approach of second-rate powers that seek to subvert dominant naval powers, such as the United States is today, is to engage in commerce raiding: the Confederate Alabama, the German U-boats, Drake and his Sea Dogs, and many others.
The uptick in piracy from Somalia provides a model for how commerce raiding might proceed in the 21st century.
In any event, the United States needs to secure the sea lanes for commercial shipping and cannot simply take that security for granted.
Reading the summaries of the articles in the anthology (which so far I cannot either download or buy – and desperately want to separate money from my wallet for the book!!!), I find myself wanting to cry out: “Whoooaaa!” As in trying to stop a very determined horse from going in a direction you don’t want him to go.
Although I admire the efforts of this resurrected Defense Reform Movement, I also must say that it is taking a really good and sound theoretical foundation, Boyd Strategic Theory, and beating it to death. This is especially apparent to me when I read about the ideas of reforming the Navy. However, I also find it when I read with distress the pieces on the Army by MacGregor and Wilson (both Inside the Beltway heroes to me.)
I ask the folks who made the effort to put this anthology together to once again go down the proven road of regressive planning: what are the endstates we want; what are the ways, and what are the means that fit. Finally, what are the risks of the ways and means we choose. What I read is that we have jumped from the JIPOE (Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operating Environment) – aka Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield/Battlespace – to the solutions without much analysis or synthesis in between. It’s a common enough problem to a now-academic like me with post-graduate students of joint military operations. The students, all military officers of all services at the O-3/O-4 level, just get going into the force structure detail without too much discussion about the whys and hows of the structure. They have been very much attuned by their recent experience to being at the very tip of the spear, and their thinking tactically reflects that.
But this anthology is supposedly written for the strategic and, at the most detail, the operational leadership of this country’s national security community. In that regard, I do find it lacking – perhaps because the trace of the thinking is not well explained in the text. Perhaps there are implicit connections that the authors have, and believe are shared. Indeed, that was a common enough failing for the first generation of the Defense Reform Movement.
Let’s learn from the first generation. We need to explicitly address the issues of soft power. We need to once and for all come to grips with what information is and what it does for us in terms of national security; we are betting the farm on this concept and we don’t have a good technical grasp of what the damned thing means, and what it implies. To illustrate this, I find that among my Info Ops students, including those who are familiar with Boyd’s Theories (mostly Marines), NOT ONE is familiar with Shannon/Weaver information theory; NOT ONE is familiar with recent cognitive research with respect to Information Overload and Deprivation, particularly with respect to military operations (yes, the Army did this research 25 years ago); NOT ONE is familiar with the limits of Godel Theorems and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principles – not the plural, not the singular!!! – and most of all, NOT ONE is familiar with Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety.
Now if you, the reader, don’t know or are unfamiliar with these ideas, then you dear friend are part of the problem, not the solution to Defense Reform. You are no better than the BOGSATs and BOCSATs that abound Inside the Beltway talking trash as if they know what information is – think of the ridiculous FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE BS we have imposed on our troops.
Most importantly, we need a new lexicon. Just saying and arguing 4th Generation Warfare doesn’t make it real. It just makes it a slogan. We need to understand, in a deep way, the new language that defines our information-rich age: not the classical Newtonian approaches that continues to be used in such problematic (a nice word) doctrine as JP 3.0 and JP 5.0, all the while claiming to be so post-modern and hip with information and effects.
No, we need a lexicon that enables us to critique and develop alternatives that encompasses the real world – th quantum world. That lexicon would include adaptations and extensions of concepts like entropy, like entanglement, like superposition, like coherence and decoherence, and non-localized action.
Folks, I know most of us had problems getting through Calculus 101, but the world, unfortunately for us liberal arts fellows, is far more mathematical than it is verbal. We must adapt; we must learn, un-learn and re-learn; and most of all, we must be able to communicate to the rest of the concerned constituencies of national security in ways they can understand, grasp, accept and implement.
Until then, all we do is add to the noise.
I had the great good fortune of watching the Book TV broadcast of the dialogue recorded on 19 Feb 2009 about this book. Outstanding but most disappointing revelations.
I highly recommend that the contributors to the book set up a web site similar to the Numbers web site (anti-illegal immigration) that tries to get subscribers (very successfully) to fill out their fax form and they will send it on our behalf to our local politicians to do such things as save eVerify which remains the only federal program that worked with near perfect performance verifying that YOUR SSN was not used illegally by an illegal alien. Several pre-selected text examples are provided or one can create one of their own. The “bulletin board” shows all available concners that one can fax or phone their concerns about.
I would certainly contribute to such an effort if you could craft faxes and emails that are NOT quite as radical as the ones found on the numbers website. We need to show more respect for those whose opinions we seek to change than the web site described seems to care about.
Thank you for your suggestion will forward to Winslow Wheeler for consideration. Thanks for your support.
Don
TRA KIEU TRAVEL
Address: 226/1 Trung Nu Vuong Street, Danang, Vietnam
Tel: 84.511.3871 797
Fax: 84.511.3553 156
Email: info@trakieutravel.vn
Website: http://www.trakieutravel.vn
Aim at promoting Vietnam as a safe, hospitable and exotic destination in Asia, we offer global holiday-makers a comprehensive variety of unique itineraries with tailor-made programs and services to fit different demands and interests of both individually independent travellers to groups of friends and families:
– Classic tours featuring most highlights in Vietnam, throughout which you can have an overview of the country’s diversified culture and natural landscapes from North to South. This is the best way to grasp Vietnam’s image as a whole.
– Beach leisure and relaxation: yearn for sunny, pristine beach with warm, emerald sea water? Tra Kieu Travel reserves excellent options for you to indulge yourself with high-quality services in luxurious resorts and a wide range of entertainment activities and water sports such as snorkeling, scuba diving, water-skiing, fishing, canoeing, kayaking,…
– Trekking and mountain retreat: we offer you fantastic itineraries crossing the most beautiful mountainous roads with spectacular landscapes and chances to interact with ethnic minorities, learning their exotic customs and practices, tasting their typical food and seeing their colorful costumes.
– Cultural exploring: no one knows Vietnamese “hidden charms” better than Tra Kieu Travel. Come to us and you can not only see but also live in the authentic local households, explore their semplice and hospitable lifestyles, join unique festivals and deliciously made-in-Vietnam gastronomy art, even learn to cook the dishes on your own.
– Adventure tours: Vietnam with its untouched and significantly diversified ecosystem is idyllic for adventure-seekers. Our professional guides can help you to have real adventurous time in a safe manner. Your activities can also be extended into wildlife exploring such as bird watching, flora and fauna studying…
– Journeys on two wheels: we are experienced and skillful in organizing motor-cycling and cycling package tours for many large groups of European travelers. Gaining an insight into Vietnam’s beauties on two wheels is of unforgettable experience.
– Tra Kieu Travel especially boasts perfect shore excursions for prestigious cruise lines such as Royal Viking Lines, Crystal Cruises, Star Cruises and others.
– We are able to provide you with creative, interesting MICE programs & excellent Business travel services (BTS) during your business trips in Vietnam as well as neighboring countries of Laos, Cambodia and Thailand.
– We design best customized itineraries for your golf tours in 11 superb golf courses in Vietnam
– Charity tours have been always one of our priority in establishing business development strategies, which are identified to focus on harmonize benefits between the company, local community and environment. Annually Tra Kieu Travel holds “Light-up Belief” charity program under the form of leisure tours and outdoor activities for around 400 sight-impaired children in the territory of Ho Chi Minh City. International tourists are welcomed to join the program, in which they can visit schools and hearths for blinded pupils and make donation to help improve those unfortunate children’s living condition.
– Indochina tours: our services and products have gone beyond the borders to give international travelers complete experiences ofIndochina and Thailand.
– Value-added services, such as interpreters, tour guides, air ticketing and car rental are offered with great flexibility and professionalism at reasonable prices.
The secret is that the hotel you can go stay in a major way for you to have in custody or trading experience positive or negative depending on the amount of ‘room service is especially the location of the hotel.
[…] Preface, and Executive Summary. Donald Vandergriff has posted the Executive Summary at his website. More information is coming soon on how to obtain the complete volume when it’s […]