oh good, by dint of presidential fiat my country's military is being gutted today

[Cdnwolf]

The UNPROFOR was composed of nearly 39,000 personnel, 320 of whom were killed on duty. It was composed of troops from Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany , Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.

[weswood]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

The UNPROFOR was composed of nearly 39,000 personnel, 320 of whom were killed on duty. It was composed of troops from Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany , Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Damn those Venezuelans for not coming out to play!

[dragoon500ly]

After watching the latest talking heads and their doom-and-gloom (not to mention cruising some of the right-wing websites) one is left with the impression that our current administration is hellbent for disarmament to pre World War I levels. To be sure, the announced drawdowns are certainly going to fuel some very lively debates once the presidental election starts rolling....its going to be impossible to to discuss the drawndown in calm, reasonable language, especially as the November Follies kick off.

So...whats the reality on the ground?

The defense needs of the US are, to say the least, unique. Our position in North America does not require a large land component. Sorry, but there it is. A Marine Corps of two-division equivalants plus support is more than adequate for its mission of rapid reaction/deployment.

The Army and its move to brigades as the primary combat unit is cutting out a lot of the waste. To be sure, I do not agree in anyway with the decision to become more "Medium" and please! Let's not even get me started on the Stryker Uber Weapons System! But it boils down that the Heavy configuration of the Army just isn't sustainable in this era of "Police Actions". Troops that can be rapidly transported and married up to pre-positioned equipment may be the most efficient use of our manpower.

We need a strong Navy because so much of our economic lifeblood depends on control of the seas. So the current plans to gut the Navy's air, surface, submarine and amphibious capabilities are, at best, the by-products of severe self-medication and at worst a demonstration of extremely piss-poor judgement.

As for the Air Farce, err Force....The needs to control the skies of our nation as well as the skies over our deployed troops should be paramount. They need to have the best, most advanced aircraft that we can field and in such numbers that they seize and hold control of the air anywhere in the world.

The Department of Defense is not the most efficient organization in the world, we need to streamline and prioritize what our defense budget is spent on. There should be no waste and there should be no cost-overruns!

Just a few thoughts.....

[Webstral]

The US Navy definitely needs to be able to keep open the sea lanes that carry so much of the nation’s economic lifeblood. However, I’d be perfectly happy sharing this job with China. The Chinese Communist leadership has all but abandoned communism in favor of fascism. They recognize that economic well-being for the nation is the best and most cost-effective guarantee of the longevity of the current regime. So long as China continues to move forward economically and scientifically, there’s no real risk of Sino-American conflict. Therefore, they can help keep the sea lanes open. After all, the Chinese are arguably even more dependent upon maritime commerce than the US is.

The Air Force does need a qualitative edge over its most likely rivals. How much of a qualitative edge is necessary is a matter for debate.

The Army… ah, the Army. I believe pre-positioning is wise. Additionally, though, we should eliminate 90% of the combat arms in the National Guard while moving most of non-combat brigades into the Army Reserve or the Army National Guard. Non-combat jobs are more forgiving of intermittent practice than combat jobs. The trigger pullers (including the tankers and cavalry, artillery, air defense, and combat engineers) need constant practice to stay at the top of their game. Once the balloon goes up, the combat arms brigades deploy with their organic support. Corps, and maybe divisional, support comes out of the reserve force. The reserves, by the way, should be expanded to at least twice their current size. Some support brigades would be earmarked as high-readiness, which would require the brigade to be ready to go in 30 days from mobilization. The line companies would be manned by folks who have a comparable civilian job, or the line companies would have an adjusted training schedule to keep the reservists fresh. High readiness would not be for everyone.

While we’re at it, though, the pay and privileges for the infantry and the infantry alone should be increased significantly. The Army needs to be in a position to refuse applicants for the infantry. Every private should be smart, fit, and motivated. There should be a backlog or waitlist so that any rifleman who can’t cut it or loses his motivation can be sent to another MOS—no harm, no foul. Thanks for trying; we still want you on the big team. Any soldier from another MOS can apply for the infantry at any time, just like Special Forces. Can one imagine what the Army might be able to accomplish if every battalion measured up to the Rhodesian Light Infantry?

As an added benefit, NCOs who either get tired of infantry life or who don’t make rank could transfer to another MOS after getting some retraining. These NCOs would carry the infantry mindset with them. This cannot help but be good for the other combat arms or the support types.

Of course, with a highly motivated Infantry Branch, the whole commissioning process would have to be reworked. I’ve said plenty about my views on the commissioning process, so I won’t repeat them here. But imagine, if you will, the effect of having second lieutenants who first had to earn their membership in a rifle company as a junior enlisted man and perhaps pass the grade as a team leader before being accepted into an officer training program. There might be a shortage of new lieutenants, but everyone in the platoon would have confidence that their platoon leader was the right man for the job.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

As an added benefit, NCOs who either get tired of infantry life or who don’t make rank could transfer to another MOS after getting some retraining. These NCOs would carry the infantry mindset with them. This cannot help but be good for the other combat arms or the support types.

I've never understood that "up or out" policy the US military has. If a soldier is happy in the role they are in and don't want the extra responsibilities associated with gaining rank, why should they be penalised? In the Australian Army there are many, many intelligent, skilled, motivated soldiers who have no interest in going for promotion and are allowed to work in the role they are happy in and suits them, with no predjudice against them for turning down promotion opportunities.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Targan

I've never understood that "up or out" policy the US military has. If a soldier is happy in the role they are in and don't want the extra responsibilities associated with gaining rank, why should they be penalised? In the Australian Army there are many, many intelligent, skilled, motivated soldiers who have no interest in going for promotion and are allowed to work in the role they are happy in and suits them, with no predjudice against them for turning down promotion opportunities.

It was a tool in 1992 when the US Army was drawing down from a Cold War 2 Million to 800,000. In theory it gets rid of the unmotivated, in practice it bashes square pegs into round holes.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

It was a tool in 1992 when the US Army was drawing down from a Cold War 2 Million to 800,000. In theory it gets rid of the unmotivated, in practice it bashes square pegs into round holes.

"Up or Out" really dates back to the mid-1950s. As the War and Navy Departments were being combined into the new Department of Defense, the civilian leadership of the armed forces begain to be increasingly drawn from corporate America. Part of this was a drive to further educate the military leadership be encouraging more and more college style education. For the most part, this drive for more education in the officer/NCO corps is good. Where it fell apart was the DOD's efforts to insure that ALL NCOs/Officers HAD to have higher education.

As the US begain to become involved in Vietnam, there were several policy changes that were made. First was the one-year tour of duty that was implemented following the unsatisfactory points system of the Korea War. Great for morale, right (only another 127 days and a wakeup!) but utterly destroyed the fighting capability of units as the one year mark approached.

But DOD also implented a policy of posting an officer to a combat unit for six months and then rotating them to a staff position for the remaining six months of their tour. Since Vietnam was a battalion-level war, this put a lot of pressure on the green 2nd Lieutenants, just as the LT was getting experienced enough to become a real leader....POP! He was now a staff weenie back with the REMFs.

As the need for more and more lieutenants became apparant, the decison was made that if officers didn't meet certain performance and education milestones, then they would be RIFe'd (Reducation in Force), "encouraged" to seek positions with the National Guard/Reserves, "retired" to recruiting or ROTC duties or flat out be encouraged to resign.

As the Vietnam War wound down, "up or out" became firmly inbedded in the Armed Forces. Now DOD is willing to lose a combat proven officer because he didn't make his performance metric and get his promotion to major within three years (because he was in the field leading the troops instead of kissing the colonel's ass as a staff weenie). But some jerk-off whose best skill is his ability to kiss ass without wearing knee pads is on the fast track to becoming a general.

Yup, up or out is working so well.....

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Webstral

The US Navy definitely needs to be able to keep open the sea lanes that carry so much of the nation’s economic lifeblood. However, I’d be perfectly happy sharing this job with China. The Chinese Communist leadership has all but abandoned communism in favor of fascism. They recognize that economic well-being for the nation is the best and most cost-effective guarantee of the longevity of the current regime. So long as China continues to move forward economically and scientifically, there’s no real risk of Sino-American conflict. Therefore, they can help keep the sea lanes open. After all, the Chinese are arguably even more dependent upon maritime commerce than the US is.

Given the current regime in China, I'd be very relucant to trust (or share) control of the sea lines of communications (SLOC) to them. I am not stating that a Cold War II is about to break out. But simply that the USN needs to control these SLOCs vital to the US. Bit hard to do with the current administrations plans.

The Air Force does need a qualitative edge over its most likely rivals. How much of a qualitative edge is necessary is a matter for debate.

We can't be the world's policeman anymore, nor can we use our military to stiick the American way of life down the throats of every person on this planet. It tends to annoy the natives. What would be a good level for the Air Force? An air wing committed to NATO, another committed to South West Asia, 3-4 in the Pacific, and at least another 6-8 in the US and that would be the active duty Air Force, AFNG and Reserve should have another 10-14 air wings. And these would be combat aircraft, not including tankers and transports.

The Army… ah, the Army. I believe pre-positioning is wise. Additionally, though, we should eliminate 90% of the combat arms in the National Guard while moving most of non-combat brigades into the Army Reserve or the Army National Guard. Non-combat jobs are more forgiving of intermittent practice than combat jobs. The trigger pullers (including the tankers and cavalry, artillery, air defense, and combat engineers) need constant practice to stay at the top of their game. Once the balloon goes up, the combat arms brigades deploy with their organic support. Corps, and maybe divisional, support comes out of the reserve force. The reserves, by the way, should be expanded to at least twice their current size. Some support brigades would be earmarked as high-readiness, which would require the brigade to be ready to go in 30 days from mobilization. The line companies would be manned by folks who have a comparable civilian job, or the line companies would have an adjusted training schedule to keep the reservists fresh. High readiness would not be for everyone.

While we’re at it, though, the pay and privileges for the infantry and the infantry alone should be increased significantly. The Army needs to be in a position to refuse applicants for the infantry. Every private should be smart, fit, and motivated. There should be a backlog or waitlist so that any rifleman who can’t cut it or loses his motivation can be sent to another MOS—no harm, no foul. Thanks for trying; we still want you on the big team. Any soldier from another MOS can apply for the infantry at any time, just like Special Forces. Can one imagine what the Army might be able to accomplish if every battalion measured up to the Rhodesian Light Infantry?

As an added benefit, NCOs who either get tired of infantry life or who don’t make rank could transfer to another MOS after getting some retraining. These NCOs would carry the infantry mindset with them. This cannot help but be good for the other combat arms or the support types.

Of course, with a highly motivated Infantry Branch, the whole commissioning process would have to be reworked. I’ve said plenty about my views on the commissioning process, so I won’t repeat them here. But imagine, if you will, the effect of having second lieutenants who first had to earn their membership in a rifle company as a junior enlisted man and perhaps pass the grade as a team leader before being accepted into an officer training program. There might be a shortage of new lieutenants, but everyone in the platoon would have confidence that their platoon leader was the right man for the job.

PREACH ON BROTHER!!!!!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

...nor can we use our military to stiick the American way of life down the throats of every person on this planet. It tends to annoy the natives.

Agree 10,000% with that! Bad enough that we have to endure American sitcoms.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Agree 10,000% with that! Bad enough that we have to endure American sitcoms.

Well, make some decent Australian sitcoms, I'll watch them!

But I've said that for a long time. You can't force democracy on a people at gunpoint. Pretty much, an outside culture cannot do "nation building." The people have to be ready for democracy and they have to want to come out of the stone age. The Afghan people aren't ready for either. Most of the rest of the Middle East are people who have a Middle Ages mindset but are playing with 21st century toys. That does make them dangerous, but no one can force them into the 21st century except the people of those countries themselves.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Agree 10,000% with that! Bad enough that we have to endure American sitcoms.

It could be worse...try American sitcoms dubbed in German!

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

As for the Air Farce, err Force....The needs to control the skies of our nation as well as the skies over our deployed troops should be paramount. They need to have the best, most advanced aircraft that we can field and in such numbers that they seize and hold control of the air anywhere in the world.

The Department of Defense is not the most efficient organization in the world, we need to streamline and prioritize what our defense budget is spent on. There should be no waste and there should be no cost-overruns!

Just a few thoughts.....

No cost overruns. Nice in theory. Not so easy in practice. What do you do when the unexpected happens? Kill the program(s)? There goes your "best, most advanced aircraft that we can field and in such numbers" such as the F-35. Killed by a budget axe because it went over-budget. Ditto almost every completely new weapon system. Missile defense? Over-budget. New ships? Over-budget. (Well, most of them. IIRC there's one class that came in under budget.)

Want to cut waste in the DOD? Cut out 99% of the nukes. Damned things are obscenely expensive to build and more so to maintain. We could do just fine with a tiny fraction of the inventory that we have. The hundreds of billions saved could go towards other, better weapon systems. But any time that anyone even hints at reducing the absurdly large stockpile that the U.S. has the right-wingnuts cry that whomever is suggesting it is a commie or some such nonsense.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

No cost overruns. Nice in theory. Not so easy in practice. What do you do when the unexpected happens? Kill the program(s)? There goes your "best, most advanced aircraft that we can field and in such numbers" such as the F-35. Killed by a budget axe because it went over-budget. Ditto almost every completely new weapon system. Missile defense? Over-budget. New ships? Over-budget. (Well, most of them. IIRC there's one class that came in under budget.)

Want to cut waste in the DOD? Cut out 99% of the nukes. Damned things are obscenely expensive to build and more so to maintain. We could do just fine with a tiny fraction of the inventory that we have. The hundreds of billions saved could go towards other, better weapon systems. But any time that anyone even hints at reducing the absurdly large stockpile that the U.S. has the right-wingnuts cry that whomever is suggesting it is a commie or some such nonsense.

Never made any claim that controlling overruns would be easy. But the entire process that DOD uses to buy equipment needs to be cleaned up, and preferably with C-4 and flamethrowers!!!! And a lot of the so-called contractors need to be guests of honor at an old style lynching!

The whole process of getting "the best price for our equipment" is insane. Take a look through the Congessional Records, look at what the winning bids were for virtually every weapons system used by the US in the last 40 years and you will see a cost overrun (and for every reason under the sun!). I accept that there can be overruns for legitimate reasons...but I also state that every possible effort should be made to keep the overruns to a minimum.

I agree that the nuclear arsenal is a waste of defence dollars. But the world is a harsh place and with nations like North Korea and possibly Iran getting their hands on nukes...if you believe that their current leadership won't hesitate to use them on US troops given half a chacne...then there is some prime farmland in the Everglades that I'd like to sell you!

Still, does the Air Farce need to maintain an aging arsenal of ICBMs. Nope, decommission them. Cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads are a more efficient use.

Do we need a large arsenal of aircraft-deleivered nuclear bombs, nope, decommission them.

Does the Navy need to maintain its SLBM fleet. I'd have to agree with that, SSBNs are a hell of a lot harder to track and destroy than a static ICBM field in the Dakotas.

Does the Army need a stockpile of artillery-delivered nuclear missiles...nope. I'd even go as far as turning over the remaining Pershing fleet to the Air Force....in return for the A-10s that they don't want!