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

[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.

[Legbreaker]

The best that can really be done is containment while holding out the hand of friendship for those who want to get out.
However in places such as North Korea where knowledge of the outside world is STRICTLY controlled, many may not even know there IS an outside world, let alone it's potentially a better place to be.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

All very true, Paul.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Most of the rest of the Middle East are people who have a Middle Ages mindset but are playing with 21st century toys.

Most of the Muslim countries from North Africa to Pakistan are arguably still socially in the stone age. Women had more rights in the European feudal era than they do today in many so-called 'modern' Muslim nations. And tribalism, which pervades almost all Muslim countries, is a stone age concept. Nation is a bronze age invention, and these folks haven't yet grasped that simple concept.

Some people talk about bombing someone "back to the stone age". These so-called nations are still in the stone age. Cave dwellers with AKs. Or in the case of Pakistan, missiles and nukes.

[Medic]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Most of the Muslim countries from North Africa to Pakistan are arguably still socially in the stone age. Women had more rights in the European feudal era than they do today in many so-called 'modern' Muslim nations. And tribalism, which pervades almost all Muslim countries, is a stone age concept. Nation is a bronze age invention, and these folks haven't yet grasped that simple concept.

Some people talk about bombing someone "back to the stone age". These so-called nations are still in the stone age. Cave dwellers with AKs. Or in the case of Pakistan, missiles and nukes.

As said earlier, the attempts to Westernisize the Middle Eastern countries are really as useful as teaching a fish to ride a unicycle. It might be entertaining at first, but with such fundamental differences, it has very little of a chance to work in reality. And the word is often, fundamental. Pun intended.

I can remember the Iraqi guy who went to High School with me - he was telling the class about Islam and said something along these lines: "The Shiites are really brutal and uncivilized - you steal, they cut off your hand from the wrist. We Sunnites are much more civilized - we only cut off your fingers."

The fact is, the U.S. of A. meant well by ridding Iraq of Saddam and removing Taleban from the seat of power in Afghanistan, but the attempts to "help" are most often misguided by misunderstanding the local culture. You can't just remove a head of state and tell the people of the said state they are now free to elect someone in his stead. That way you only create a vacuum of power - a vacuum that is going to be filled by something else, most often a puppet of the faction that removed the previous head of state.

A very good description of this particular thing is the episode of Over There, where the team enters a village in Iraq to provide protection for the negotiations between the villagers and the oil company that wants to build a pipeline next to the village. The oil company representative doesn't want to build a mosque for the village and encourages the wife of the local hardliner imam to demand for a school, which eventually leads to her banishment from the village by her own husband, partially because Dim tries to help her as well.

I'm not really saying all of the Americans are like this, but from what I've come to see is that most of you don't really see what goes on beyond the borders of your own state and even far less, beyond the U.S. borders. Of course this is a bit of generalization, just like saying most of the Muslim countries are socially in the stone ages. They are culturally very different from the western world and yes, they treat their women poorly, if they get out of line, but then again, there are some Christian factions that are just as stone aged, if you ask me. It doesn't matter, what the religion is - fundamentalists are fundamentalists everywhere and they act pretty much the same everywhere, no matter what the religion is.

As for the U.S. military diminishing it's power, I don't really see that generally as a bad thing. I can't say I'm anti-U.S., but I kind of frown to the way, you guys have driven your own agendas at gunpoint ever since the Iron Curtain came down. The appeasement policy the U.S. has towards Israel is something very disturbing - UN sanctions against Israel harassing people, who lived in the region before someone got the bright idea to actually erect a jewish colony there, can not be put in to action because the motions are vetoed by the U.S..

What the world would most definitely need is a bit broader point of view. And thus endeth the rant. No hard feelings, people. I know some very intelligent and nice Americans, who actually know where Finland is and have enough curiosity to get to know other cultures and societies.

[dragoon500ly]

I'm not really saying all of the Americans are like this, but from what I've come to see is that most of you don't really see what goes on beyond the borders of your own state and even far less, beyond the U.S. borders. Of course this is a bit of generalization, just like saying most of the Muslim countries are socially in the stone ages. They are culturally very different from the western world and yes, they treat their women poorly, if they get out of line, but then again, there are some Christian factions that are just as stone aged, if you ask me. It doesn't matter, what the religion is - fundamentalists are fundamentalists everywhere and they act pretty much the same everywhere, no matter what the religion is.

The reality is much harsher, most Americans are in the dark as to who their town's mayor and city councils are, let alone what they are doing. When you start adding in what the various states and even the federal governments are up too....most Americans would rather watch the various sitcoms and sports programs. Toss in what is going on over seas....I doubt that the vast majority of Americans can even pinpoint Iraq and Afghanistan on a map, let alone have any idea of what is going on. Toss in the religious nuts....I always have felt that the founding fathers shouldn't have stopped with the seperation of Church and State, they should have added that Chruches are forbidden to have anything to do with the State!

Case in point, that certain little church in Kansas that feels it is necessary to "attend" every military funeral so that they can scream their racist/sexist agenda and blame the service member's death on the government's failure to keep >INSERT MINORITY GROUP OF CHOICE< under control. I've always believed that the freedom of speech should be defended, even when you don't agree with what the other party is saying, but this group of lunatics is enough to make one doubt the validity of that argument.

Coupled to a complete failure to teach American History or Civics and I fear for the future.

As for the U.S. military diminishing it's power, I don't really see that generally as a bad thing. I can't say I'm anti-U.S., but I kind of frown to the way, you guys have driven your own agendas at gunpoint ever since the Iron Curtain came down. The appeasement policy the U.S. has towards Israel is something very disturbing - UN sanctions against Israel harassing people, who lived in the region before someone got the bright idea to actually erect a jewish colony there, can not be put in to action because the motions are vetoed by the U.S..

What the world would most definitely need is a bit broader point of view. And thus endeth the rant. No hard feelings, people. I know some very intelligent and nice Americans, who actually know where Finland is and have enough curiosity to get to know other cultures and societies.

The problem is that whatever political party that is in control of the government at the time, is made up of a collection of weak-minded dips**ts who answer to the various special intrest groups and whatever briefing points that their staffs draw up. This is perhaps the greatest weakness of the American system of government. Not the election of the most populat vs. the most qualified, but the willingness to allow any political action committee to have the degree of power that these special intrest groups have. They need to be banned or have their degree of access rigidly controlled...perhaps no more than 5 minutes per decade.

[weswood]

Originally Posted by Medic

..... they treat their women poorly, if they get out of line, but then again, there are some Christian factions that are just as stone aged, if you ask me. It doesn't matter, what the religion is - fundamentalists are fundamentalists everywhere and they act pretty much the same everywhere, no matter what the religion is.

I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I have to ask what Christian fundamentalist sect kills a woman by stoning for having extramarital sex?

I really do agree with you but I keep hearing how Christians are no better than Muslims. Maybe at one time, over 200 years ago, we had the Inquisition and witch burning, but we're over it.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

In short, it is a whole different world and outlook over there, they are still under the tribal idea of needed a strongman leader. I know we nation built in Japan and Germany after WWII, but Germany is a Western nation with common values and although Japan still held the views of the Samurai, they had enough taste of the Western way of life to be able to accept a Western form of government.

Chuck

[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!

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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

I've heard the worst is Star Trek TOS dubbed in German!

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I've heard the worst is Star Trek TOS dubbed in German!

It was bad....but the worst was Smoky and the Bandit in German!!!

I think I lost brain cells when I saw that one!

[ArmySGT.]

So if I can wear the Crown for a day what would I do with the Dept of Defense.

1) Rename it the War Department. We are not going of to fight a "Defense" now are we? Mindset people.

2) Single parents. Thanks for your help. He is a severance check equal to six months. Buh-bye.

3) All the Family and Community stuff on Stateside bases. Redundant and frequently prices are cheaper for the Soldier and the quality higher off post. Overseas I get it, Stateside,NO.

4) The Marine Corps. I would remove it from the Department of the Navy and slot it under the Department of the Army. Make for a massive reduction in procurement efforts. Going to the Marines would be like going to the Airborne. A specialized assignment but still just an assignment. It would still be Corps sized, though reshaped on the Brigade Combat Team concept. The Navy can protect their ports and other facilities with Master at Arms or draw from their Shore Duty sailors.

5) The Airborne. Dead concept on Brigade and Division level. Consider the 21st century threat detection capability and Theater air defense missiles that could destroy not just damage cargo aircraft. Lets be real. The Brigade drop hasn't even been used in Afghanistan where such an effort could actually have achieved total surprise and seized terrain and taliban assets. With upcoming Laser technology anything rising above the horizon is dead upon detection. The chips are in the air on SOF units and air delivered supplies.

6) Close Air Support is an Army function and should be at the Brigade level. Possibly even with prop driven dirt strip capable air craft.

7) Army Bases should be in areas where there is room to train. Those Posts in the Eastern US or worse inside large cities would be closed even turned over to the Park Service. We know why there still there and tradition is bullshit. Their there to dazzle Congressmen and Senators on visits and to be close to the White House and the Pentagon.

8) Joint Bases. This would be the new normal. Where ever possible all installations would be multi-service. Keeps the operating costs and FORCES cooperative interoperability. Shut down post or installations could become housing for Veterans of all wars. It is not fancy but, it will be familiar, with people that understand or share experiences, and would coordinate care and services better.

9) Ditch the short and quick Non Commissioned Officer Courses. The Primary Leadership Development Course is the first induction into the NCO Corps. This course should be the damned hardest. Candidates should have to show a commitment like re-enlisting to get to into it. The Course should be at a minimum 12 months classified as a hardship tour without relocation of dependents. The Graduates should all be very proficient in Infantry Operations regardless of the MOS, be able to operate any weapon system, use any radio, and drive any vehicle that is not aircraft or watercraft greater than a RIB craft. The lectures and presentations given by students on facets of military history, tactics, strategy, and concepts of the operational art should graduate each student with an Associates degree in Military Science. If their Professional Soldiers than Professional training with formal classes and measured results should be standard.

10) Controversial idea. Reduce the carrier fleet and increase the Submarine fleet. More SLBMs afloat. The Carrier itself is beginning to be threaten by ballistic missiles (China is first here) with non nuclear warheads anywhere at sea in the missiles radius. Reduce the Navy Carriers to six with two at sea in the areas of most interest. Give two to the Coast Guard for humanitarian missions and disaster relief missions. CG aircraft carriers with Opreys and Helos would benefit missions on the scale of Katrina and the SE Asian Tsunami event.

more rants to follow.