We spent two decades trying to defeat the Taliban (or whatever our goal was?) and failed miserably. Those same leaders who failed to defeat third world thugs are the ones remaking our military for the coming war with China.
Do we really trust military leaders who couldn’t defeat third world thugs to know how to defeat China?
How many generals and admirals did we go through to get the non performers side lined in WW2? I don't remember very many in the war on terror getting canned. Just Petreaus for infidelity.
ReplyDeleteOr the Civil War, or the Revolution for that matter.
DeleteDidn't McCrystal get canned for not talking pretty?
it says alot; We are willing to shitcan leaders for saying the wrong words or spreading the wrong legs, but we refuse to fire anyone for failure on the battlefield.
Delete"Lose all the men and material and geography you want, just dont make us look bad!:
McCrystal was fired for being a complete failure and for blaming the President for his failures. He is lucky the President allowed him to retire instead of prosecuting him.
Delete"McCrystal was fired for being a complete failure and for blaming the President"
DeleteThat is not quite correct. Please go back and research the events.
"Do we really trust military leaders who couldn’t defeat third world thugs to know how to defeat China?"
ReplyDeleteNo, of course not. I just don't know how far down you have to purge to get to any warriors.
"(or whatever our goal was?)"
I think you have identified the problem. Does anybody know what our goal was? I think I know what it should have been, but clearly wasn't.
This blog needs a +1 button...
Deletea brief entry that gets to the bottom like, something no one wants to touch with a 10 foot pole, because:
ReplyDeleteA) The answer is NO, and
B) review boards promoting clones mean there are no suitable available alternatives.
Our current officer corps doesn't seem to understand basic ideas, like tempo, initiative, surprise, shock, Mass of force( the basic concept of a Schwerpunkt), or to have developed and employed a decent practices for either logistics, sustainment, or maintenancele alone slightly more advanced concepts like getting inside the enemies decision cycle, shaping the battlefield ( for all the lip service paid to the idea, it's one thing to aquire assets, another entirely to develop doctrines for them and train enough to do them routinely and successfully),or , heaven forbid, destroying your enemies will to fight and his means to wage war and support his forces in the field.
But no, I don't trust current leadership to even seriously ATTEMPT to make a plan to DEFEAT the Chinese. They haven't the will.
"But no, I don't trust current leadership to even seriously ATTEMPT to make a plan to DEFEAT the Chinese. They haven't the will."
DeleteAnd yet they're radically remaking the US military; abandoning firepower in favor of networks. This is terrifying.
"New analysis of the fiscal 2022 budget request by data and analytics firm Govini shows..."
Delete"...summed up the scorecard’s takeaways on the Navy’s activities this way: “Most of the savings the department has garnered by cutting investment in outfit are spent in organizing overhead.”
In other words, the money the Navy has saved on divestment activities — for example, retiring older Littoral Combat Ships and Ticonderoga-class cruisers — is being spent on institutional support rather than operations and training or research and development, according to Govini."
Never mind that the DMO/EABO concepts are, well...stupid. But clearly the money supposedly saved by retiring powerful ships is being misspent as well. "Institutional support"??? In my mind, this is a clear indictment of the absurdly top-heavy organization we have. Nothing good is going to come from a force that has nearly an Admiral per ship. Theres entirely too many "staffs" and shore duty positions in general. There are too many politicians wearing uniforms, that arent contributing to a more powerful and effective naval fighting force. Nobody seems to be concerned about the next war. Maybe press releases make it seem so, but the (in)action says differently. Any halfwit on the outside looking in can see how absurdly the management is now, from the five sided fantasy factory on down to the mid level ranks. Im a second generation Navy vet, and a proud and patriotic one at that. But Im afraid Im gonna live long enough to see the USN take a trouncing like we've given in the past, unless some SERIOUS changes and redirection happen pretty quick!!!
Of course no one's concerned about the next war they don't believe it will happen till the US decides to bomb some other third world country.
DeleteThey don't really believe that China will attack the US just like no one in 1940 really believed the Japanese would attack either.
The US has nukes so in their eyes the US itself is safe from attack while the small islands like Guam and American Samoa aren't worth risking war with the US to attack.
If China invades Taiwan the US military seems to see it like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. China will sit there as the US builds up it's forces and expels the Chinese in a few weeks and then it's over.
"
DeleteOur current officer corps doesn't seem to understand basic ideas, like tempo, initiative, surprise, shock, Mass of force( the basic concept of a Schwerpunkt), or to have developed and employed a decent practices for either logistics, sustainment, or maintenance, let alone slightly more advanced concepts like getting inside the enemies decision cycle, shaping the battlefield (for all the lip service paid to the idea, it's one thing to acquire assets, another entirely to develop doctrines for them and train enough to do them routinely and successfully),or , heaven forbid, destroying your enemies will to fight and his means to wage war and support his forces in the field."
This is not a modern development. My time in the fleet is now almost 50 years ago, and I would offer the same criticisms of officer training back then. What training we got was how to be efficient managers--dealing with things like PMS, PQS, running rust.
They are remaking the military in a way that has taken all the real fires out of the hands of field officers and put it higher up the chain of command, then FURTHER limited the ability of junior officers to take initiative by saddling them with rules of engagement and " networks" that all they really do is give commanders hundreds, if not thousands of miles away the ability to micromanage a fire team. It's clear they don't trust their subordinates until they've gone through enough promotions to assure they are, in fact, clones of their superiors. The men they don't trust and all, and beg drones and AI to overcomes their inability to lead men.
ReplyDeleteI wish there was an edit function to clean up my typos..
ReplyDeleteIf there is I can't find it.
Google claims logging in provides management of comments. If not, you could compose in a basic text editor and then cut and paste. A hassle, I know, but it provides opportunities for checking and reflection.
DeleteThere is no comment editing capability that I've found. As Eric notes, composing in a word processor and then cut/paste provides the opportunity to edit.
DeleteWorst case, you can copy a comment, delete it, re-post/paste it and edit it.
After driven Taliban from major cities, Afghan war become like Chicago police fighting gangsters. You don't know where they are. On street, they may just look like other law biding people but at a time you don't know, they pull their guns to fight. Precisely, it is a policing war than military war.
ReplyDeleteFighting another competent army is different. Good news is, from past experiences with Soviet Union, thanks to nuclear weapons, direct war between US and China is extremely unlikely. Most people don't want to die for some people's "vision".
The scenarios with Russia and China are quite different, and nuclear weapons don't necessarily prevent conventional war....
DeleteSoviet Union and US did not have conventional war, either.
DeleteBoth sides were afraid any military conflicts would escalate into nuclear war.
Just think, can any losing side stay calm tell his citizens that he lost?
Even the Cuban Crisis did not end in conventional war.
Sure...there was always that fear. But to think that two nuclear armed states can't go to war without using them is wrong. If that was the case, why would we even worry about China,and have a "pivot west, since we wouldnt dare enter a conflict because itd automatically go nuclear??
DeleteThe US is the only nation to use atomic weapons, and I daresay its only because there was an opportunity to do so without retribution in kind. I dont think anybody is foolish enough to use them today, in spite of posturing and rhetoric. Even Lil Kim wasn't dumb enough to act on his words...
ComNavOps,
ReplyDeleteAs you wrote in your prior thread,
"Our fixation on Afghanistan, and the Middle East in general, cost us dearly. Our overall military readiness declined, the Marines were turned into a pure land force and completely lost their institutional knowledge about amphibious assault, our military was transformed from an armored, high end force to a low end, lightweight force that was tailored to fight insurgents and is now ill-suited to face China, and we lost sight of why our military exists."
This is the the expected result of that. Or maybe, that is the expected result of this.
And it's such a deja vu replay of the late 70's when the Army had to "refocus" from COIN to "the main event in Europe".
DeleteBasically we repeated Vietnam for longer and at more cost to the long term health of the military. Mostly because elected politicians figured out the loopholes in the Powell Doctrine and were enthusiastically supported by the MIC revolving door.
Purely as a thought exercise, if the Secretary, the Chairman, the CNO, and the Commandant were on China's payroll--what would they do differently? Would that change the things they do and the things they say.
ReplyDeleteHow would we know if they were Chinese agents? Senator Feinstein, at least as powerful and respected as the leadership, and on all the defense related and national security committees and working groups, had an aide and driver who was a Chinese agent for 20 years.
The press treated it as a minor news story, not worthy of coverage, and she suffered no repercussion.
Everyone seems to have forgotten about Chinagate.
DeleteWe were never going to decisively defeat the Taliban without eliminating Pakistani support for the Taliban. And we didn't have the will or means do do that.
ReplyDeleteBut we didn't need to defeat the Taliban, decisively or otherwise. What we needed to do was to kill bin Laden (and that took 10 years) and to kill Mullah Omar (and we never did that, he died a natural death), and to kill as many of their henchmen as possible. We lost when we decided that it was about defeating the Taliban instead of about killing a few specific individuals and getting out.
DeleteKilling the leaders didn't kill Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or defeat terrorism. It's just playing whack-a-mole. Bin Laden was in Pakistan when he was killed. Pakistan is the key.
DeleteNo, but killing the leaders does attack the snake at its head rather than its body. The terror organizations will just play "next man up," which is fine, but sooner or later that next man up realized that being that next man means he is a dead man. Kill them until they get tired of dying, starting at the top, not the bottom.
DeleteWe've been doing that for 20 years. We got tired of killing them before they got tired of dying.
DeleteNo, we didn't do that. We spent 10 years before we killed bin Laden and we never killed Mullah Omar. We did not have a singular focus on what we needed to do.
DeleteIf you want to use the whack-a-mole analogy, fine. The goal is to keep whacking until the next mole up decides he doesn't want to be whacked.
As soon as we start drawing maps of this is the territory we hold and that is the territory they hold, we have lost the bubble.
You don't do it by occupying territory, you don't do it by building schools and hospitals and roads and bridges, you don't do it by "winning their hearts and minds." You do it by killing the bad guys, starting from the top down, until the top gets tired of dying.
DeleteWhen the bad guys can just run back across the border to Pakistan to recruit, reorganize, get money and support from Pakistan and abroad, you'll never run out of bad guys or their leaders.
Delete"You do it by killing the bad guys, starting from the top down, until the top gets tired of dying."
DeleteI completely agree with that approach FOR PETTY DICTATORS WHO ARE MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL POWER, WEALTH, AND HEALTH. This does not apply to fanatics who are happy to die for their cause.
Since 9/11 (and before), hardly a week has gone by without reading about another terrorist leader being killed by Western militaries in Afg and around the world. Two decades later, what has that accomplished? Nothing.
There is a better way. Here are the basic elements:
1. Drive the enemy out of the cities, towns, and villages.
2. Occupy every city, town, and village with troops who are there for the long run so that they get to know who is and isn't a 'normal' citizen.
3. Herd the enemy into kill zones and then pulverize them. No escape. No mercy. No truce. No end until they're all dead.
4. Do NOT use native troops under any circumstance for any operation.
5. Eliminate EVERY sanctuary. That means other countries, financial sanctuary (the ISIS oil convoys that we refused to attack for the longest time are an example of a financial sanctuary), and anywhere the enemy can get respite, support, and supplies.
6. Use the technology we have. Flood the skies with UAVs and monitor EVERYONE who travels and keep track of where they travel and why. This will reveal who is and isn't a hidden enemy.
7. Have quick reaction forces on one-minute alert to respond to attacks or sightings and to pursue such enemy forces until they are dead - not just to stop the attack. When the enemy obligingly reveals themselves, take advantage of it and hunt them down until they're all dead.
8. Teach the our soldiers how to fight not just cower behind cover and call for air support which allows the enemy to retreat to fight another day. Supply them with firepower (mortars, a Stryker/Bradly/Abrams, and MGs) and give them the freedom to respond to attacks with unfettered firepower.
The above requires a substantial commitment of forces and time (far less than two decades, though!). If we can't commit that level of forces and determination then we have to ask what our rationale for being there is.
"I completely agree with that approach FOR PETTY DICTATORS WHO ARE MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL POWER, WEALTH, AND HEALTH. This does not apply to fanatics who are happy to die for their cause."
DeleteBut aren't the people at the top more like those petty dictators? The rank and file are clearly fanatics who are happy to die for their cause. But you don't see the bin Ladens and the like out there in front leading the charge.
"But aren't the people at the top more like those petty dictators?"
DeleteClearly not. The Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders live in conditions that we would consider poverty. Their power - to the extent that they seek power - is for the purpose of accomplishing something (like attacking the US). Contrast this with Hussein, Putin, Xi, or any third world dictator. These people live in opulent mansions with servants. They eat better than their people. Their power is for the sake of power. They hoard wealth so that they can obtain more things that they enjoy.
No, the AQ/Taliban leaders are not petty dictators. They're true believers … fanatics.
You're exhibiting one of the problems the US has/had in dealing with these people and this region: you're not seeing the reality of the people, culture, and motivations. These people are fanatics and have to be dealt with as such. Their motivations are different than normal people and they don't respond to normal stimuli in normal ways.
I've stated that killing the top people is the way to deal with dictators but that method simply doesn't apply to fanatics.
https://www.unz.com/sbpdl/yes-the-21st-century-belongs-to-the-chinese-diversity-and-inclusion-not-winning-wars-an-ethical-imperative-for-the-u-s-marine-corps/
ReplyDeleteI don't mind links but please offer some value-added analysis or commentary. What was important about the link and why?
DeleteWell Imho it all starts at the top the idiot in vharge staryed this crud but the Generals Admirals did not have the intestinal fortitude or worried to much about their own PERSONAL AGENDA TO LAY IT ON THE LINE AND RESIGN THEIR PODITION MAYBE A PURGE IS NECESSARY BUT WHERE DO YOU START AND WHERE DOES IT END THE GENERALS AND ADMIRALS SHOULDNT VE ALLOWED TO KERP THEIR GIVERNMENT BENEFITS IF THEY GO TO EQUALLY OR BETTER JIBS UPON RETIREMENT BUT I FRANKY DO N9T KNOW A ANSWER TO THIS INEPT GOVWRNMENT OR MILITARY SO CALLED LEADERSHIP
ReplyDelete"These Are Our Military Leaders?"
ReplyDeleteThe US no longer has military leaders; it has a bunch of posers, to whom LOOKING like a leader is more important than ACTING like a leader. What do these posers think a leader looks like? A hard-ass, like the stereotypical drill sergeant who shouts, "When I say, 'Jump!' you say, 'How high?'" and doesn't personally ask, "Why should we jump? Where, and when, should we jump? Can we safely land after we jump?" which would've prevented us from getting into pointless conflicts, and forced us to draft a victory plan for conflicts that are actually worth fighting.
I've stated Washington should make plans to institute a draft, not only so the US will have enough soldiers to fight the wars it needs to fight, but to make us and our elected leaders to acknowledge the price we'll likely pay in a war, and ask, "Is this worth fighting for?" BEFORE we get into a possible quagmire. Too often, we expect a lightning victory, like the 1991 Gulf War; no one in Washington is preparing for extended conflicts, like the kind of wars we've fought since 2001!
"Do we really trust military leaders who couldn’t defeat third world thugs to know how to defeat China?"
No, we cannot. These idiots plan the way gnomes did in 'South Park' (read https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/profit to understand the context).
The draft was eliminated to protect the government from voters whose children were getting killed in a war that was unclear, asymetric and misrepresented to the public. This worked exactly as intended as it allowed the US to stay in the Iraq and Afghanistan for years without the electect politicians having to account for the outcome.
DeleteThe draft also prevented the creation of a "military caste" in US society and it represented a broad spectrum of US citizens.
However, the US has historically been terrible at implementing conscription. Plus conscripted soldiers are really only suitable for a mass army. Since WW2, the US has not had any need for that many bodies. What would we do with them? We don't have the ships, planes or other weapons to equip that many people.
However, we do have a lot of civilian contractors performing military roles - both combat and support. And I've seen analysis that indicate that having troops perform the maintenance and support tasks is cheaper than contracting it out to a for-profit corporation.
Implementing conscription would require political will from politicians who are happy to "support the troops" without having to account to voters what those troops are doing.
And would jeopardize their campaign contributions from the MIC who would lose all that juicy contracting $$$.
Delete(sorry hit "Publish" too soon)
Not just the military, but the civilian leaders are also to blame for the fiasco, but there is a huge difference between appropriating blame and actual punishment. Few politicians and generals ever get more than a premature retirement for lives lost and millions wasted America.
ReplyDeleteRelative to the military's love for "technology over common sense" and "acronyms over reality", here is a good recent article -- https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/americas-high-tech-problem-low-tech-wars
ReplyDeleteGive me some value-added analysis. What about the article is noteworthy?
Delete