A recent reader (‘Lutefisk’) comment inspired this post. My thanks!
If I were building my own military, what organizational characteristics
would I pursue and how would I prioritize them?
Here they are, in order:
Note where technology falls on the list. Technology just isn’t that important and
certainly doesn’t guarantee that one will win a war. Consider the overwhelming technological
advantage the US enjoyed in Vietnam and Afghanistan and look how those turned
out.
Now, for the eye-opening part of the post, here’s the same
list of characteristics in order of their priority as practiced by our military:
Note that technology is the military’s top priority despite
the fact that technology does not win wars.
To be honest, most of the characteristics on this list aren’t even on
the military’s real list of priorities.
Here’s a list of the US military’s actual priorities:
The mental aspects such as combat mentality aren’t even a
consideration in today’s military and, in fact, are frowned on and discouraged
by our military.
- Motivation
- Combat Mentality
- Firepower
- Training
- Logistics
- Simplicity
- Industrial Support
- Technology
- Command and Control
- Technology
- Command and Control
- Training
- Logistics
- Industrial Support
- Firepower
- Simplicity
- Motivation
- Combat Mentality
- Budget Size
- Technology
- Command and Control
- Diversity
- Environment (Climate Change)
- Politics
- Training
- Logistics
Also, note the complete absence of firepower from the list. The modern military just doesn't care about firepower, treating it as an afterthought, at best. This is baffling.
Finally, note the conspicuous lack of simplicity as a characteristic. To the contrary, the military emphasizes complexity which is why so many of our weapon systems fail. In combat, simplicity rules and complexity (weapons, planning, whatever) invariably fails and yet this is what we're pursuing. Yes, we're pursuing failure!
Examining the military's actual list of priorities reveals exactly why our military is hollow and failing. It's not a mystery. We're prioritizing the wrong characteristics.
Now you know how I’d build my military. How would you build yours? What’s your ordered list of priorities?
My list wouldn't look much different from yours. An absolute shack today. Well done.
ReplyDeleteI think "Command and Control" need to have higher priorities. The best military in the world, is USELESS if it cannot be controlled- ask the Japanese Empire how useful its Army was, when it attempted to conquer China WITHOUT orders from the Imperial government, got itself stuck in a quagmire that made the Vietnam War look like Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada), leading to the US to embargo oil exports to Japan and cripple the Japanese economy, while Imperial Japanese Army officers threatened to launch a coup and EXECUTE THE HEAD OF GOVERNMENT if they received orders to withdraw from said quagmire.
ReplyDeleteYou may be confusing importance with priority. C2 is important but it's not a priority in assembling a military. You FIRST (meaning, high priority) want all the proper building blocks in place before you even need to worry about C2. It's like drafting a QB before you've built the offensive line to protect him. It's pointless.
DeleteC2 is fine ... eventually ... but not as a high priority.
The issue is further complicated by the way C2 is practiced in the US military where it's come to mean micro-managing. But, that's a separate issue.
So try building your enemies military priority list
Deleteand compare it with yours.
In the Imperial Japanese Army list
#1 Defeat the IJN
#2 Bring Glory to the Army
#3 Follow what the Army determines is Imperial Intent.
The Chinese Military
#1 Protect the Party
#2 Protect the Party
I actually like Command and Control where it is listed. Here's my thinking on it:
ReplyDeleteIf a unit has good motivation (unity of purpose),
has a combat mentality,
has enough firepower to do the job at hand,
is well trained in their job,
has adequate supplies,
has a simple/understandable and thus flexible mission to execute,
and has the weapons and technology to deal with the enemy....
then you don't need a high level of command and control.
Two examples to illustrate my point.
The first is the common situation in Vietnam in which a battalion or brigade or even a division commander would be flying over the jungle intervening in the actions of an infantry platoon on the ground.
That is a high level of command and control.
The second is from the movie "Saving Private Ryan", hopefully you've seen it.
Captain Miller (Tom Hanks' character) is briefing his commander about the operation they just completed. As he describes the actions that his company took as they came up against machine guns, minefields, etc. as they tried to take out some German artillery...you can see that he and his company are highly competent and do not NEED to have a high level of command and control.
If the first 8 items on the list can be checked off, the need for command and control is greatly reduced.
Lutefisk
"then you don't need a high level of command and control."
DeleteWe have a winner!!!!
This is what commander's intent is for.
C2 is too often an excuse for micro-managing.
"This is what commander's intent is for."
ReplyDeleteWhen I was going through army officer training, everything is infantry.
We did a LOT of small unit (fire team and squad level) mini-missions.
The new thing was to mention Commander's Intent in the OpOrder. I always thought that the commander's intent was probably the single most important piece of the OpOrder. If you can't accomplish everything, at least accomplish the commander's intent.
But that implies a competent leader and unit that can flexibly adapt to the changing situation and still get the job done.
Lutefisk
Commander's intent, combined with solid doctrine and tactics almost eliminates the need for C2!
DeletePerhaps you recall this post: "Command and Control are Opposites"
Certainly see your list as an improvement CNO- Honestly Im not sure the military even has one. Could you expand on a couple of the items, namely 1)Motivation and 7)Industry Support? What are these exactly/how are they found/implemented??
ReplyDeleteHappy to.
DeleteMotivation - This is all about having the proper reason for joining a military. It's a focus on service and country and a desire to protect one's fellow citizens. It's a willingness to suborn one's individualism to the group and the greater good of the organziation and country. It also has to do with the proper use of a military which is the application of force (as opposed to appeasement or meals-on-wheels or disaster relief or social equality) and the willingness to fight. It's NOT careerism (though there's nothing wrong with a career for the right reasons!). It's not easy retirement to a corporate board position. It's not social programs. Motivation is the understanding of why the military exists and why you, the individual opted to join, and how/why you fit in the organization. It's understanding that you serve a greater goal/good than your own needs.
Industry Support - This is the establishment of a defense industry that can EFFECTIVELY produce the equipment needed. This means running acquisition programs in such a way as to ensure stability and predictability in industry (no more ordering a hundred ships and then cancelling after three). This means providing industry with SIMPLE designs that can be produced quickly, efficiently, and affordably. This means outlawing constant change orders during construction. This means recognizing that industry's responsibility is NOT defense of the nation - it's to make a profit - and working with industry to ensure that they make a fair profit while the military takes the 100% responsibility for designing useful equipment. It means turning industry into an enthusiastic partner rather than an unhappy, grudging antagonist. This likely means establishing government subsidies and laws/regulations that promote defense industries rather than inhibit them (Jones Act, for example, or onerous environmental and diversity laws/regulations).
Hopefully, that explains the concepts? Let me know if you have more questions about the terms or concepts.
"Honestly Im not sure the military even has one."
DeleteOf course they do. It's the last list that I cited. While the military would, no doubt, take issue that they have such a list and, indeed, they do not have a formal, published list, their actions clearly demonstrate their priorities and that makes a list whether formally published or not.
You see it every day. The military has very clear priorities such as increasing their budget share, pursuing cutting edge technology, diversity, and so on. You might debate my ranking a little bit but there's no denying the basic elements and their approximate ranking.
Your industry support is somthing that a constant topic here. But that might be the clearest explanation of what's needed as Ive ever seen!!!
DeleteAs far as the motivation side- that might actuallly be the tougher one to create/fix!! The recruitment problems and shortfalls arent getting better. With the political and demographic changes we are seeing in our youth, it seems as if the military has some PR problems- and I think the GWOT and other, at times, questionable excursions have made the issue worse. I know I joined out of a desire to serve, continue family tradition, and be part of somthing important. Todays kids dont have WWII gen parents to be proud of and emulate. Now they have Vietnam and GWOT parents, many of which are potentially more sceptical of the usefullness of their service. Over on Cdr Sals blog for instance, the overwhelming majority of prior service folks there are telling the kids to avoid military service. Ill be honest, I have concerns about my daughter joining, which is very close to being regret at supporting her choice, in spite of the pride of having a third gen of USN service. So while multigenerational family service isnt the whole recruiting pie, its an important and influential slice. So how do we fix this?? Not trying to get too far off topic, but I think future recruitment and retention is going to become a real problem if we dont turn things around...
"So how do we fix this?"
DeleteThe fix is easy ... IF WE HAVE THE WILL.
First, it starts with giving the military a real mission. No warrior-inclined teenager is going to join an organization whose purpose is disaster relief and meals-on-wheels. Give the military a clearly defined mission. Let's confront our enemies and dare them to fight.
Second, make that mission a challenge ... a challenge that is very difficult: standing up, forcefully, to our enemies. Difficult ... risky ... but exactly the kind of thing that appeals to many. The SEALS turn away far more people wanting to face the challenge than they can use. The Marines used to turn people away by basically saying that they were too tough for you to join. The people we want, want a meaningful challenge. They want to face adversity and overcome. They want to test themselves and prove they're the best and toughest. You can't prove you're the best and the toughest handing out meals and painting third world schools.
Do those things and you'll be turning away recruits. They're still out there. They just don't see the mission and challenge in the military anymore. And they're right. We've taken all that away in our desire to be inoffensive, harmless, good neighbors to both our friends and enemies.
Third, after you've got people lined up, begging to enlist, give them some fun while they're executing missions and overcoming challenges. Restore liberty to what it once was: a fun event to look forward to. We've taken away the fun of liberty by drowning it in rules, regulations, and restrictions. We no longer allow anyone to get drunk, get in fights, and just let loose. I'm not advocating sailors starting riots but a little relaxation of the stifling rules that suck the fun out of liberty would help a great deal.
At this point, you'll have motivated people with a worthwhile mission and challenging obstacles to overcome while looking forward to memorable liberty. We'll be turning recruits away!
And, of course, eliminate all the diversity, gender, climate crap.
"First, it starts with giving the military a real mission. No warrior-inclined teenager is going to join an organization whose purpose is disaster relief and meals-on-wheels."
DeleteThis is one area where the USA is significantly behind China, Russia, etc.
Not only the military is not appealing to the right people, it actively turns them off.
And frankly, while if I were a patriotic Chinese parent I would likely be okay with my son joining the military if he wanted, I would actively tell him to stay the hell away from the US military unless things really, really changed.
Cohesion would be pretty high on the list for me.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't too hard to achieve: Allow EM to remain in their Battalion, Squadron, or their Ship (less any training, TDY, or shore duty) for their entire career. NCOs should generally be chosen from that unit. Unit replacement instead of Individual replacement.
Men fight for their friends and their brothers.
That's similar, as I understand it, to the British Regimental system. It helps the Brits to punch above their weight with their ground forces.
DeleteBut on the flip side, you never get the dispersion of knowledge that results from the movement of personnel during PCS changes.
Another problem is running the risk of developing multiple militaries, where you develop local processes, procedures, and tactics which are not the same as the rest of the military.
Still another problem is that a person may over-specialize in their tasks.
"Hey, how do you change the oil filters on the diesel generators?"
Reply, "I don't know, Bob always did that."
"Well, Bob got killed yesterday. Does anybody know where he had the manuals to those things?"
Lutefisk
1) Lethality/Firepower. One applies to direct fire and the other to indirect fires but they are what wins wars
ReplyDelete2) Readiness / Deployability. Everyone needs to deploy and our weapons synerf to be ready to fight
3) Training. Hard training also increases lethality and creates combat mindset
4) Maintenance and frugality. Buy the cheapest simplest system that gets the job done and maintain it superbly so you can fix anything in combat where everything breaks
5) Command and Control. While we need to whittle down general staffs, our planners enable operations and proper branch / contingency plans result in responsiveness and flexibility to adapt. Control needs to be pushed to the lowest echelons but high level monitoring allows for integration with allies
Great
ReplyDeleteI don’t know. I look at your top 4 and think, “well the Wehrmacht had those in spades and got absolutely owned.”
ReplyDeleteI agree technology doesn’t guarantee winning wars. But it sure freakin helps. You can’t just look at Afghanistan and Vietnam. You’ve got to consider the dogs who didn’t bark as well
"Wehrmacht had those in spades and got absolutely owned.”
DeleteWell, you're wrong on a few levels. Germany, a country half the size of Texas, conquered all of Europe before losing to the combined might of the rest of the world.
Not exactly owned.
More to the point, you're confusing the foundational building blocks of a good military with its use/misuse. The German army had many good foundational aspects but were badly misused (opening a two front war, for example). No amount of good foundation can overcome horrible misuse.
"You can’t just look at Afghanistan and Vietnam. "
Okay, let's look at other examples.
Korean war - We were fought to a standstill by a technologically deficient country.
Israel/Hamas - Israel has struggled with Hamas for decades despite overwhelming technological advantages.
Falklands - UK came within a hair of losing that mini-conflict to a technological lesser.
US/ISIS - We were stalemated and abandoned that fight to an enemy with no technology.
Global War on Terrorism - At best, we've managed a stalemate (my assessment is we're losing) to an enemy with no technology.
Soviet/Afghanistan - Soviets lost to a primitive rabble with no technology.
Based on the historical evidence, one could almost postulate that technology is a hinderance to winning a war.
Well. I’d say the Wehrmacht did just get absolutely owned. I’d say the people of Germany circa 1945 would agree with me. You have to win the whole war, not just one part of it. AND they were losing to the Soviets before the Normandy invasion ever happened. By the end they were being outfought in every, single dimension
DeleteBut again, you need to consider things that didn’t happen. For instance, the USSR never controlled the sea lanes nor would they ever have. A potential USSR-US war would have been fought in Europe on their doorstep, NOT in Canada or Mexico.
And even looking at your examples, without a huge tech advantage the US would never have even been able to fight those wars. Maybe that would have been a good thing, but fighting in Korea, Vietnam*, etc., would not even have been on the table. That’s what a tech advantage got you
Bronze Age civilizations displaced non-bronze age ones. The mongols and their bows (expertly wielded) were THE power in Asia until guns were widespread and reasonable capable. Don’t hear much about the mongols these days (did they not have a combat mentality?)
The European age of colonization was 100% dependent on a tech advantage.
The Imperial Japanese Army had all the combat mentality and motivation you could ask for. After what, maybe mid 1942 they won exactly zero engagements against the US.
So no, not based on “historical evidence” can you postulate that technology is a hinderance to winning a war. Quite the opposite if you don’t cherry pick your cases. Just finding a few exceptions where a tech advantage wasn’t deterministic doesn’t prove the point.
*neverminding that those particular wars were fought where and how they were because the US ahead a huge tech advantage and wasn’t willing politically to just kill off all the young males indiscriminately (a good thing), which it was capable of at virtually any point.
Also I’d add the the US navy of today would absolutely destroy the U.S. Navy of WW2, or probably anytime before the 1980s. Indeed they would sink every combat ship likely without losing a single sailor, much less a ship.
Delete"I’d say the Wehrmacht did just get absolutely owned."
DeleteYour statement betrays a severe lack of understanding of what wins wars. Yes, Germany lost the war but it was because of the incredible discrepancy in industrial production and population between the Allies and Axis.
You're also failing to grasp the difference between fundamentals of a good military and ultimate results in war. You can have the most fantastic military the world has ever seen and still lose a war due to industry, population, poor strategy, etc.
I'm hard pressed to think of a war that was won due to technology but, on the other hand, I can think of several (most?) that were lost in spite of a tech advantage.
Seriously, your reasoning is sophomoric, at best, and does not meet that standards of the blog. Reply carefully, if you so choose.
Restore liberty to what it once was; hell yeah. Back in my day ( 73-83), we used to have some major hit the beach times. As an engineer, I can tell you engineering was the major transgressor of hell raising ashore on every ship I served on (6). At any one time half of the engineering department would be on restriction. Half on, half off. Switched around every 30 days or so. I personally ended my time in the Navy with 6 broken ribs, broken nose(2), couple teeth knocked out and a few stiches. Nothing like getting brought back to the ship in the back of the paddy wagon with four hardhats on each arm and leg, hauling you up the gang plank. Also got to visit the brigs of Subic Bay, Sasebo,Rota,Norfolk,San Diego and Treasure Island. Man them was good times.
ReplyDeleteIll second that. As an unintentional participant in what nearly became a couple 'international incidents' while deployed to 6th fleet in the early 90s, I likely witnessed the end of the the Golden Age of USN liberty. While not suggesting that kinda thing is good, it almost seemed like part of the job. Fights and brawls were a part of the mystique and warrior mentality. Maybe I over-romanticize a bit in my old age. But I do question whether todays sailors are 'better' because they're no longer the hard drinking, cussing, fighting beasts of old. Do the caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol-free, politically correct, neutered crews contribute to a better fighting force?? Im not convinced. The best CO I ever had, in every category, was one that needed assistance a few times up the brow after liberty...
DeleteIt was almost like a right of passage, sailors then were meant to be hard fighting, drinking and tough. If you didnt fit that mold, you would be somewhat shunned. Agree, the best COs I had were just like the rest of the rowdy crew.
DeleteOT: Have you considered the value of articulated tug barge (I'm talking intecon), not in a civilian form but a militarized form. ie Ambassador MK III as a tug & river-ish barge (200x35). I'm talking about a disaggregated force that is adjunct to the organic aggregated. What that gives you is a O&S costs converted into low O&S CapEx (AI) not from going from 0 to 3 Burkes ($300,000,000 per year) but 3 to 6 which frees up $300mm for CapEx. example: (all made up numbers) If a JLENS can cover 400 miles & a VLS can cover 200 miles you need to 2 VLS & command & control. One could have two Burkes or Burke & a VLS tube (Fast Response Cutter as VLS), the JLENS sits on a barge. A FRC VLS as ATB, Supply Vessel as ATB, Ambassador MK III as ATB gives one all kinds of flexibility at low cost. One can float barges & FRC VLS on Montford Point to get mass. This is mainly a defensive picketing in which when the organic traverses we add in the adjunct force and then do a handoff to the next disaggregated force.
ReplyDeleteHuh?????? WTF was that? Do you work in the Pentagon? Phrases like, "adjunct to the organic aggregated" is the kind of thing you'd find on a Pentagon PowerPoint presentation.
DeleteSeriously, I have absolutely no idea what you said. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. I suspect you have a concrete idea about something but I don't know what. Why don't you try again but drop the buzzword bingo, explain your abbreviations, and put it in simple English!
Great
ReplyDeleteI've taken the liberty to modify some of the terms used. With that, here is my list:
ReplyDelete• Mission – Clearly defined mission that is properly prioritized, understood, and committed to by all; combines motivation and combat mentality.
• Firepower/Lethality – Putting warheads on foreheads is what it’s all about.
• Training/Readiness – The more the better but evaluate it realistically; evolutions that do not approximate combat do little for readiness.
• Maintenance/Repair – The ability to maintain systems in the field is an advantage that the USA had and needs to reprise.
• Logistics/Industrial Support – How the USA has won the wars that it has won in the past.
• Simplicity/Reliability – The simpler a system is, the better it is likely to work in adverse conditions—like combat.
• Affordability – The more you can afford to build, the better. Quantity has a quality of its own.
• Technology – The best technology that works in a combat situation.
• Command and Control – Minimize. If your people know what they are doing, they don’t need too much interference from above.
In the early 1980s, I attended a school with a fellow officer who had been CO of the USS Harold Holt during the Mayaguez incident. He told of being on the HiComm net, relaying information to the white house such as, "Mr. President, my rudder is right 15 degrees, coming to new course 135." That is way, way too much.