Monday, December 2, 2024

Trans Military Policy

It has been rumored in reports that Trump may ban transgender people from serving in the military.
 
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., applauded the report that President-elect Donald Trump is poised to — once again — reinstate a ban on transgender people in the military, telling Newsmax on Monday that the Biden administration's policy is "total hypocrisy."[1]
 
"We want killers. We want people who are meant for combat," Mace said. "If you're on these gender hormones, you're not deployable. So why are we bringing people into the military you can't deploy? I'm scratching my head. We're better than this, we're stronger than this."[1]

This issue encompasses political, sociological, psychological, and practical aspects.  I’m going to discuss the practical aspect of this which, assuming Mace is correct, is that people going down this path may not be deployable for significant periods of time.  It is mandatory to recognize that the military is not a medical service for people to change lifestyles and genders; it is a killing machine and that requires that all personnel be deployable at all times, barring unavoidable medical illness which is only a very temporary condition.
 
The starting point in this discussion is the recognition that the entire transgender issue in the military is predicated on a faulty basis as demonstrated with this statement:
 
Service members with a diagnosis from a military medical provider indicating that gender transition is medically necessary will be provided medical care and treatment for the diagnosed medical condition … [2]

This statement pre-supposes that gender transition is a medical necessity rather than a choice.  A medical necessity is, by definition, a procedure or treatment that, if not administered, will threaten the life of the patient.  A desire to change gender is not a medical necessity.  Failure to do so does not threaten the life of the patient.  Thus, again by definition, it is a choice and the military should not be in the business of providing elective procedures that are not medically necessary.
 
The following passage from a DoD handbook on the subject demonstrates some of the impacts of gender transitioning on military service.
 
Transitioning gender may have an impact on several different aspects of your career including deployability, assignment considerations, medical classification, and aspects of individual readiness (e.g., physical fitness, body composition assessment, and professional military education attendance). Since the impact to your career could be significant, it is strongly recommended you discuss this with your commander and/or mentor.[3]

There is no logical rationale for the military to assume the responsibility for a voluntary, life-changing medical process.  Service members wishing to undergo such a process should be given the choice of serving out their term and beginning the process in the civilian world upon discharge or taking a less than honorable discharge (for failure to serve out a contractual term) to begin the process in the civilian world immediately.  In no case should the military bear the financial brunt of an unnecessary medical procedure that results in a non-deployable service member for a period(s) of time.
 
____________________________ 
 
Note:  If you wish to comment, tread carefully.  I have limited the discussion to the practical aspects of the issue as it impacts military service.  We are not going to debate the sociological, mental, or emotional aspects.  There are other blogs for that.
 
____________________________
 
[1]Newsmax website, “Rep. Mace to Newsmax: Trans Military Policy Is 'Hypocrisy'”, Mark Swanson, 25-Nov-2024,
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/nancy-mace-transgender-military/2024/11/25/id/1189368/
 
[2] Transgender Service Member Policy Implementation Fact Sheet
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2016/0616_policy/Transgender-Implementation-Fact-Sheet.pdf
 
[3] Transgender Service in the U.S. Military - An Implementation Handbook, 30-Sep-2016, p.21,
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2016/0616_policy/DoDTGHandbook_093016.pdf

Posted by at
Labels: ,

70 comments:

  1. Chinese GordonDecember 2, 2024 at 4:08 PM

    The Pentagon has solved the .0075% problem.
    Now if they could remove, say 5% of the Admirals
    and DCIPS Band 5s with the same efficiency, I'd be more impressed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsDecember 2, 2024 at 4:36 PM

      From a military.com website article,

      "The Pentagon has spent $15 million in the past five years to treat 1,892 transgender troops, including $11.5 million for psychotherapy and $3.1 million for surgeries, according to Defense Department data provided to Military.com."

      A 2014 UCLA study put the number of transgenders in the military at 15,500. I would assume that figure has increased drastically since then but I have no data.

      Delete
    2. AndyMDecember 2, 2024 at 9:00 PM

      Take the mil healthcare budget of 61.4B divided by the number served 9.5 million and you get about $6500 a year. 15M for 1892 over 5 years is under $1600 per year.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsDecember 3, 2024 at 5:44 AM

      "15M for 1892 over 5 years is under $1600 per year."

      I'm guessing your point is that you think it's an insignificant sum and, therefore, not a problem? Of course, those are direct costs, only, and do not include medical facility costs, salaries of medical personnel, paperwork costs, unit disruption impact, non-deployment costs for replacements, lost work time, and so on.

      It also ignores the incremental 'cost' of a hundred 'insignificant', non-warfighting initiatives like equity, climate, environmental, and gender, to name a few. Each, in isolation, may or may not be significant compared to the total Navy budget but, taken in total, they add up. They also hugely impact our warfighting and readiness by consuming time and that time comes from maintenance and training. We also have to account for the immense administrative costs associated with each and all of these efforts - costs that never get accounted for when we sling around cost figures. We've created entire departments and bureaucracies to support these.

      As our focus on social initiatives has increased, our readiness has declined. The two trends are not unrelated.

      So ... what, again, was your point?

      Delete
    4. AndyMDecember 4, 2024 at 2:38 PM

      Wow, so actually being free costs money. Shocking. Sounds like you need to move to a country more to your liking where there are reduced costs for human capital. North Korea. If we have talent in someone worthy of the expense, make the expense. I once witnessed a friend become epileptic and was promptly discharged. Experienced Marine sniper. No offer for anything else he might have still been able to offer the Corps. And on and on this goes and we wonder why there is a recruiting and retention problem.

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsDecember 4, 2024 at 4:27 PM

      "someone worthy of the expense"

      A transgender, due to the inherent emotional problems, is not worthy of the expense as they are neither combat deployable nor combat capable. This is a medical fact not an opinion.

      "No offer for anything else he might have still been able to offer the Corps."

      I don't know the particulars of this situation so I can offer no opinion whether this was appropriate or not.

      Delete
    6. ComNavOpsDecember 4, 2024 at 4:29 PM

      "Sounds like you need to move to a country more to your liking"

      Sounds like you need to work on a more polite tone for your comments if you wish to continue commenting. Fair warning. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousDecember 5, 2024 at 3:52 AM

      Another cost will be the lifetime VA coverage after service. Now... this is potentially true of any veteran. If medical transition happens while in service the taxpayer is on the hook for what could be decades of medical coverage.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousDecember 2, 2024 at 6:40 PM

    This is indeed a slippery slope and we need to tread very carefully..
    For example to get through the MEPS you theoretically need a minimum of one functional testicle, which would obviously disqualify from continued service the whole of the General Staff.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BA 1959December 3, 2024 at 7:34 AM

    It makes total sense to not allow service members the time off for surgery - so discharge or some sort of leave. But, once someone has transitioned, and they otherwise qualify for service, who cares?

    What do we do for pregnancies? Presumably time off or discharge for the delivery and post birth care, but we don't exclude parents from service if they otherwise qualify.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsDecember 3, 2024 at 11:07 AM

      "once someone has transitioned, and they otherwise qualify for service, who cares?"

      I care ... deeply. My concern is the underlying, unresolved psychological issues that led to the transition in the first place. Just as the failure to finish high school denotes a likely lack of motivation, self-discipline, and fortitude (and, therefore, those people should not be recruited), anyone who transitions clearly has deep emotional problems requiring years of psychological treatment and that's not something the military should be dealing with. It also leads me to question that person's mindset with regard to the mental toughness necessary for combat.

      A parent, to use your comparison, has no deep rooted emotional problems to begin with (at least, no more so than the rest of us!) and, therefore, when they are physically fit to return to service there are no residual, lingering psychological issues. The pregnancy time off is a separate issue and, in my mind, calls for mandatory discharge from service but that's a separate issue.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsDecember 3, 2024 at 2:51 PM

      Hopefully, you'll read user Gordon Pasha's comment below and factor both his information and my thoughts into your own thoughts. These are not people who are mentally and emotionally stable and focused on warfighting. Their focus is whatever psychological issues drove them to transition in the first place. Changing one's born biology and psychology is not something that can be done like getting a new hair style or a different color shirt. We have plenty of combat capable people in the population but these are not them.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsDecember 3, 2024 at 2:53 PM

      By the way, I'm not trying to 'win' anything. I'm just trying to help everyone understand the scope of this issue and the limitations and problems that come with it.

      Delete
  4. AnonymousDecember 3, 2024 at 8:49 AM

    "A 2014 UCLA study put the number of transgenders in the military at 15,500."

    A problem with perennially non-deployable military personnel is that they are only rarely replaced before/when unit deploys. Sure, a GO/Admiral can readily fill critical deployed staff vacancies with by-name requests or other short notice singleton augmentation, but...

    Ask any Senior NCO what happens when (for instance) 15% of their assigned troops suddenly pop "pregnant" just before a lengthy deployment. Or need suddenly time-critical treatment for a variety of other medical/psychological conditions (PTSD, TBI, Trans Surgery, Mental Health Counseling, Voluntary Substance Abuse Treatment, etc.). Those personnel, in the main, are left behind and not replaced. Forcing deployable units/ships/wings to go down range already seriously undermanned. SIGNIFICANTLT attritted before the first shot is ever fired or the first deployment flight/cruise is underway. As far as the Services and their HR departments are concerned, all MTOE slots are already filled by bodies assigned on paper. Thus end-strength backfills are not authorized.

    Think it doesn't happen that way? Think again. Units deploy short handed, the fewer people present have to make up for the work/shifts of the missing, and unit performance degrades as surely as if the enemy had caused those self-inflicted losses. Something especially prevalent since the mid-years of the GWOT and its concurrent push for social engineering of the military..

    Transgender troops spending most of their service in a non-deployable status count against end-strength... without actually delivering functional return.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 3, 2024 at 8:51 AM

      Excuse a few typos in the above comment. Can't seem to find an editing feature.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsDecember 3, 2024 at 11:09 AM

      "A problem with perennially non-deployable military personnel is "

      Well said.

      As an aside, there is no edit function, regrettably. That's the downside of a free blog.

      Delete
  5. ~ Gordon PashaDecember 3, 2024 at 11:40 AM

    As an endocrinologist who inherited a number of trans patients from another provider who moved out of state, I can state that none of them who were in the military were emotionally stable enough to be functional in a stress situation. They uniformly had PHQ-9 scores which were in the high teens to the mid=20s.

    "The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is a depression screening tool that produces a score ranging from 0 to 27. The score is based on how often the patient has been bothered by a series of symptoms over the past two weeks. The score is interpreted as follows:
    0–4: No or minimal depression
    5–9: Mild depression
    10–14: Moderate depression
    15–19: Moderately severe depression
    20–27: Severe depression "

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob NageleDecember 3, 2024 at 2:54 PM

    Just from a strictly practical point of view. I'm not a doctor (don't even play one on TV) so may not be totally correct about some details.

    As I understand it, when someone does a medical or surgical transition, that means that they must take special, relatively expensive, and somewhat uncommon drugs on a regular basis for the rest of their lives. In addition, they regularly require specialized medical support to track how their body deals with the drugs, and deal with side effects. What is the implication of this when that person is deployed to an austere environment (which many deployments are!) where these drugs and specialists may not be available?

    In addition, in combat we will often be fighting people who are much less understanding about gender fluid individuals than we are. Islamists, for example, and probably Russians come to mind. If the soldier is captured by such people (who tend to ignore rules of war when it comes to treatment of prisoners) I imagine he/she/it/they would be at risk of especially brutal treatment. Are we really doing them a favor by allowing them in the military?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 3, 2024 at 9:33 PM

      I dunno hoss, it feels like our captured troops are already at enough risk for brutal treatment just because they're the enemy. Look at the Russians castrating male POWs who were in fact cisgender heterosexual males and not trans in the slightest.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsDecember 4, 2024 at 4:17 PM

      "especially by one party."

      Comment deleted. We're not doing politics. Period.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousDecember 4, 2024 at 6:43 AM

    A few years ago I had a discussion about this issue with a former Navy JAG (served 10 years; he had just gotten out about 3 months prior). More specifically, the discussion was about Trump's previous attempt to push transgender people out of the military. As someone with a background in biology, health, and law, I made an argument similar to yours: that these people were an overall detriment to military readiness and effectiveness due to the medical interventions required, the extreme rates of suicide, and high rate of mental health issues among this population.

    I was stunned when the former Navy JAG responded that it was Trump who was creating a decline in readiness/effectiveness because he was inserting a political issue into the military. I certainly hope his viewpoint isn't a common one in our armed forces.

    -Huskers1995

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsDecember 4, 2024 at 8:09 AM

      "it was Trump who was creating a decline in readiness/effectiveness because he was inserting a political issue into the military."

      With absolutely no due respect to your friend, he is an idiot and wrong. The mental, emotional, and physical ability of a class of person to survive in combat is NOT a political issue, it's a warfighting issue.

      This is yet another in an endless list of reasons why lawyers should be eradicated from the Earth.

      Delete
    2. AndyMDecember 4, 2024 at 2:48 PM

      And that JAG was exactly right.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsDecember 4, 2024 at 4:23 PM

      "And that JAG was exactly right."

      As it stands, this is a useless comment as it offers not logic, data, or rationale and is, in fact, prohibited in the Comments Policy page. Do you have anything substantive to offer? Some logic or data or rationale? I would point out that other comments have factually addressed the combat deficiencies transgenders inherently have. If you wish to offer a counterpoint, do so with facts and logic. Thank you.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousDecember 5, 2024 at 2:02 PM

      @ComNavOps Fortunately he wasn’t a friend, just someone I had to deal with for work. The thing that made it even more shocking is that he was an otherwise skilled and level-headed attorney.

      To go into more detail, his argument was that Trump removing these people from the military would lessen readiness/effectiveness because their spots would then need to be filled. He also said it was a political distraction that officers, NCOs, and the transgender military members would have to deal with.

      My response was that replacing people who weren’t operating anywhere near 100% capabilities would not be that challenging. In my view, it was likely that removing these members would increase unit effectiveness even without replacing them, because at the very least the unit would not be counting on them in the first place, allowing for the unit to better adjust to lower manpower. The distraction and challenges posed by accommodating transgender members exceeds any sort of short term “political distraction” caused by removing them from service.

      I find it fascinating that the political distraction only occurs when one administration decides to roll back the political agenda of a previous one. If it is a distraction to roll something back, it was likely a distraction to impose it in the first place. Personally, I find the whole discussion of whether something is a distraction or not to be irrelevant. The only question should be is if it makes our military more effective. If a short term distraction is the cost for greater effectiveness going forward, then the distraction is nearly inconsequential.

      -Huskers1995

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsDecember 5, 2024 at 3:15 PM

      "The only question should be is if it makes our military more effective."

      You correctly sum up the entire issue!

      That question (I call it a filter) should be applied to everything: gender, climate, diversity, equity, the Zumwalt, the Marine's light amphibious vessel, a new rifle ... everything. If it improves combat capability then we can consider adopting it. If not, we drop it instantly. Use that filter and we'll be okay. Ignore it - as we're doing now - and we'll wind up with a weak, hollow, military with abysmal readiness and combat capability ... sound familiar? That's today's military and that's why we're at the point we're at.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousDecember 6, 2024 at 4:04 AM

      "In my view, it was likely that removing these members would increase unit effectiveness even without replacing them, because at the very least the unit would not be counting on them in the first place, allowing for the unit to better adjust to lower manpower." We referred to this tactic as "addition by subtraction" and it works like a charm. Getting disruptive individuals our of your formation... even if you do it by giving them a substantial mission like chasing butterflies, usually leads to a better more cohesive and effective unit.

      Delete
    7. ComNavOpsDecember 6, 2024 at 7:58 AM

      "addition by subtraction"

      Spot on!

      Delete
  8. Captain SteveDecember 4, 2024 at 8:12 AM

    We used to not accept people in the military due to flat feet. The current kerfuffle is making my head spin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsDecember 4, 2024 at 8:41 AM

      It's all because we've lost sight of the fact that the purpose of a military is WARFIGHTING ! It's not social equity or diversity or gender issues or climate or anything else. It's about killing ruthlessly, brutally, and efficiently and, hopefully, surviving as we do it. If you are less than 100% capable and ready to do that then you have no business in the military.

      I have no problem - and have proposed this in the past - with establishing a non-combat, administrative/logistical support branch which uses civilians who are subject to military discipline but are not, themselves, service members. That's where we can use women, transgenders, physically disabled, etc. They can productively and proudly serve their country without being combat detriments. That would also allow us to get all the service members currently doing those jobs back into the field where they belong.

      Delete
    2. BA 1959December 4, 2024 at 12:00 PM

      Ah, we might then be on the same page then. I was thinking about the jobs you list in your second paragraph as the ones that can be filled by a whole host of Americans, that might otherwise not be able to be "boots on the ground" et. al.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsDecember 4, 2024 at 12:31 PM

      "I was thinking about the jobs you list in your second paragraph as the ones that can be filled by a whole host of Americans, that might otherwise not be able to be "boots on the ground"

      There is a major flaw in your thinking and it is that in the current military organization, there is no such thing as a 'non-boots on the ground' position. EVERY service member is, theoretically, a combat person and could be put in a combat position at a moment's notice.

      With my approach, the admin/logistic/support cadre would, while subject to military discipline, be outside the combat realm and COULD NOT be deployed into combat.

      Even this approach is slightly problematic since ANY person, civilian, military, or support could be thrust into a combat situation in a heartbeat thanks to terrorism, among other threats. Ask the Israeli civilians how that distinction between civilian non-combatant and soldier worked out for them during the Hamas attack (another excellent argument for widespread gun possession but, I digress ...).

      Delete
    4. Captain SteveDecember 5, 2024 at 7:45 AM

      R.A Heinlein: You were right!!

      Delete
    5. BA 1959December 5, 2024 at 8:01 AM

      I don't think my thinking is flawed. I'm considering defense related tasks, not if someone is in uniform. Shift those tasks as you say to a parallel organization and everyone can serve their country in a capacity that they're qualified to do.

      An analyst working on collected data in an office is far from any combat - and subject to terrorism as the rest of us might be.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousDecember 5, 2024 at 8:39 AM

      "R.A Heinlein: You were right!"

      Haha, I was thinking the exact same thing! :)

      Delete
  9. Big BillDecember 4, 2024 at 9:31 AM

    A military does not "reflect" society. It defends society.

    If it were meant to reflect society we would have a certain percentage of 84 year old grandmothers serving, along with a certain amount of people in wheelchairs. But we don't.

    Because the military doesn't "reflect" society. It defends society.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousDecember 4, 2024 at 11:13 AM

    Are these trans related policies supported by the majority of American taxpayers?

    Do these current trans policies contribute to military readiness?

    I think it's hard to support the current trans policies when the answer to both those questions is likely to be a pretty resounding 'no'.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
  11. greywolfDecember 5, 2024 at 10:19 AM

    In my experience members of the LGTBQ (and so on) like to flaunt their status too much and it mostly ends up as a dominant topic of everything bordering on proselytism. I consider myself tollerant as I think everyone should be able to express it's preferences outside of the workplace. Sexuality, religion, politics and other topics should stay outside of a workplace so that one can concentrate on the most important thing, working, in healthy non toxic environment where everyone is treated equally without special treatment (outside of medical reasons and disabilities).
    In the end the military is a workplace with many of the same dynamics of every other workplace. If you add too many external elements which have nothing to do with the actual task at hand the risk to end up with a toxic environment is very high and the quality of the workplace will invariably slip. This will impact teamwork and unit cohesion thus lowering the overall efficiency of every organisation. As the military can end up as a high stress workplace where trust is key, a toxic environment can heavily undermine trust.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsDecember 5, 2024 at 10:28 AM

      Umm ... That's a nice, generic, feel good statement that says nothing specific. What is your point, if any?

      Delete
    2. greywolfDecember 5, 2024 at 11:09 AM

      My point is that trans people can be disruptive like other outside influences (religion, politics and even sports) for any workplace, and probably are more disruptive than other factors as they flaunt their sexuality and end up requesting special treatment. Every workplace should be a place to work not a social experiment. If I have to spend more time do to diversity training and use a chart to get pronouns right than actual work something is going very wrong. If a trans person is missing work due to various problems due to their sexual identity it means that others have to take over the workload which can create bad blood very quickly even if someone is tollerant of other inclinations and can even lead to heigher stress loads and burnout. It will get old very quickly and personel will try to get a transfer or get out. In the end you risk losing part of your workforce, without your workforce no organization can function.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsDecember 5, 2024 at 11:45 AM

      Okay, you've kind of repeated your first comment, if somewhat more emphatically but, still, without a conclusion.

      As far as a conclusion, do I infer from this that you're saying that transgenders should not be allowed to serve in the military because they will disrupt the workplace (though the more correct word would be 'battlefield')?

      Delete
    4. Bob NageleDecember 5, 2024 at 1:05 PM

      "In my experience members of the LGTBQ (and so on) like to flaunt their status too much and it mostly ends up as a dominant topic of everything bordering on proselytism."

      Well, in MY experience, there certainly are LGBTQ people who do this, especially the activists, but there are ALSO many LGBT people who do not. Many LGB folk behave pretty conservatively and are often indistinguishable from straight people in the workplace or social spheres (outside, of course, the bedroom). Many "T" folks, as well, aren't activists who are constantly in your face but are primarily concerned about just living their lives.

      In our society, at least ideally, traditionally you were praised or criticized based on your personal actions and not treated as guilty or a victim based on your skin color, religion, ethnicity, or sexuality. I think it would be really good if we could get back to that.

      Delete
    5. Bob NageleDecember 5, 2024 at 1:12 PM

      In my personal opinion, if in fact it's medically problematic to deploy these folks into combat, either due to drug or support dependencies or mental health issues, then they shouldn't be in the combat forces. I think that's about the only reason to be debating this issue as far as the military services are concerned.

      Delete
    6. ComNavOpsDecember 5, 2024 at 1:53 PM

      "then they shouldn't be in the combat forces"

      Where are the non-combat forces? Are they in the Pentagon? No, that got horrifically attacked on 9/11. Are they in remote bases? No, those get attacked by drones. Are they on bases in the US? No, we've had several armed attacks against US bases by gunmen. Are they on ships in a safe, refueling harbor? No, the Cole was nearly sunk doing that.

      Do I need to go on or have I sufficiently belabored the point?

      ANY service member is a COMBAT force because anyone, anytime, anywhere can be thrown into a life and death, combat situation in a heartbeat.

      Thus, there is no debate. There is simply no room in the military for anyone who is not 100% combat ready at all times.

      Delete
    7. Bob NageleDecember 5, 2024 at 7:51 PM

      "Do I need to go on or have I sufficiently belabored the point?"

      Point taken. Although actually, I kinda had it in my head that, as you had described earlier, anyone in a uniform is subject to combat, so I should have said they shouldn't be in the military, with the possible exception of that explicitly non-combat auxiliary force that you proposed.

      Sorry about the imprecise language.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousDecember 5, 2024 at 9:18 PM

      In theory yeah every Marine is a Rifleman and every Sailor is a Firefighter but that isn’t really true anymore and maybe never was.
      Helluva difference between being a trained infantryman and qualifying on the range once a year. So every Marine might be a Rifleman in theory but a useful Rifleman not so much.
      So yeah you can pull POGs out of support units and fill the empty billets but every time they did it, (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Battle of the Bulge, the Chosin), the poor bast**ds were slaughtered.
      These days the infantry job is way more specialized than it was back then and now you just wouldn’t do it ever.
      There’s thousands of spots across the military where trans people could serve without going anywhere near a weapon.
      I wouldn’t have a problem with that but other people have their own opinion and welcome to them.

      Delete
    9. ComNavOpsDecember 6, 2024 at 7:57 AM

      "the poor bast**ds were slaughtered."

      This could offer one of two lessons:
      1. We shouldn't attempt to do this and should leave admin types as admin, as you seem to be suggesting.

      2. Our emphasis is incorrectly placed and we should revert to ensuring that EVERY service member is combat capable as their PRIMARY job and serves administratively (or whatever else) as a SECONDARY job. That way, they have a fighting chance to not only not be slaughtered but may actually contribute to warfighting when called upon.

      To me, it seems clear that option 2 is the only rational choice. The military exists to fight, not to administer. If you find that you've truly developed a need for 100% non-combat capable tasks then the obvious conclusion is to staff it with civilians.

      "So every Marine might be a Rifleman in theory but a useful Rifleman not so much."

      I disagree to a large extent. Consider the case of the Hamas attack on Israel. Most of those adult Israelis had basic army training since service is mandatory. If they had had weapons (stupidly, Israel does not allow private gun ownership) they could have credibly defended themselves by knowing how to fire a gun and having some basic level of competence.

      'Useful' is a relative term and no one expects an admin type to be as proficient as a full time combat infantryman but basic competence is easily attained and maintained.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousDecember 6, 2024 at 11:03 AM

      "Consider the case of the Hamas attack on Israel."

      I'll share another example that I've read about.

      On the eastern front the Soviets would tear huge holes in the German lines, and the Germans would mobilize their admin types as temporary infantry to plug the gaps until the lines could be stabilized.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
    11. AnonymousDecember 6, 2024 at 2:41 PM

      “Israel doesn’t allow private gun ownership…”
      This isn’t correct - gun ownership requires a license and there is no constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”, but there are plenty of privately held firearms in the country and you’re never going to be far away from an Israeli with a gun.
      For example, everyone who lives on the West Bank can get a permit, as can public transport drivers, ambulance drivers, ex-military officers, security guards, and a whole raft of other categories.
      Also every kibbutz has a well trained and armed security team and a back-up armory sufficient to provide weapons to everyone capable of using them, which is most everybody.
      Additionally there are active duty soldiers everywhere all carrying their rifles with them at all times.
      Which is why many people find the “success” of the terrorist attacks so incomprehensible.

      Delete
    12. ComNavOpsDecember 6, 2024 at 4:26 PM

      "there are plenty of privately held firearms in the country"

      This isn't correct. Here's some quotes from https://www.algemeiner.com/2023/02/27/firearm-licensing-in-israel-how-strict-are-the-jewish-states-gun-laws/

      "Recent figures published by the National Security Ministry indicate that barely 150,000 Israelis have a personal gun license, or some 2.6% percent of the entire adult population"

      "Israel’s Firearm Law of 1949 and its related ordinances do not recognize any “right to bear arms,” and private gun ownership is subject to many restrictions. For one, civilians can only apply for a pistol, and rifles are wholly off-limits. Furthermore, as a general rule, civilians can have no more than 50 bullets in their possession at any given time."

      Israel is now considering loosening the restrictions on gun ownership in the wake of the Hamas attack; a classic case of closing the barn door after the horse is out, if there ever was one.

      Delete
    13. AnonymousDecember 6, 2024 at 7:52 PM

      My point was that Israel doesn’t in fact prohibit the private ownership of guns, which I think is what you wrote.
      Can’t refute the numbers you cite but I think this is probably a definitional thing around the meaning of ‘privately held’.
      For example - if you held the rank of sergeant or above you don’t have to turn in your weapons when you leave the army - it’s still army property so not privately held, but it’s your rifle to keep.
      On the West Bank where hundreds of thousands of Israelis live, everybody seems to carry a gun, and nobody would dream of leaving home without it. Probably these guns are owned by the community rather than individually (so maybe not privately held) but that makes no practical difference. Also, it’s all pretty Wild West over there and plenty of people wouldn’t bother registering their guns and the government wouldn’t have much interest in following it up.
      And whenever there’s an incident involving an Israeli being shot or stabbed or run down by a truck or something the terrorist is invariably killed in short order by a nearby armed civilian, so plenty of guns out there whatever the statistics may tell you.
      In relation to the attacks of October 7th from what I understand the high number of casualties was basically down to gross negligence by the civilian and military authorities. For example at the music festival ‘security’ was apparently provided by unarmed Indian nationals trained in crowd control and first aid and not by army personnel or armed security guards.
      The young female conscripts who were murdered hadn’t - bizarrely -been given permission to carry their weapons and so were unable to defend themselves.
      The kibbutz massacres seem to have been the consequence of the terrorists attacking in large numbers and overwhelming the security teams who died bravely defending their communities.
      I doubt that looser gun laws would have changed things very much, but who knows?

      Delete
    14. ComNavOpsDecember 7, 2024 at 6:54 AM

      "My point was that Israel doesn’t in fact prohibit the private ownership of guns"

      I'm perfectly aware of that. I'm also perfectly aware that when 97.4% of the population does NOT have a gun permit the reality is that gun ownership is non-existent for any practical purpose. Add to that the additional restrictions about rifles so on and the situation is even worse.

      There is also a major difference between having a weapon, such as a rifle, stored safely at home and having a weapon with you when out and about. A weapon stored away at home is no different than not having a weapon.

      In a post, I have a few paragraphs to work with which means that I reduce information to its base level instead of writing a book about the nuances of Israeli gun control laws and regulations. Only a lawyer-ish type reader would fixate on absolute technicalities while fully understanding the practical reality.

      So, I'll repeat, Israel does not have private gun ownership to any extent that matters.

      Delete
  12. AnonymousDecember 6, 2024 at 3:59 PM

    I see where you’re coming from with this, but I would think that making every service member ‘combat capable as their primary job’ would likely make the military even more inefficient than it already is, if such a thing were possible.
    Aircraft mechanics, radar operators, air traffic controllers, power train engineers, linguists and cryptographers, computer specialists, psy ops guys, not to mention doctors, nurses and other medical professionals are all highly demanding full time jobs, where you’re flat out keeping your skills and qualifications up to date, just as they are in the civilian workforce, so I doubt that you’re suggesting they should all have to take a couple months out of their year to sharpen up their infantry fighting skills.
    Maybe - maybe - you could make storemen, pay clerks, MPs and so on ‘combat capable’ at a pinch, or at least more combat capable’ than they are atm, but that isn’t what they enlisted to do in the first place, and recruiting is hard enough as it is.
    Off topic, but maybe the bigger issue is that we should take a hard look at the ‘teeth to tail’ ratio across all the services, and audit just how many support personnel are needed in order to keep a relatively small number of fighting troops in the field.
    In Vietnam for example, although there were half a million troops in the country there were never more than 50 infantry battalions to carry the combat load. I doubt things have gotten any better since then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsDecember 6, 2024 at 4:29 PM

      "I would think that making every service member ‘combat capable as their primary job’ would likely make the military even more inefficient than it already is, if such a thing were possible."

      You would be incorrect. What it would require is eliminating all the non-combat garbage time currently devoted to diversity, equity, gender issues, climate, environment, etc. That would free up more than enough time to remain combat capable and perform a specialty job.

      Delete
  13. AnonymousDecember 8, 2024 at 5:25 AM

    Cutting out the trans stuff is the obvious right move.

    China is rapidly growing in military strength. They have just showed us the J-35A and we believe they are building ~100 J-20s per year.

    Meanwhile, the Air Force, after the F-22 was killed for budget reasons, is pausing the NGAD program out of budget concerns.

    True, many weapons programs are disasters these days. But China may have over 2,000 fifth-gen stealth fighters by the end of next decade. If the US is stuck with a similar number of F-35s and a handful of F-22s and F-15s, and some legacy Super Hornets, there’s simply no reason to expect to achieve air superiority over China in the event of a Taiwan conflict.

    If we don’t have the money to buy necessary weapons platforms such as NGAD (we need it to cost as little as the F-35, lol), there’s no money in the pot for frivolous social programs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsDecember 8, 2024 at 10:20 AM

      "there’s simply no reason to expect to achieve air superiority over China"

      One of my consistent, secondary themes on the blog is the need to develop the mindset, doctrine, and tactics to operate without air superiority. We haven't had to do that since the early days of WWII and we've forgotten how. We're also not properly designing our ships and other equipment to operate successfully and survivably in an environment where we don't own the skies. We need to redesign our force structure.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsDecember 8, 2024 at 10:24 AM

      "If we don’t have the money to buy necessary weapons platforms"

      This is a fallacy. We have way, way, way more than enough money, IF WE SPEND IT WISELY. For example, had we not pursued the LCS, JHSV, Zumwalt, and Ford we'd have something on the order of $100B dollars available to spend. Toss in the only marginally useful F-35C and we're talking many hundreds of billions of dollars.

      We have more than enough money. We just need to stop being stupid about what we buy.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 8, 2024 at 12:38 PM

      I’ll amend my statement to saying that it’s a waste of money full stop.

      That being said, in response to your specific comments, we have already spent hundreds of billions on Fords, LCS, FCS, JSF, Zumwalts, etc. We can’t go back and unspend the money. Best case we can do today is limit the damage: try to revert back to Nimitz production, build small single-purpose escorts vs Constellations, make sure the NGAD & F/A-XX are focused single mission platforms and not reliant on technological miracles, etc.

      With respect to air superiority, we still need to invest heavily in it, both via the Air Force and Navy, after the past few decades in which we underinvested in air superiority

      We could possibly win a war against China if neither side has air superiority. But if the Chinese have it, it’s game over. The US and allies will need at least to be able to match China’s numbers with equipment that is at least as good as China’s, have sufficient numbers of superior aircraft, or exceed China’s numbers with inferior
      aircraft. Given that China is already building 5th gen jets at a rapid pace, my sense is to focus on NGAD/F/A-XX, even with the somewhat high risk those programs will be screwed up. Do you disagree?

      Delete
    4. ComNavOpsDecember 8, 2024 at 5:33 PM

      "But if the Chinese have it, it’s game over."

      No. It's game harder, for sure, but it's not game over. To believe that air superiority is the ONLY way to win a war is to be locked into a WWII mentality. For example, NVietnam won a war against the US without air superiority. The Taliban kicked us out of Afghanistan without air superiority. NKorea achieved at least a stalemate without air superiority. And so on.

      What IS required if we can't achieve air superiority is to break out of our paradigm and start thinking like professional warriors and develop an alternate way of fighting and winning that doesn't require air superiority. THIS is what we should be working on now, during the 'peacetime' run up to war with China. We should be developing plans and conducting large scale exercises of those plans (War Plan Orange for China). We're squandering the precious time we have before the kinetic phase of our war with China begins.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousDecember 8, 2024 at 9:07 PM

      Are those examples relevant to war with China over Taiwan?

      Korea was a land war in which the US only committed a small amount of forces (either compared to its capabilities or compared to China). Air superiority was less of an asset in those days given that aircraft were less accurate and lethal than today.

      Afghanistan was basically a guerrilla war and the US cried uncle after ~2,400 combat deaths in 20 years. Had the U.S. wanted to maintain even 100,000 troops there it would have been sufficient to keep the Taliban out of power indefinitely.

      North Vietnam was able to enjoy a constant flow of weapons and material to support the conflict. The US was often cautious in its use of air power against North Vietnam and it this case too much of the fighting war guerrilla style. The North only won when the US decided to leave.

      In all cases, the US decided that winning just wasn’t worth the effort, in two instances due to negative public opinion.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousDecember 8, 2024 at 9:18 PM

      For China, Taiwan isn’t some far away land half of its citizens can’t find on a map and in which losing is no big deal. Taipei is 80 miles away. It’s a renegade province in China’s eyes and the Beijing government has staked its legitimacy in part on reunification. China isn’t going to walk away because of 2,400 or 240,000 deaths. It seems doubtful that Beijing will allow public opinion to lose the war for them.

      US forces can’t really perform guerrilla warfare in this case. The Taiwanese can I suppose but to me it’s a mystery how those guerrillas will keep well supplied if China shoots down or sinks most of the inbound transports to the island. One imagines PLA forces on Taiwan being a bit more gloves off than American forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.

      In order to stop a Chinese offensive, the US will have to constantly be striking targets in mainland China and, eventually, on Taiwan. If China has air superiority, then our aircraft won’t be doing that and I don’t see how our navy will either. The navy may get a few lucky blows in, but hard to imagine that if China has air superiority it doesn’t promptly sink the offending task force after a successful strike.

      I’m not sure what we could do on a long term basis aside from temporary raids using SSNs & stealth aircraft to blunt China’s advance and hit its logistics while sneaking small amounts of supplies to Taiwanese forces.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousDecember 8, 2024 at 9:31 PM

      I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on what strategies the US could use to surmount this problem, but to me it seems very difficult for the US to prevail in a primarily Air/Sea war against a peer power that has air superiority, geographical/logistical superiority, a larger manufacturing base, and substantial skin in the game in terms of being unwilling to accept losing. And we’re graciously assuming that the US has naval supremacy in this scenario, if that even means anything given the reliance on missiles which are likely to become scarce in the first weeks or months of the war.


      Delete
    8. ComNavOpsDecember 9, 2024 at 9:40 AM

      "Are those examples relevant to war with China over Taiwan?"

      Of course they are in that they demonstrate that there is more than one way to win a war and that air superiority, while hugely desirable, is not mandatory.

      "what strategies the US could use"

      The advent of thousand+ mile missiles has rendered air superiority less important than it was, as long as one suitably adjusts their strategy.

      For example, a distant land and sea blockade of China would, when combined with total financial war and over the long haul, be successful.

      China's focus on Taiwan is a strategic vulnerability as it pins immense amounts of Chinese forces to very specific geographical locations which works to the advantage of very long range missile attacks. Chinese forces, naval and ground, can be defeated near and on Taiwan without ever having to expose our forces inside a thousand miles or ever needing to establish air superiority.

      Mobilizing the entire world to conduct financial war, isolating China's economic system and banking resources would deprive China of any markets and outside income which would be devastating in the long term.

      And so on.

      You just need to break free of restrictive paradigm thinking.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousDecember 9, 2024 at 9:25 PM

      I think you make a good general point but I’m not convinced about the specifics.

      You mention 1,000+ mile missiles. Are these missiles largely impervious to air defenses and can we procure large numbers of such missiles such that they can be used in large quantities on an ongoing basis?

      Everything I’ve seen says that the fancier the missile the more expensive they are to procure, less fancy missiles can often be shot down with a decent air defense network, and that in a war with China most missiles will be expended early in the conflict.

      On the economic front, in a total war scenario I’m not sure economic warfare will matter that much. China is by far the dominant manufacturing power on the planet. On a purchasing power parity basis it manufacturers more than America, Germany, Japan and South Korea combined. Why would it require external markets when the economy is on a total war footing and there is massive demand stemming from the PLA/PLAN/PLAAF? Russia will support China and it’s not clear that nations in close proximity to China, such as Japan and Korea, can launch economic war with China without triggering a hot war.

      The most significant avenue for economic attack I see is disruption of oil supplies, but if China has Air & Naval parity with the US presumably it would have a decent chance at breaking a blockade.

      All China has to do is to break Taiwan’s defenses and establish a sufficient number of its own troops on Taiwan. While that’s a tall order, China is the world’s largest industrial power, it has 1.4 billion people and it is only 80 miles away. If taking Taiwan by force becomes a national priority, we should consider it as easy for China to do as it would be for the US to take Cuba if it had a strong motivation for doing so. Once that has happened, China has basically achieved its victory condition. We probably aren’t going to force them off the island with sporadic missile attacks, our launch platforms aren’t going to operate with impunity, nor will guerrilla tactics be sufficient to force China to quit. The US needs to be able to successfully interdict large numbers of men and equipment in the straight such that a beachhead cannot be reliably established or maintained.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousDecember 10, 2024 at 6:18 AM

      "Mobilizing the entire world to conduct financial war, isolating China's economic system and banking resources would deprive China of any markets and outside income which would be devastating in the long term."

      Not going to happen. China is not an export-led economy any more. Their internal market is big enough they don't need to be. The days of US hegemony at this level are long gone. BRICS+ is tired of the US playing financial games and imposing sanctions at random. A huge amount of trade is now done outside US dollar systems like SWIFT, and China recently issued some dollar denominated bonds in Riyadh of all places. Oversubscribed 20:1, and the rate they offered was only 0.01% higher than US treasuries. That should tell you a lot.

      In addition, China has cancelled $690B in US agriculture purchases. That money is going to Brazil instead. Take a look at that number compared to the US defense budget for example. China has the ability to tank the US economy, and I give the odds 50:50 that its going to do just that.

      The Chinese ban on strategic elements export is also going to hurt. A lot. We need to wake up and understand the extent that China controls global supply chains. It ain't pretty!

      Delete
    11. ComNavOpsDecember 10, 2024 at 9:54 AM

      You vastly overestimate China's ability to weather a global economic war. In such a war, China's trading partners will be cut off and China will be isolated. China's financial and banking systems will be isolated. A major chunk of China's manufacturing will be eliminated. Just the US manufacturing in China, alone, is significant. China will be reduced purely to internal production and consumption which is insufficient to sustain the economy in the long term.

      While you recognize the US vulnerability to strategic resources and raw materials, you fail to note China's strategic resource vulnerabilities.

      China is not self-sustaining in oil although they do have sufficient capacity to function for quite some time. One of the priority targets for the US in a war would be the China-Russia pipelines for oil and gas as well as all other external oil sources.

      None of this is to suggest that China would collapse in a month but the long term implications for a physically and financially isolated China are grave. Combine that with constant, long range kinetic attacks and China has a war it cannot win despite, possibly, having air superiority.

      You also fail to note that air superiority is not the only type of military superiority that is critical. The US has a massive undersea advantage. We have the ability to seal China inside the first island chain, destroy the Chinese navy, mine China's harbors, and contest a Taiwan invasion to the point of making a Pyrrhic victory, if that.

      The US needs to game all this out, militarily and financially, and develop new strategies and force structures. We also need to be realistic and recognize that a war with China is not going to be concluded in six months. It will last years. We need to wean ourselves off dependency on China for resources and hugely expand our internal manufacturing capacity (bringing all our overseas manufacturing back home would be a good step in that direction).

      Air superiority is great to have but is not the only path to victory or else we would have overwhelmingly won in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

      Delete
    12. AnonymousDecember 10, 2024 at 10:57 AM

      I think this is going to turn into another "hot" trade war long before anything military happens. I think that in reality there has been a very low level, very strategic trade war going on for at least the last 20 years.

      The situation going into Trade War 2.0 is vastly different from 2018, and its not an improvement for the West. Take a look at Chinese influence in South America and Africa, and the collapse of the big European economies and governments. 2025/26 are likely going to be "interesting times".

      Meanwhile, China keeps building out their Navy, Air Force and Strategic Missile program as they don't have a problem with manufacturing capacity and supply chains. And we keep talking about needing to build out industrial capacity.

      https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/12/04/remarks-by-apnsa-jake-sullivan-on-fortifying-the-u-s-defense-industrial-base/

      I'm far from being a Jake Sullivan fan, but even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut...

      Delete
    13. ComNavOpsDecember 10, 2024 at 11:59 AM

      "I think this is going to turn into another "hot" trade war"

      What the US/West fails to realize is that China is already at war with us, just not kinetically ... yet. They are doing everything they can in terms of economic, political, industrial, intellectual property, cyber, etc. to defeat us. We have yet to recognize that reality and start fighting back. There are just the barest glimmers of recognition in the US/West. Trump had just started to engage in his first term with the initial steps towards resource independence. Hopefully, he'll fully engage this time around, right from the start.

      Delete
    14. AnonymousDecember 10, 2024 at 12:17 PM

      "What the US/West fails to realize is that China is already at war with us, just not kinetically ... yet. They are doing everything they can in terms of economic, political, industrial, intellectual property, cyber, etc. to defeat us. We have yet to recognize that reality and start fighting back."

      Couldn't agree more. They want to end up on top where no one can ever dictate to them. They will do anything necessary to deter the threat of another Century of Humiliation. Its one of their existential drivers.

      Delete
  14. AnonymousDecember 8, 2024 at 5:22 PM

    Something that I think about with these 'people' as a deployable commodity vs. those that might be undeployable through circumstances beyond control. Say, a newly single parent that cannot go OCONUS. Send/him or her to the Reserves or give them time to find a suitable nanny. Obviously a trans 'person' requiring a lifetimes care and monitoring does not have this option. In fact it insults those that try to do their best in trying circumstances by lumping them into the non-deployable category with those types

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)