Quantity, Not Quality Says Hoss; U.S. Must Rely On Allies

Quantity, Not Quality Says Hoss; U.S. Must Rely On Allies

“You are not going to have 300 to 500 ships. You are not going to have thousands of fighters.” At the same time, America must try and reverse its course of the last decade, which was bringing us to the point where we would have one ship on each coast and one plane on each coast, and focus on quantity to help reverse that stark reality: “We need quantity more than we need that exquisiite capability.”

There you have it straight from the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Hoss Cartwright, who pulled the curtain back a bit on what he and his boss have been ruminating about for most of May. The Pentagon must heed the nation’s fiscal peril because, as Cartwright put it, ‘you cannot build strategy in the absence of resources.”

He and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have spent much of the last two weeks grappling with these fiscal realities, Cartwright said during an address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. And those fiscal realities mean America must take our friends and allies into account as we decide what weapons to buy. “The reality is, we don’t fight alone. We don’t deter alone,” Cartwright said. The U.S. “cannot afford to do everything ourselves. We are not an island.” And that means the Pentagon must “include the capabilities of those we will be partnered with” as it builds requirements. The services first instinct — the country’s first instinct — is to say, “We have to have the only capability. We have to fill every wrung on the ladder with the best capability in the world.” He paused, briefly: “We cannot do it.”


As a strategist, Cartwright is always looking ahead and keeping his eye on the center of power — politics — so he knows that “people will immediately say, we can’t rely on” allies in a fight.” But the truth is that America has not and will not fight alone, and in the face of fiscal constraints our strategy must fit those resources we do have, he said.

Join the Conversation

So, the Euro tanker is in!

I find this quite odd being that if they stopped the freefall in quantity now we would still have 3000 fighters. I doubt the U.S. will be going under a 1000 fighters any time soon

Also, i disagree with him regarding our allies. Though its important to work with our allies and coordinate our capabilities; the truth is even at reduced capacity we are still exponentially more capable then our allies combined. Its like 3 friends that are opening a business and need a $100,000; one pays $99,000 and the other two pay $500 each. I mean just look at the coalition forces for the afganistan invasion; it was a total of 100,000 troops– 70,000 from the U.S. and the other 30,000 from about 2 dozen allies.

To go a little further. At least while I was in Afghanistan, only 2 or 3 of our allies were worth having there.

So China is the model we are going to follow now?

Having our “allies” in Iraq and Afghanistan was a marketing ploy to the sell this adventures to the American public. Except for our true friends, like the Brits, its not the “coalition of the willing,” but the “coalition of the billing.” And all that CERP walking around money the generals like to hand out with no receipts, is just local graft by another name. If we fired a few more generals and admirals and their staffs, we could afford the stuff the real warfighters need.

Well said.

There may be some truth to what you claim about the reduced capabilities of our allies but my Navy SEAL officer son who has done repeated deployments to the area says that the British troops are peerless and unexcelled by anyone in training, conditioning and military bearing.

The UK troops are pretty good which is what another reported above, as are many of the scandanavian troops. But many of them only put troops in theater in order to be allowed to put contractors in theater and for no other reason. They rarely engage the enemy unless thier bases are attacked which is rare and dont patrol much and when they do it is more like a weekend stroll in the country.

Rab, i am not disagreeing with you on that. I think troop for troop british troops are some of the best trained and most capable out there. In fact, component for component, the entire british armed services is a very very well trained and capable force; but the issue is their just isnt as many of them as their are of us. For example, the Challenger tank is just as capable a tank as the M1 Abrams– the difference is that their are only 300 deployable challengers and 5000 abrams. Or what about the Royal Marines. A single royal marine probably can do the same job that one of our marines can do, the difference is that there are 7500 royal marines, and 200,000 U.S. Marines.

So in conclusion, like this article, its not quality that is the issue, its quantity

No man is an island — John Donne

Saying our allies will make up for the loss of our quantity only works if our allies are equipped just like us and will think, fight, and deploy just like us. We have to pull teeth to keep NATO forces in Afghanistan. What good is it if they’re not there every time we want them to be?

Quantity over Quality was one reason Pierre Sprey fought so hard to get the F-16.

Not believing in Quantity over Quality is the reason Rumsfeld fired a former Army Chief of Staff over troop levels for the Iraq war — - Rumsfeld believed in the Quality version, while the Chief knew it would take many more “boots on the ground.”

The ultimate idiocy of denying the validity of the Quantity over Quality argument was postulated by President Coolidge when he asked: “Why don’t we just buy one airplane and let the pilots take turns flying it?”

“coalition of the billing.”

I agree, which puts DOD’s astonishing overtures to EADS in context. We seem to be buying their loyalty and support in Afghanistan.

So this is what has come of NATO?

Nothing says MEDIOCRE is the new standard more than a senior leader advocating quantity over quality!!!! That sure sends a strong message to our adversaries and our own troops. “Folks, I now it’s tough out there, and you busting your chops 24/7. I just wanted to say to keep up the satisfactory work you’re doing. You should be proud of yourselves.”

Depends on what the allies bring to the table. When the Europeans dragged the USA into Operation Deliberate Force, it was supposed to be a joint operation. However, the European allies did not have much of a precision all-weather, day/ night strike capability. The USA wound up flying 66% of the air sorties. I will give Britain credit for later investing in PGMs and cruise missiles to get off the bench and be more of a player.

It is obvious that you are not a combat vet. Also in the last 1oo years, who depended on who. Our so called allies ran from Iraq, we saved them in WW1 and WW2. Since they cannot protect themselves, what ALLIES do you propose helping us???? Leave our military alone and modernize them you DC moroons. Maybe we need change of military LEADERSHIP as it seems we have none. Stop giving our money and benefits to illegals , disasters and countries overseas. The money is OUR tax dollars.

The current administration is spinning in an attempt to cloak a radical scale back of US military capability. Depending on allies ranks with the “force multiplier” canard from the Carter years as a “cover story”. Never mind political wll or dependability of these “allies”, just look at our “allies” order of battle! We’re gonna depend on who?? The Dutch? The Germans? The Swedes? To do what?!? The Brits are our only dependable ally and their capability has atrophied over the years plus the current POTUS “anglo-phobia” does not bode well for the traditional special relationship with our most dependable ally. POTUS has also put the US relationship with the Israelis into a “deep freeze”. The VCJCS’s clumsy attempt at spin to cover surrendering our super power capability is just that.….spin

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement