Home » Intelligence » Vox Pops on Gates Doctrine

Vox Pops on Gates Doctrine

By Colin Clark Monday, February 28th, 2011 4:49 pm
Posted in Intelligence, International, Land, Policy

Sometimes policymakers face no better test of their ideas than simply exposing them to the public, especially when that public is well informed.

I combed through the comments posted to our Gates doctrine story and found two main threads. First come those who believe Gates simply doesn’t understand the strategic challenges faced by the US and wants to create an Army ill-suited to future threats.

“Gates once again demonstrates [he is] blinded to reality. War is not a game. You do NOT fight not to lose, you fight to WIN! An army capable of executing high-intensity warfare is perfectly capable of executing low-intensity warfare (with a proper change in tactics) but an army built for executing low-intensity warfare is at a SEVERE disadvantage in high-intensity warfare. And the consequences of losing (or doing poorly) in high-intensity warfare are more severe than not doing exceptionally well in low-intensity warfare, said long-time poster PFCEM.

This led to the second thread, those who believe Gates is fundamentally right. PFCEM’s view did not sit well with another reader.etReal, who said PFCEM’s rationale was what has led to “the problems in both Vietnam and in Iraq. Army leadership thought if they were masters of high intensity conflict, then low intensity would be easy. And it was not the Army who led the charge to properly change tactics so the troops would have better MRAP protection, it was Gates who forced the program forward.”

Reader Rick thinks Gate is about “right, the next war will primarily be a Naval and Air more, more like 80% US Navy/Marine Corp, 10% Air Force and 10% US Army. The Air Force won’t be much of a player except for US land based bombers that can be flown in simply because what few Air Force bases there are in the eastern Pacific won’t last very long in a shooting war. The Army won’t be a player until later on in the conflict when they are able to ship in enough of their heavies into theater so support the Marines (in the retaking of Taiwan).”

Another reader went back to the 1930s, wondering if Gates is reliving the path isolationists took before World Warr II.

He also pointed to what he believes are stark contradictions between Gates’ prescriptions and his actions as defense secretary. “The isolationist movement felt that hemispheric defense using air power was all that was needed to protect the US and our interests.While obviously the US needs to continue to invest in Special Forces/expeditionary capabilities, other parts of Mr. Gates speech contradict some of his actions as Sec. Defense. How can one support the use of air power over large ground force capability while gutting much of our fighter force and canceling production of the F-22,” wondered the poster Cocidius? “I can only imagine how it must feel to graduate from such a famous military college and then be told by the most senior person at the Pentagon that essentially large ground forces are a thing of the past, which of course conveniently ignores critical parts of military history.“Viewing the world with blinders on in an effort to justify building his “legacy” of cutting wasteful spending remains a consistent pattern with Mr. Gates and this latest speech is no exception.”

A poster I believe is still serving in the Army went easier on Gates, saying the Army has much more heavy capability than it needs. “We can probably afford to convert some of our tank companies to infantry companies. Unless we’re going to try to plow through Russian or Chinese tank divisions, we have way more tank units than we can use. My heavy brigade replaced an infantry brigade last summer in Afghanistan and the personnel difference is a couple hundred pairs of boots,” noted TMP.

As becomes pretty clear, one of the major differences in the conclusions one draws about Gates’ idea of avoiding major land wars in Asia and the Middle East rests with your analysis of the strategic threat posed by China. And given how little we really know about Chinese intentions and capabilities (how about that J-20!) these arguments are sure to rumble on for years.

Join the Conversation

	Taxpayer February 28th, 2011 at 5:11 pm The current military, built to fight a major land war with the Soviet Empire, is oversized for current and mid-term needs. Its huge size contributes to our current annual deficits. Restructuring must include both mobile and heavy units, but not everything. To protect capability in the face of coming deep cuts in the military, we need to shove about 1/3 of the active forces and their equipment into a new type of national guard-like reserve force structure. Two months training instead of two weeks. Fully integrated with active forces, not just lip service. In other words, we need to be prepared for both types of actions. Remember — history suggests anything is possible.
	Drake1 February 28th, 2011 at 5:18 pm Large ground battles are LIKELY a thing of the past for the foreseeable future, because of the simple matter that the public is sick of war. That’s not even mentioning the fact that if our credit rating is downgraded, we won’t be able to borrow to pay for it.
	Chockblock February 28th, 2011 at 6:07 pm Every time someone claims “large forces are over” we have another war to fight. The enemy had to use illegal combatants and dirty fighting to compensate for superior tech and mobility of America’s forces. “Hang on to the GI’s belt to fight him.” We’ve adapted and overcome. Large forces will make a comeback as the world economy recovers and more nations leverage cheaper Chinese and Russian systems. The Russians don’t sell the downgraded systems anymore. “low intensity conflict” is just another foggy bottom buzz word they use to avoid reality. The reality is that the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and perhaps Africa could see “large land forces” fighting. Gates forgets the 1930’s.
	Dfens February 28th, 2011 at 6:32 pm Let’s see, 15% of our military fights wars, the other 85% sit on their asses and “procure” stuff, but you think this is about some sort of reasoned debate? Yeah, right, the 15% clearly lost. We have one of the most inefficient militaries in the world, but let’s not change a thing. We can just keep on whistling past the graveyard as our forces dwindle to nothing — with or without cuts! Our pilots already fly aircraft older than they are routinely. Our Navy can’t keep 300 ships floating even at Cold War funding levels. But don’t change anything.
	@E_L_P February 28th, 2011 at 7:08 pm “The current military, built to fight a major land war with the Soviet Empire, is oversized for current and mid-term needs.” You must have been asleep during the 1990s. The military was drastically cut. And has be cut in various needed operational communities since then. And sorry–Operation; USELESS DIRT, which provides no valid defense to the U.S.– doesn’t count. Every other op community has been robbed of resources to shovel into that fools errand. The idea that the military needs to be downsized is a looney tunes fantasy by those that don’t have a clue about day to day taskings and needed resources for readiness. But yeah, go ahead and lets be stupid like the U.K. and throw even more operational capability into the trash just to feed a bloated federal government. Want cuts? Start pointing at other parts of the Fed gov that provide nothing but consumption with no vaule. It is the United States of America and not the United Federal Government of America. You have the right to pursue happiness and not have it provided for you. I know the Constitution and other old documents are in the clueless zone for a lot of people, but one of the original jobs of Congress was to help provide for a defense of the nation. No where in there was the madness of the welfare state.
	SwitchBlade February 28th, 2011 at 7:40 pm We need to pull almost completely out of Europe for several reasons: 1. We are supplementing the perceived defense of the European countries by having our military there. They don’t need to pay for their own defense while we’re doing it for them. 2. Having a military in Europe leads to our intervention in situations that can and should be handled entirely by the European countries (the world’s policeman effect). The break up of Yugoslavia is the main example — we really had no reason to get involved. 3. Most of the pointy end troops can be put in the rotation for whatever we are involved in at the moment. Almost, if not all, of the support troops can be downsized. All of the unneeded support contracts currently held by civilian companies, most of them European, can be canceled. Cha-Ching!!!
	superraptor February 28th, 2011 at 9:30 pm I am sorry. There will not be a peace dividend. We may be in a major strategic competition with China down the road over limited natural resources. They are greatly expanding all of all military capabilities including heavy armor and we need to do the same to be able to protect ourselves. My guess for the future: trillion dollar defense budgets in. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security out.
	Drake1 February 28th, 2011 at 9:34 pm I wholeheartedly agree. We are only encouraging the Europeans to further cut their defenses so that they can better afford their social welfare states. Moreover, it is troubling that while we have troubles growing in the Pacific, we have those in this country which seem content to muck around in the Russians back yard to no avail, adding nations to the mess that is NATO. I favor disbanding NATO, but if it must be kept, we should reduce our leadership, staff, and bases in Europe to a minimum, while reinforcing our presence elsewhere.
	Taxpayer March 1st, 2011 at 12:04 am The Chinese are entitled to increase their military the same way we did. But where do tanks go when they hit the water’s edge? Nowhere. Sure they may in teh future be able to mount a small amphibious force. And do what? Try to invade Japan again? Let the Japanese, Taiwanese and other rich Asians countries defend themselves. We’ll back them up, with naval power only. But we they should be at the front of the pack, not us. BTW, the Founding Fathers approved an army and navy in the Constitution but did not fund them, for fear of entanglement in foreign adventures — just like Iraq and Afghanistan. And the navy was created to protect commerce by fighting the Barbary pirates, not protect us from invasion.
	STemplar March 1st, 2011 at 2:44 am We have 1 BDE left in Europe, when l was in we had 8 divisions. There isn’t much left to take out of Europe Army wise. Some presence on the ground there serves to let us keep forward deployed resources.
	STemplar March 1st, 2011 at 2:48 am Social Security is funded by an entirely separate revenue stream from the general fund. Given that the population is aging any thought of cutting Medicaid and Medicare is political fantasy.
	BOOMER March 1st, 2011 at 8:25 am What it sounds like he wants to do is down size and restructure the Army down to the MARINES and SEALS. What he is clueless on is where the NAVY DEPT falls short, long term sustainment and manpower to hold multiple large areas. Now if the pentagon is finally going to return to the true nature of war where we just go in to kick butt and then leave with no humanitarian effort or expense then this will work no problem. But since I dont forsee washington getting out of the win thier hearts and minds BS for some time yet — this just wont work period till they man up to what war is (defeat your enemy as fast as possible — leave them to contemplate what thier actions caused — leave them to spnd the time rebuilding thier country on thier own rather than thier military — and come home to our families).
	GetReal March 1st, 2011 at 9:10 am one speech does not a Doctrine make. sounds to me like you miss his point completely. As far as the Navy Dept falling short with sustainment problems it’s their own dang fault for not being able to control the costs of their shipbuilding programs. If you think DoD can just blow everything up and not have to do the clean up then you are ignoring history and sound strategic thinking. Clausewitz well known statement ‘war is a continuation of politics’ applies. The military serves the needs of its nation as represented by their elected politicians. The military’s political purpose is to defend us and our national objectives as defined by elected politicians. Its too bad you think winning hearts & minds is BS. Do you think the Marshall Plan, helping Japan post WW2, and helping the South recover post Civil War were all wastes of time?
	Editor, DoD Buzz March 1st, 2011 at 9:22 am GetReal, Actually, one speech can a doctrine make, especially when its central point has been stated in less stentorian terms before by the same senior policymaker. Gates clearly wants to ensure that elements of both parties learn what he clearly believes is the central lesson learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan — such wars are incredibly expensive and do relatively little to improve America’s strategic posture, so don’t engage in them.
	BOOMER March 1st, 2011 at 9:49 am Yeah the MArshall plan was BS, and it cost us in the long run giving Japan the edge over us in tech production for a number of years (pushed and backed by Americans). And the North didnt do a darn thing to help the south after the war but to induce large taxes and confiscate property and that is all. Nobody faults the Germans, japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese for killing and imprisoning/torturing everyone who stood against them but we who try to be the worlds big brother are faulted and hated the world over over for our actions — so what have we gained — We are less likely to have to refight someone if we just kick the living daylights out of them from the start and leave them lying dirty in the streets with nothing to gain from us. Just as with schoolyard fights — you never mess with the guy who beat you silly and stepped on you after he was done ever again, but if he stops says hes sorry for hurting you and you become quazi friends you wind up fighting all over again — same in politics with countries, the kids are just older and order others to do thier fighting.
	GetReal March 1st, 2011 at 9:59 am well I disagree. ‘doctrine’ should take a long time and be well thought out and reviewed — here’s a definition from wikipedia entry: a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. I think Gates was expressing views in a speech. Some of the things he said may not have been the wisest statements to make. I think the word doctrine can be overused, and that if we jump to claim something as doctrine and there is great misundertsanding and pain results. As Colonel John Boyd warned us, the danger with doctrine is that it becomes dogma, leading us to make policy mistakes.
	GetReal March 1st, 2011 at 9:59 am My opinion is that Gates is actually rather pragmatic. Canceling FCS, EFV, boosting MRAP, Special Forces, and ISR are all logical, pratical decisions given mission requirements, fiscal constraints and good acquisition portfolio management. The ones opposing him, I.E., many of the posters on here, are actually the dogmatic/idealogically bent ones. They abuse service warfighting doctrine to justify what is their real doctrine, or dogma: Overcommitment to technologically gold plated, operationally unsuitable, cost & schedule overruning, benefit shortfalling acquisition programs for the purposes of Pentagon careerism, Industry profits, and Congressional district jobs that leaves us with cost & schedule overruns, ancient systems, faulty products, and weakened national defense. You should write more stories about the real Congressional (YES Congressional), Military, Industrial Complex corrupt unspoken DOCTRINE. Gates isn’t perfect, but he’s got more brains, skill, and professionalism than almost all, if not all, posters here.
	BOOMER March 1st, 2011 at 10:01 am CONTINUED: As far as the Navy’s long term sustainment ability, It’s not that they dont have the capeability but that it is not in the immediate area and MEU’s are set up to go in capture/destroy and get out — they are a rapid response force not a holding force, they can if they have to but not designed to do so. What they want and expect to happen is more like what occured in Grenada, Panama, The Falkland Islands where strike forces and Specwarfare troops hit fast and hard and left afterwards. Thing is you just cant always count on who your next enemy will be.
	GetReal March 1st, 2011 at 10:17 am well I’ll need to brush up on my history then. But let me offer this from Sun Tzu: “the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans, the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces, the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field, and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.” “Kick the living daylights out of them & leave them lying dirty in the streets.” This is not good strategy. Post-Appomatox Grant treated the South with DIGNITY. Post WW1 the Treaty of Versailles did NOT treat Germany with DIGNITY. The humiliation enabled Hitler to rise to power and we were in another horrific war. Post WW2 we helped Japan & Germany, two of our strongest allies today, and we have had a long period of prosperity as a result, and increasing our strategic power for the future, unless the cost overruns, declining readiness, and overall cultural decay take us all down under.
	GetReal March 1st, 2011 at 10:20 am hmm ok forgive me for misunderstanding I thought the greater problem was the declining size of the Naval fleet & failed Navy acquisition programs.
	BOOMER March 1st, 2011 at 10:32 am Hitler did not want us in the war and chastised Japan for attacking us and told them they were basicly on thier own. I lived in Japan and while they do business with us as long as they profit they do not like us much at all and even today we are not allowed in many establishments there. Germany on the other hand where I have also lived is different in that most of Germany did not like hitler or nazis and even attempted to have him killed more than once. Right now in the sand box, They dont like us, just the money we are spending to make them better than they were before we arrived but they will go right back to hating us full bore soon as all the troops are gone for the most part. I dont do that much reading about it because I was already living it for 24yrs and know how manipulated books and reports are.
	VItesse et Puissance March 1st, 2011 at 10:46 am The Reconstruction Era, instructive as it may be, is hardly an example of successful stabilization and peace operations. The Union got tired of the occupation, up and quit, leaving the people it was supposed to have helped at the mercy of their adversaries.
	GetReal March 1st, 2011 at 10:53 am Well Grant was gracious. Many other Northerners were not. And we still have a lot of post Civil War bitterness as a result. Even if it wasn’t a successful stabilizition program, it has to atleast be a step above how Boomer suggests we should treat our enemies. The whole point is we need a Grand Strategy to sustain our prosperity, having allies from former enemies, even if we’re not best buddies, is better than having a humiliated enemy with nothing to lose, especially in the WMD/terrorist age.
	VItesse et Puissance March 1st, 2011 at 10:56 am One reason we disagree with Gates’s programmatic decisions is that they reflect an underlying strategic disengagement from the forward defense strategy. That’s why he threw C-17, FCS, and EFV under the bus. It has nothing to do with program performance and everything to do with reducing America’s strategic options. Now, it would be fine enough to say that we’re going to a maritime strategy ala Mahan, with all that entails — but one does need to put one’s money where one’s mouth is. The ugly underside of all this is a return to the Reagan doctrine whereby the US not only does not even put the boots on the ground to do stabilization operations, but actively supports the destabilization of portions of the operational environment that the US concedes overtly but contests covertly. So please spare us the praise of Gates — it is all just sophistry in the advancement of the CNAS agenda and the marginalization of American power abroad.
	GetReal March 1st, 2011 at 11:10 am FCS and EFV cancellations were not about Gates’ idealogy, they were about failues as systems & acquisition programs. independent report & audits & testimony of people on the inside of these programs all support this. Cost overruns, behind schedule, systems don’t pass test, programs that corrupt the integrity of our acquisition and systems engineering and test & evaluation processes. These programs waste our national defense dollars — they do not enhance American power, they detract from it.
	GetReal March 1st, 2011 at 11:10 am and you’re not going to shut me up about Gates. I’m not about giving Gates praise. I give him credit for his good decisions, leadership shakeups, and hopefuly we can atleast agree he’s an upgrade over Rumsfeld. Hopefully we can agree that you have to give a man credit that can atleast right the ship, and staunch the bleeding of the damage Rusmfeld did . I’m fair. I don’t agree with all Gates’ decisions. In fact I think he made a mistake in supporting JSF at all. We should cancel JSF, rebuild the F-22 production line and produce at a minimum sustaining rate as a hedge against future A/A stealth jet threats from China, Russia, whatever. Then we can begin anew on another tactical fighter modernization program and don’t poochscrew it. And seriously work on a new bomber as a higher priority. JSF is hurting a new bomber, too, this is marginalizing American power more than Gates’ overall record.
	Drake1 March 1st, 2011 at 11:38 am No duh, I already said we should keep something there. Gates obviouskly thinks more cuts can be made.
	VItesse et Puissance March 1st, 2011 at 11:53 am Well, in fact, no. Gates is not an “upgrade” over Rumsfeld. He has exactly the same biases and is making many of the same errors. One of those errors has been to upend the policies of his predecessor, and put the Department in a constant state of churn. In a resource-rich environment (under Rumsfeld) it was annoying but tolerable. In a resource-constrained environment, real damage is being done. All in the name of “reform” (used to be called “transformation” before that word went out of fashion).
	VItesse et Puissance March 1st, 2011 at 11:57 am Well, good luck with that. I’m reminded of the WWI doughboy who remarked, after observing the German soldiers marching in defeat east across the Rhine river, that the US would end up having to return and finish the job because the Germans were not “whipped enough yet”.
	Weaponhead March 1st, 2011 at 1:31 pm Let’s just hide in the corner for the next century. Hmmm: 187 F-22s — not enough to ensure Air Dominance F-35 — Too Expensive to replace F-16, F-18, Av-8, Not good enough for air dominance, not good enough for AA/AD environment, too much for “today’s conflicts“ Air Guard — going out of business (F-35) 20 B-2s not enough… LCS — can it actually do what it was supposed to do? What about weapons for it? I don’t think Griffin is the answer… So after having neutered the Air force and Navy the Army and Marines are next We are on our way to the “Hollow Force” and will soon be doing a Blanch Dubois, ‘relying on the kindness of strangers’. Well done Mr. Gates
	@7thwave March 1st, 2011 at 2:39 pm You sir, along with gates are totally clueless,and I mean clueless. Since when are we not going to get involved in another land war either in Asia, North Africa/middle east, or Africa? Our current national policy dictates that we will be involved sometime in the next 5–10 years..and that is judging from events unfolding across North Africa today. So I will say this…Gates will eat his words..and in doing so, I hope he chokes. Cut the defense budget? Better open your eyes, you old coot! I guess Mr. Gates forgot current history…especially the war in Iraq..when we just had to boost man power there to get the job done, and now we are doing in Afghanistan…and we are finding we do not even have the amount of manpower needed to hold ground gained from the Taliban, even with the “surge” Mr. Gates and Mr. Obama approved to be sent over. And yet, I see Gates in all of his brainless ways wants to cut the Marines and Army.…is this guy smoking crack or what? Every ten years or so, we build up the military, and then cut it back to levels not even worth having. And now yet again, we are going to make the same mistake we have made many times before. And for what…to save a few pennies…especially when the government as a whole wastes more money than the military ever will..what a joke. So, in closing I say this…Mr. Gates, and those who need to be replaced and quickly.…wake up. Stop selling the military short and needlessly killing our boys and girls who serve with your blind and stupid ways.…plan ahead and think for once and start making policy that actually makes sense…And for those who are so worried we are going so broke we cannot even pay attention…shut your mouth, and stop the fear mongering about our deficit. Its high now…but to cut programs like the defense budget now only insures more and added costs down the road…especially when the cost is blood and more koney…all because you did not have for hindsight to study world history, and learn from its mistakes.
	GetReal March 1st, 2011 at 2:39 pm This post is even worse than Vitesse’s. This is the worst case of cherrypicking data I’ve ever seen. First off , what is your basis for saying 187 F-22s is not enough? The USAF brags about 144:0 kill ratios for F-22 so apparently by the flawed thinking of so many people we are safe against 26,928 enemy fighters. As far as your criticism of F-35 true Gates made a bad call in supporting the program but you cannot blame him for the poochscrew of a program that is. That’s the Service’s fault. Air Guard going out of business??? Oh yes surely you can blame that on Gates. 20 B-2s? Again the poochscrew acqusition program was the USAF’s fault, and the decision to halt production made long before Gates was SecDef. LCS = Navy’s fault. “Neutering”??? Give me a break. So you don’t have anything professional to say so you have to use lame metaphors? Hollow Force — we are basically there already — but DoD is a organization that copes and soldiers on. Well done Mr Gates? A poor way to finish out the post with a little bit of sarcasm.
	GetReal March 1st, 2011 at 2:54 pm No one who understands fiscal discipline is going to shut their mouth on the basis an ignorant childish rant post like yours. It’s not just about the deficit, it’s about the future unfunded liabilities the federal government is on the hook for: military retirement pay, civilian pay, Medicare, and Social Security. You know what the estimate is?? $50-$100 Trillion plus. You call someone who understands our fiscal nightmare a fear monger? Well they’re not — the problem is you are ignorant & biased.
	praetorian March 1st, 2011 at 5:30 pm Numbers are off, only 185 F-22′ s & 19 B-2’s, both due to crashes.
	VItesse et Puissance March 1st, 2011 at 6:28 pm Here are some quotes from the introduction to Douglas Macgregor’s “Transformation Under Fire” written in 2003 — when Don Rumsfeld was SecDef: “the US Army cannot be blamed for missing a sea change in warfare that the civilian government and more national security analysts also missed…Champions of standing forces resisted budget and policy incursions of special operators, while champions of special operations resented the inflexibility of conventional forces. The two types of forces were never welded into a coherent whole, nor was a coherent strategy developed for dealing with the full spectrum of warfare…we find ourselves in a global war, yet the army continues to be the favorite target of budget cutters.” Or as Bing West noted in his book. Rumsfeld wanted to win “with one round left in the chamber”. Far from solving these problems, Gates has made them more enduringly worse.
	VItesse et Puissance March 1st, 2011 at 6:47 pm You know, this nation is filled with selfish and shortsighted people. Most of the posters to this board are either military veterans or professionally involved in the nation’s defense — in many cases both.…people with many years of experience, and most of us cannot remember when resources were not constrained. We face a procurement crisis because for a decade — all throughout the 90s, defense acquistion pretty much stopped. Readiness levels went down because the nation did not care enough to keep OPTEMPO up to par. To toss all that off and say that the Department “copes and soldiers on” is arrogant and stupid. We should have learned the dangers of “Can Do” fanaticism in Vietnam, but as long as there is a professional incentive to hide the facts, true reform is not possible. But I will say something more. Why after such fanfare from Bob Gates and Hillary Clinton at the opening of the US Institute of Peace are these people not fighting tooth and nail to restore funding for this very modest and inexpensive exercise in soft power ? Where are you when that argument needs to be made against the isolationists and the xenophobes whno want to hide behind the Maginot lines of the future ?
	@7thwave March 2nd, 2011 at 10:02 am Fiscal discipline. That is what is cutting the military s in Europe to a skeleton force. Fiscal discipline. That is what is causing wide spread social unrest in Europe, and the middle east. (yeah…2 bit dictators practice fiscal discipline too) Please do not insult my intelligence on the “budget crisis”. I am fully aware of budget concerns. How ever, I am also fully aware of readiness concerns. When you cut the military too much to save money, you end up spending more in the long run with weapon systems, and personnel because you cut so far you cannot even pay attention let alone defend a nation. You can never do more with less…and to think fools who cry money would learn. Its not the citizens of the nations fault that corporate greed caused a huge national security crisis. From social programs such as welfare to education, massive budget cuts will cause civil unrest unseen since the civil war. And defense cuts will disable a military to a point where it will be hard to respond to internal threats and external threats. You need current force levels and then some to maintain a strategic edge in the world. You need ICBMs unfortunately to maintain what is still called MAD in some form or another. You need fighter aircraft to maintain air dominance over the battlefield, and here at home. And you need ships to enforce sea lanes to insure our economic stability. But yet, here we are discussing some old fools short sightedness in seeing the effects of current situations and current trends. I mean hey…unless you want to hire Halliburton at ten times what you would pay an average enlisted man to do their job…then go for it. But be aware its people like you who end up costing the country far more in the long run with short sighted and narrow eyed views of world history and current trends. What a bunch of fools.
	@7thwave March 2nd, 2011 at 10:09 am Get real, you need to do what your name says. Numbers are for show. And only fools believe in 144:0 kill ratios. Put one F22 in a fight with 2–4 SU30-37 series aircraft at once in a short range mode, and you have one tore up F22. Please spare us the dribble about numbers and what the military needs and needs badly. So, I will say this.…better stop the accountant attitude. This poster got it right.
	@7thwave March 2nd, 2011 at 10:19 am I have responded to a couple of posters who are totally clueless on defense issues and they respond and insult my intelligence on the current “budget crisis”. So, I will say this again, and hopefully someone reads this and learns something very useful.… Every 10or so years we grow the defense budget and then cut it back. The problem is, is this is during a time of prolonged war. And when you cut readiness levels down to a level as to where you have to build them up again, you waste more money in the long term trying to build them back up. That is common sense, something most policy makers lack. And the cost in lives from being so cheap that you cannot even provide for defense of the country is at most treasonous. You can only cut so far. Current manning levels are good for now. Maintain them for the long haul. Believe me, you will be calling on those same forces now to fight another war here soon. North Korea. Mexico. South America. Africa. North Africa. The middle and central Asian area. These are major hot spots that every asset we have that at one time or another may be employed to protect national interests. Oil. Minerals. And so on. But yet, we have fools who are very hind sight impaired, and are not paying attention to what effects national security. What a waste and a shame.
	GetReal March 2nd, 2011 at 10:42 am I am doing what I saying. You just need to read and think a little more carefully. I do not completely trust the F-22 kill ratio. I am using Reductio ad absurdum to expose the foolish thinking of the biased inside Service views of obsession with fielding gold plated defense platforms regardless of cost. Now I’ll expose your foolishness. You use the example of a 1:2–4 dogfight and try to sell to us that the outcome is known with 100% certainty. Nothing is certain. F-22 could theoretically defeat 4 SU 30–37, USA had similar highly positive kill ratios in Korean War even though the MiG was superior to F-86. The nature of warfare has exceeded your theory. So if I continue with the “accountant attiude” what are you gonna do exactly? You threatening me in cyberspace??? Please spare us your dribbly inferior arguments. The military badly needs new platforms to replace ancient aging ones, and it needs to get it’s system engineering & cost overrun problems under control. I will say this to YOU… better stop with the stupidity, threatening me attitude. You posters are wrong.
	GetReal March 2nd, 2011 at 10:47 am I assume you are accusing me of cluelessness on defense issues. Let me correct your thinking. I do NOT agree with cutting back the defense budget. I believe defense spending should be level until DoD can get its acquisition and finances in order. I believe in cutting failed programs, so there are more resources for successful programs. We need to cut the WASTE before inflating the budget to greater and greater amounts, or we will have more and more WASTE, at the expense of the warfigher, which is actually the treasonous behavior you describe leading to lost lives on the battlefield, which is the real shame as you describe.
	BOOMER March 2nd, 2011 at 11:22 am OK here it is — I served active duty for 24 yrs and now work for the DoD. Yes they DoD needs some reforming most definately but what is being missed by most here is what is wrong in general. The want to cut DoD budget Ok I get that and so do most of you — what is being missed by many is they have not once mentioned reducing our input to NATO which accounts for 76% of NATO financing, Not once have they mentioned shutting down any overseas bases (just here), Not once have they said anything about cutting Foriegn military assistance funding, Not once have they mentioned cutting sand box reconstruction — all of this is funded by DoD. Instead they want to continue all of that in higher numbers and take away from our troops.
	BOOMER March 2nd, 2011 at 11:29 am CONTINUED FROM ABOVE: Also listen closely — congress mandated one airframe for all and not the military which caused many of the setbacks of the F35 having to go back to the drawing board to make them strong enough for carrier ops and such and a Marine corps version as well, scrapping the aircraft programs they wanted. LCS was pushed by congress and not widely wanted within the Navy just a few Admirals and staff looking for employment after military– it was this or nothing. EFV was doing fine till congress mandated more armor protection than originaly required by the Marines or cancelation of the program. None of these civilians in congress have any ideal of what the military needs but they will make sure they buy something built in thier disticts.
	GetReal March 2nd, 2011 at 11:32 am what circular logic? i told you i don’t think the top line should be cut. i understand the unfunded gaps in national security. There’s a much greater world than DoD when it comes to national security in fact. Stretchouts is one way to go, but inevitable lead to higher unit costs, greater cost overruns, and angrier Congress & public. there is a price to pay for screwing up like that, like it or not. Sometimes we stretchout what needs to be canceled, in which case we end up sinking more and more money into a losing hand. Look at EFV. For years USMC was all in on EFV, stretching it out instead of canceling it. Now USMC changes its tune and wants an affordable solution. The earlier EFV was canceled, the earlier we would have that more affordable solutoin. So acquisition programs like EFV are what hurts our national security, not my logic. Failed acquisitions and the people that commit us to them are what deserve your sneering, not my logic. It’s so ironic you misjudge that I believe we are on a happy worth. you should try 1 day in my shoes — you wouldnt’ make it.
	BOOMER March 2nd, 2011 at 11:33 am CONTINUED FROM ABOVE: Congress needs to give the military a budget period and then stay away from them, let the military buy what they want from who they want period and update Title 5 CFR to state that no military officer above the rank of 05 or ever involved in any acquisition of product or R&D with a contractor shall be permitted to work for any government contractor in any capacity for 10yrs after release from service. This will end a lot of what is wrong in acquisitions.
	GetReal March 2nd, 2011 at 11:38 am I agree with you that our political leaders are ultimately responsible for the failures in DoD — they’ve got the votes and the Constitutional power of the purse. still DoD doesn’t need to add fuel to the insanity with its own mistakes.
	GetReal March 2nd, 2011 at 11:47 am some of your suggestions are good but there are much greater problems. the public & the leaders they vote for are systematically too stupid and corrupt to satisfactorily address the challenges we face. there are also valid disagreements over policy that result in a lot of the inefficiencies and waste that seem stupid from our point of view. but this is to be expected from a representative democracy.
	TMB March 2nd, 2011 at 12:16 pm STemplar, we have 4 BCTs in Europe. 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade, 170th Infantry Brigade, and 172nd Infantry Brigade.
	BOOMER March 2nd, 2011 at 12:53 pm Most of that stems from false advertisement, and unfourtunately we cant do much about that because the press is always gonna make the story the way they want it as with any issue. It’s just as with the union issues, you will never get the government to addmit that if they had truly done thier jobs and watched out for the well being of the public then there would had been no reason for unions to exist, Throughout the government there is a wage for every trade based on experience and time in performance of that trade — this should had been mandated to private industry as well along with cost of living caps rather than letting industry run free to charge what they want, including the realestate and medical industry which is outta control as well. (an acre of land and a 1800 sq ft house should be the same price no matter where it is, not 80k in texas & 500k in cali or NJ). WE NEED MORE EYES AND CONTROLS ON THE GOVERNMENT PERIOD. ALL ISSUES RESOLVED PUBLICLY — NO MORE CLOSED DOOR ANTICS.
	GetReal March 2nd, 2011 at 1:12 pm huh?? you believe in Govt control of private industry wages??? You think the value of real estate should be the same regardless of location location location??? this is rather bizarre thinking don’t you agree?
	BOOMER March 2nd, 2011 at 1:35 pm Not exactly — I do think that the government should had made sure corporations were paying fare wages across the board, even today they turn thier backs and allow corporations to hire term and contract personnel at lower cost than full time employees and with no bennefits which also leads to lost quality due to the inexperiance of personnel performing the work — I see this a lot on government contracts even though the contracts were bid on full time employee salaries and bennefits as part of the contract cost 9 this should be illegal. Also by controlling the cost of living to include housing there would be no reason for cops– firemen & teachers to make 150k with bennies in one state when they only pay 55k in the state next door with lower cost of living index. Mandating labour cost in some fields would also reduce issues with hiring illegals at or below the min wage scale now in place. No I dont want to give the government more power but I do want them to consider all American citizens (and only American citizens) and not just rich supporters.
	SSG Peters March 2nd, 2011 at 10:43 pm The brutal truth is cities, states and the federal government are out of money and with the baby boom generation retiring and seeking medicare and medicaid and SSI, it seems budgets will be tight if not cut for years to come. So the military budget will also succumb to the same soceital pressure as yuppies decide whether their prescription pills or an F-22 is more important. I expect defense budgets will leave commander’s with the “expected to do more with less” mantra for years to come.

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

DoD Buzz

Vox Pops on Gates Doctrine

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments