<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant_atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2012://1/tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006-</id>
  <updated>2012-03-24T16:02:31Z</updated>
  <title>Comments for Some thoughts on things militant...</title>
  <subtitle>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</subtitle>
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.12</generator>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=4006" title="Some thoughts on things militant..." />
    <published>2005-05-04T14:13:53Z</published>
    <updated>2006-11-11T16:53:01Z</updated>
    <title>Some thoughts on things militant...</title>
    <summary>...not from me, but from other people. Some critical observations on the current state of affairs in the Army, and especially in the Transformation arena. First up, Illusion of Change by Colonel(r) Douglas MacGregor (of Breaking the Phalanx fame), from his recent testimony before Congress. Colonel MacGregor&apos;s point is diluted a touch because he&apos;s selling his own product - but as I said, the internal debate rages, and COL. MacGregor&apos;s viewpoint has many champions inside, too. I don&apos;t wholly buy all of MacGregor&apos;s points - but what he says rings true in the main through the work I&apos;ve been doing....</summary>
    <author>
      <name>The Armorer</name>
      <uri>http://www.thedonovan.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="Observations on things Military" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.thedonovan.com/">
      <![CDATA[<p>...not from me, but from other people.  Some critical observations on the current state of affairs in the Army, and especially in the Transformation arena.</p>

<p>First up, <a href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/historystuff/IllusionOfChange(Macgregor) (2).pdf"><b>Illusion of Change</b></a> by Colonel(r) Douglas MacGregor (of <b><a href="http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/cole.html">Breaking the Phalanx </a></b>fame), from his recent testimony before Congress.  Colonel MacGregor's point is diluted a touch because he's selling his own product - but as I said, the internal debate rages, and COL. MacGregor's viewpoint has many champions inside, too.</p>

<p><br />
I don't wholly buy all of MacGregor's points - but what he says rings true in the main through the work I've been doing.  I'll also tell you there is a lot more dissent and discussion inside the Army on the issues of Transformation than you see out in public.  But since a lot of it hinges on operational experience, OPSEC keeps it in-house.  Let's just say that the experiments and analysis, layered in with operational experience is keeping Transformation a moving train... which is a Good Thing, though the senior guys find themselves compelled to act sometimes as if that's not the case.  More on *that* in a later post.</p>

<p>Next up, another retired Colonel, Bob Killebrew, <b><a href="http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/may_2005/5_05_2.html">offers some thoughts on Warfighting</a></b> - pay attention to the picture captions.  They tell a story in themselves.  A little taste:</p>

<blockquote>
Of course the Iraqi insurgency is different, just as all wars are different from their predecessors. Despite the mountains of paper expended in recent decades on theories about asymmetric enemies, the Department of Defense and the Armed Forces by and large saw only the war they wanted to fight in Iraq, and did not anticipate that the enemy might not cooperate. A DoD committed to transforming the armed services orchestrated a conventional attack into Baghdad and other Iraqi cities that, however brilliantly executed, in retrospect looks like a strategy out of the 19th century-seize the enemy's capitol and the nation falls into one's hands like a ripe fruit. As we know, the present insurgency took root in the instability that followed the conventional campaign, threatening not only the rebuilding of Iraq but the success of the U.S.-led war itself. There is reason to believe that part of the insurgency was either preplanned or improvised by the previous government as their conventional forces were defeated, but confirmation awaits historical inquiry. At present, hard fighting by troops on the ground, the success of the Iraqi elections and the accelerating organization of Iraqi security forces have swung the tide. While the eventual outcome of the war is still not assured, strategic momentum in the theater seems to be shifting back toward the accomplishment of U.S. war aims. What lessons can we draw thus far from the Army's counterinsurgency experience in Operation Iraqi Freedom? Five candidates appear below.
</blockquote>

<p>Now, go back, click the link, and read.</p>

<p>I'm reading Andrew Bacevich's new book, "<b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195173384/002-1399410-3572001?v=glance">The New American Militarism</a></b>" which has been raising such a storm in some circles.  As usual, I find that many of the initial reviews seem based more on the blurbs and advertising vice a read of the book.  I'll have some thoughts on that this week maybe, after I've had a chance to read and digest.  Of course, that's why I'm never going to make it in the pundit business - sometimes I just won't jump on the wagon when the topic is hot!</p>]]>
      
    </content>
  </entry>

  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006-comment:24252</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html#comment-24252" />
    <title>Comment from Sigivald on 2005-05-04</title>
    <author>
        <name>Sigivald</name>
        
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[I don't know in detail, MCart, but I do know the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marine_Corps_Force_Reconnaissance" rel="nofollow">Marine "Force Recon"</a> are using a new <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/wolf.htm" rel="nofollow">Interim Fast Attack Vehicle (IFAV)</a> based on the Mercedes G-class.

I suspect this means they're using the old M151 (which is evidently the designation for the Chenowith) as little as possible, but I don't know how many IFAVs they have yet, or if any M151s are still in use.]]>
    </content>
    <published>2005-05-04T23:21:20Z</published>
    <updated>2005-05-04T23:21:20Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006-comment:24244</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html#comment-24244" />
    <title>Comment from CDR Salamander on 2005-05-04</title>
    <author>
        <name>CDR Salamander</name>
        <uri>http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com">
        <![CDATA[(MacGregor)Slide 7 is spot on and Slide 4 hit something I am running into right now as we work "Human Capital Strategy" issues in the Navy drawdown through FY11 - seems like the concern of WAY too many people that should know better is "We need to preserve command opportunity..." bla, bla, bla.  This is usually question/directive #1 or #2.  Wrong focus - but a big one by community "leaders" that have community loyalty too high on their priority list.  
BT
I like this nasty bit from "Winning Wars" - <b><i>Fully funded graduate education programs have dropped from 7,400 after Vietnam to 396 this year, half of them preparing to join the Army's acquisition corps.</i></b> 

]]>
    </content>
    <published>2005-05-04T18:42:29Z</published>
    <updated>2005-05-04T18:42:29Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006-comment:24239</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html#comment-24239" />
    <title>Comment from MCart on 2005-05-04</title>
    <author>
        <name>MCart</name>
        
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        In the first Gulf War there was quite a bit of use of the FAV, a Chenowth Sand Rail with a VW bus transmission. It&apos;s unarmored, but its a way to quickly get in and out of places with heavy firepower. 

Was it used at all this time around? I haven&apos;t seen anything about it, and the focus has been mostly on heavy armor. The only Light vehicles I see mentioned are the various types of HMMWV. Has the FAV been discontinued?
    </content>
    <published>2005-05-04T17:41:12Z</published>
    <updated>2005-05-04T17:41:12Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006-comment:24237</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html#comment-24237" />
    <title>Comment from kat-missouri on 2005-05-04</title>
    <author>
        <name>kat-missouri</name>
        <uri>http://themiddleground.blogspot.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://themiddleground.blogspot.com">
        Yeah, I didn&apos;t read the whole book from Bacevich.  He was giving a speech to a group on CSPAN.  It wasn&apos;t that everything he said was wrong, I just took issue with a few details.  Such as his comment on America being newly enamored with it&apos;s fighting forces.  I kept looking at history thinking that could not be true.  WWII certainly glamorized and made more &quot;noble&quot; the American warrior.

I also took issue with his &quot;new policy&quot; of using American forces.  This was totally based on his comments on CSPAN.  I didn&apos;t see it as a &quot;new policy&quot;, just more in people&apos;s faces with global communication.  It&apos;s been a long standing policy.

I can&apos;t wait to hear what you have to say about his book.
    </content>
    <published>2005-05-04T16:41:10Z</published>
    <updated>2005-05-04T16:41:10Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006-comment:24227</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2005://1.4006" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2005/05/some_thoughts_on_things_militant.html#comment-24227" />
    <title>Comment from SangerM on 2005-05-04</title>
    <author>
        <name>SangerM</name>
        
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        The Killebrew article was extremely well written, and right to the point.  Wow.  Maybe, with people like him writing like that, the Army will get a clue for the future.

Or maybe not.

Thanks!
    </content>
    <published>2005-05-04T15:15:07Z</published>
    <updated>2005-05-04T15:15:07Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
</feed>


