John asked me if I'd like to comment on the Kane Op-Ed. That was a mistake...
My comments in BOLD...
ROBERT GATES, the secretary of defense, has proposed a budget overhaul that will go a long way toward improving our national security, but more can be done to meet his long-term goal: creating the right military for the 21st century.
Not since Henry Stimson’s tenure from 1940 to ‘45 has a defense secretary been faced to the same degree with simultaneously fighting a war and carrying out far-reaching reforms. I’m not sure how he comes to that conclusion. There are good and bad examples of SecDef efforts to do just that. One (bad) one that came to mind as I read this was Robert McNamara’s efforts during the Vietnam War. Lots of changes, many of which were either counter-productive or penny-wise/pound-foolish. The intense effort to get the Navy to buy the F-111 for economies of scale in the former case. While the intentions were understandable, and even laudable, in trying to bring some of McNamara’s experience in the auto industry to the Pentagon, it translated very badly in the final analysis. Yet there are three major changes Mr. Gates should add to his agenda, and they deserve President Obama’s support.
First, the Air Force should be eliminated, and its personnel and equipment integrated into the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. This is SUCH an old idea that it almost doesn’t merit a response, but I’ll indulge… First of all, I’d be very interested to know the writer’s background. I won’t dismiss his contention out of hand simply because he may not have any background in large-scale aviation strategy, planning, and/or needs assessments. Nothing’s perfect and I have bones to pick with the USAF on a few things myself. That said, let me turn his argument around: Since the USAF is the principal organization responsible for large-scale application of airpower in all phases and at all levels of combat, to say nothing of offensive and defensive counterair, air interdiction, strategic and tactical lift, surveillance and reconnaissance, air refueling, strategic nuclear attack, among other things, why not at least chop the USMC and Army air arms to an organization that dwarfs them both in terms of combat power and logistical service and support? We’ll let the Navy keep their fleet defense carrier air and the SSBNs.
If that sounds silly, it is. Each of these organizations have unique needs (although I’d kinda like to see the USAF take over ground-based air defense in some cases) that can’t be adequately met by sister services…at least not yet. If and when they do, fine. But, and again to sort of turn the argument around, mobile Army maneuver units are busy enough with what they have without worrying about supporting embedded fixed-wing offensive and defensive counterair, strategic and tactical lift, ground attack, air refueling and other combat/combat support units. Moreover, time and again, both operational experience and simulations have reinforced what George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower and others concluded at the end of WW II: centralized control and decentralized execution of theater-wide airpower is the way to bring such power to bear and belongs in the hands of professional airmen. The birth of the USAF was a logical manifestation of hard-earned battlefield lessons. This conclusion is independent of the types of operation—and has even been reinforced by current ones with airpower being efficiently applied across large swaths of southwest Asia and Iraq by a ground and air force that understands the combat multiplicity of closely coordinated planning and employment. Failures thereof prove the rule. All of the above doesn’t even begin to touch on the combat support missions and systems the Air Force has developed over time, not to mention the corporate knowledge and operational expertise that can only be preserved through a separate and dedicated service devoted to developing systems, doctrine and forces that fully exploit the air medium. I know many say that’s unrealistic but if there’s no reason for an Air Force, than there’s no reason for a Navy if you talk to a devoted Army strategist. After all, wars are won by taking and holding the enemy’s territory, right? Ergo, all efforts and assets are in support of that objective and should thus be subordinated to the Army. What’s the Marine Corps other than Naval infantry? USAREUR should own 6th Fleet, ARCENT should subsume 5th Fleet, etc. Right? RIGHT?
Second, the archaic “up or out” military promotion system should be scrapped in favor of a plan that treats service members as real assets. Third, the United States needs a national service program for all young men and women, without any deferments, to increase the quality and size of the pool from which troops are drawn.
At the moment, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are at war, but the Air Force is not. OK. THAT will be news to the USAF folks in Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted, we’re not conducting extensive air-to-ground attack or air superiority/supremacy missions at the moment. But to make the argument that the USAF should be disbanded as a result is like saying that the British Army should have been absorbed by the RAF during the Battle of Britain. This is not the fault of the Air Force: it is simply not structured to be in the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. How so? No example is given of endemic structural deficiencies that render the USAF ineffective in the theater. What structural “deficiencies”—other than we don’t have organic infantry units—render the USAF ineffective in CENTCOM? While Army, Marine and Navy personnel have borne the brunt of deployments, commonly serving multiple tours, the Air Force’s operational tempo remains comparatively comfortable. In 2007, only about 5 percent of the troops in Iraq were airmen. Um, just because we’re not based there doesn’t mean we don’t operate there. Deployments are common, just ask your average airlifter, or cop, or RED HORSE dude or ETAC. Moreover, Iraq isn’t the only thing we’ve got going on right now.
Yes, air power is a critical component of America’s arsenal. But the Army, Navy and Marines already maintain air wings within their expeditionary units. That’s true, but they are in many cases ancillary to their services main mission. An Army officer is primarily a ground battle guy…yeah, they have a large helo force, but, I’m sorry, their main combat power is in ground maneuver units, their doctrine, tactics and mindset is focused in Corps, Division and lower engagement levels. Moreover, their operational training and internal socialization as fighters and commanders is principally two-dimensional and focused on the Corps battle zone. Since the dawn of time, sailors have committed themselves to control of sea lanes. Surface and sub-surface warfare are their bread and butter. The carrier air arm has had the recent LUXURY of devoting their assets to over-land operations (although the Marines, bless ‘em, are pretty much devoted to CAS). When, not “if, but when peer competitors reassert themselves, the Navy will, rightfully, refocus its aviation of fleet defense. No, you need an AIR FORCE to devote itself to doing air stuff. To do otherwise is to dissipate, dilute and divert much-needed assets and expertise from seizing and securing a “high ground” that stretches across and beyond the globe. The Air Force is increasingly a redundancy in structure and spending.
War is no longer made up of set-piece battles between huge armies confronting each other with tanks and airplanes. He must be related to the guy that said dogfights were a thing of the past so they didn’t put guns in the original F-4 Phantom IIs…everything was going to be BVR with radar missiles. Nobody briefed the North Vietnamese. Yup, we’ll never see set-piece battles again. Wanna bet? Folks like this love to accuse the military of "fighting the last war." Pot, meet kettle. As we move toward a greater emphasis on rapid-response troops, the Army has tightened its physical fitness regime and the Marine Corps has introduced a physically grueling Combat Fitness Test for all members. Yet an Air Force study last year found that more than half of airmen and women were overweight and 12 percent were obese. Good argument for disbanding the USAF…some of our people are fat. Some Congressmen are fat. Let’s subsume them under the Executive Branch, currently led by a buff black dude.
Next, the current military personnel system is a peacetime bureaucratic construct that serves neither national security nor those who wear the uniform. Congress sets the level of manpower for each military service. Within this constraint, military planners have to decide how many riflemen, mechanics, cooks, medics, pilots and such there should be within the military’s job types, known as Military Occupational Specialties. In the Army…it’s an AFSC in the Air Force—another reason to disband—we’ll rationalize terminology. Then the Pentagon has to decide how many people will be retained in the ranks or promoted.
The result is an “up or out” system that demands service members move up the ladder simply to stay in the military. Any soldier passed over for promotion twice must leave or retire.
Treating service members like so many widgets — in particular, the enlisted men and women who make up 85 percent of the ranks — is arbitrary and bad management. I have seen many fit, experienced officers and enlisted Marines arbitrarily forced out because there were only so many slots into which they could be promoted.
The military should develop a new accounting and personnel system that tracks the cost of developing its human capital and tallies each service member as an investment with a fixed value based on his education, training, experience and performance. This would reflect the departure of a valued service member as an asset lost, not a cost cut. Why are fit men and women who have served in combat, a human experience that a million dollars can’t buy, being pushed out instead of retained for 15, 20, 30 years? I understand his frustration. That said, I would like to see, in between unicorn feedings, how he would suggest we get the great sluggish DoD Beast to develop, “…a new accounting and personnel system that tracks the cost of developing its human capital and tallies each service member as an investment with a fixed value based on his education, training, experience and performance.” That said, I’ve observed the 65+-year-old fossils NATO countries have for generals and I think, “Yeah, I’m appreciating the up-or-out system a little more…”
Last, Mr. Gates should urge President Obama to confer with Congress and introduce national service at age 18 for all Americans. Under such a system, young people from all classes and backgrounds would either serve in the military or do other essential work like intelligence assessment, conservation, antipoverty projects, educational tutoring, firefighting, policing, border security, disaster relief or care for the elderly. The best qualified would be assigned to the military. Read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. What is it with the Left and the draft? That’s what this is. And who’s to determine what “best qualified” for the military is? Will they be criminals because they already know how to load and fire a Glock? Here’s a thought: if you have a job, pay taxes over and above withholding, and have no criminal record—in other words, you are a productive and responsible member of the polis—then, and only then, you have the right to vote.
The 1.6 million Americans who have served in the current wars represent less than one percent of all citizens. We need to spread the risk and burden of fighting our wars. If more of our national leaders had been in uniform, or knew they might have children at risk in war, their decisions during military confrontations might be better. I guess that would disqualify Abraham Lincoln from leading the Union in that dust-up back in the mid-1800s. And this is not just about the struggle against terrorism: would New Orleans reconstruction have lagged so long if we had had a national service program in natural-disaster recovery? Honestly? Yes it probably would have. You want to get the Big Easy back on its feet fast? Leave them alone (after giving them their guns back), suspend government contracting rules, corporate taxes and provide incentives to those who want to rebuild to do so.
President Obama has the political capital to make these critical changes. Given the urgency of war and money available under the economic recovery plan, now may be our best chance for decades to truly modernize America’s defenses.
My comments in BOLD...
ROBERT GATES, the secretary of defense, has proposed a budget overhaul that will go a long way toward improving our national security, but more can be done to meet his long-term goal: creating the right military for the 21st century.
Not since Henry Stimson’s tenure from 1940 to ‘45 has a defense secretary been faced to the same degree with simultaneously fighting a war and carrying out far-reaching reforms. I’m not sure how he comes to that conclusion. There are good and bad examples of SecDef efforts to do just that. One (bad) one that came to mind as I read this was Robert McNamara’s efforts during the Vietnam War. Lots of changes, many of which were either counter-productive or penny-wise/pound-foolish. The intense effort to get the Navy to buy the F-111 for economies of scale in the former case. While the intentions were understandable, and even laudable, in trying to bring some of McNamara’s experience in the auto industry to the Pentagon, it translated very badly in the final analysis. Yet there are three major changes Mr. Gates should add to his agenda, and they deserve President Obama’s support.
First, the Air Force should be eliminated, and its personnel and equipment integrated into the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. This is SUCH an old idea that it almost doesn’t merit a response, but I’ll indulge… First of all, I’d be very interested to know the writer’s background. I won’t dismiss his contention out of hand simply because he may not have any background in large-scale aviation strategy, planning, and/or needs assessments. Nothing’s perfect and I have bones to pick with the USAF on a few things myself. That said, let me turn his argument around: Since the USAF is the principal organization responsible for large-scale application of airpower in all phases and at all levels of combat, to say nothing of offensive and defensive counterair, air interdiction, strategic and tactical lift, surveillance and reconnaissance, air refueling, strategic nuclear attack, among other things, why not at least chop the USMC and Army air arms to an organization that dwarfs them both in terms of combat power and logistical service and support? We’ll let the Navy keep their fleet defense carrier air and the SSBNs.
If that sounds silly, it is. Each of these organizations have unique needs (although I’d kinda like to see the USAF take over ground-based air defense in some cases) that can’t be adequately met by sister services…at least not yet. If and when they do, fine. But, and again to sort of turn the argument around, mobile Army maneuver units are busy enough with what they have without worrying about supporting embedded fixed-wing offensive and defensive counterair, strategic and tactical lift, ground attack, air refueling and other combat/combat support units. Moreover, time and again, both operational experience and simulations have reinforced what George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower and others concluded at the end of WW II: centralized control and decentralized execution of theater-wide airpower is the way to bring such power to bear and belongs in the hands of professional airmen. The birth of the USAF was a logical manifestation of hard-earned battlefield lessons. This conclusion is independent of the types of operation—and has even been reinforced by current ones with airpower being efficiently applied across large swaths of southwest Asia and Iraq by a ground and air force that understands the combat multiplicity of closely coordinated planning and employment. Failures thereof prove the rule. All of the above doesn’t even begin to touch on the combat support missions and systems the Air Force has developed over time, not to mention the corporate knowledge and operational expertise that can only be preserved through a separate and dedicated service devoted to developing systems, doctrine and forces that fully exploit the air medium. I know many say that’s unrealistic but if there’s no reason for an Air Force, than there’s no reason for a Navy if you talk to a devoted Army strategist. After all, wars are won by taking and holding the enemy’s territory, right? Ergo, all efforts and assets are in support of that objective and should thus be subordinated to the Army. What’s the Marine Corps other than Naval infantry? USAREUR should own 6th Fleet, ARCENT should subsume 5th Fleet, etc. Right? RIGHT?
Second, the archaic “up or out” military promotion system should be scrapped in favor of a plan that treats service members as real assets. Third, the United States needs a national service program for all young men and women, without any deferments, to increase the quality and size of the pool from which troops are drawn.
At the moment, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are at war, but the Air Force is not. OK. THAT will be news to the USAF folks in Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted, we’re not conducting extensive air-to-ground attack or air superiority/supremacy missions at the moment. But to make the argument that the USAF should be disbanded as a result is like saying that the British Army should have been absorbed by the RAF during the Battle of Britain. This is not the fault of the Air Force: it is simply not structured to be in the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. How so? No example is given of endemic structural deficiencies that render the USAF ineffective in the theater. What structural “deficiencies”—other than we don’t have organic infantry units—render the USAF ineffective in CENTCOM? While Army, Marine and Navy personnel have borne the brunt of deployments, commonly serving multiple tours, the Air Force’s operational tempo remains comparatively comfortable. In 2007, only about 5 percent of the troops in Iraq were airmen. Um, just because we’re not based there doesn’t mean we don’t operate there. Deployments are common, just ask your average airlifter, or cop, or RED HORSE dude or ETAC. Moreover, Iraq isn’t the only thing we’ve got going on right now.
Yes, air power is a critical component of America’s arsenal. But the Army, Navy and Marines already maintain air wings within their expeditionary units. That’s true, but they are in many cases ancillary to their services main mission. An Army officer is primarily a ground battle guy…yeah, they have a large helo force, but, I’m sorry, their main combat power is in ground maneuver units, their doctrine, tactics and mindset is focused in Corps, Division and lower engagement levels. Moreover, their operational training and internal socialization as fighters and commanders is principally two-dimensional and focused on the Corps battle zone. Since the dawn of time, sailors have committed themselves to control of sea lanes. Surface and sub-surface warfare are their bread and butter. The carrier air arm has had the recent LUXURY of devoting their assets to over-land operations (although the Marines, bless ‘em, are pretty much devoted to CAS). When, not “if, but when peer competitors reassert themselves, the Navy will, rightfully, refocus its aviation of fleet defense. No, you need an AIR FORCE to devote itself to doing air stuff. To do otherwise is to dissipate, dilute and divert much-needed assets and expertise from seizing and securing a “high ground” that stretches across and beyond the globe. The Air Force is increasingly a redundancy in structure and spending.
War is no longer made up of set-piece battles between huge armies confronting each other with tanks and airplanes. He must be related to the guy that said dogfights were a thing of the past so they didn’t put guns in the original F-4 Phantom IIs…everything was going to be BVR with radar missiles. Nobody briefed the North Vietnamese. Yup, we’ll never see set-piece battles again. Wanna bet? Folks like this love to accuse the military of "fighting the last war." Pot, meet kettle. As we move toward a greater emphasis on rapid-response troops, the Army has tightened its physical fitness regime and the Marine Corps has introduced a physically grueling Combat Fitness Test for all members. Yet an Air Force study last year found that more than half of airmen and women were overweight and 12 percent were obese. Good argument for disbanding the USAF…some of our people are fat. Some Congressmen are fat. Let’s subsume them under the Executive Branch, currently led by a buff black dude.
Next, the current military personnel system is a peacetime bureaucratic construct that serves neither national security nor those who wear the uniform. Congress sets the level of manpower for each military service. Within this constraint, military planners have to decide how many riflemen, mechanics, cooks, medics, pilots and such there should be within the military’s job types, known as Military Occupational Specialties. In the Army…it’s an AFSC in the Air Force—another reason to disband—we’ll rationalize terminology. Then the Pentagon has to decide how many people will be retained in the ranks or promoted.
The result is an “up or out” system that demands service members move up the ladder simply to stay in the military. Any soldier passed over for promotion twice must leave or retire.
Treating service members like so many widgets — in particular, the enlisted men and women who make up 85 percent of the ranks — is arbitrary and bad management. I have seen many fit, experienced officers and enlisted Marines arbitrarily forced out because there were only so many slots into which they could be promoted.
The military should develop a new accounting and personnel system that tracks the cost of developing its human capital and tallies each service member as an investment with a fixed value based on his education, training, experience and performance. This would reflect the departure of a valued service member as an asset lost, not a cost cut. Why are fit men and women who have served in combat, a human experience that a million dollars can’t buy, being pushed out instead of retained for 15, 20, 30 years? I understand his frustration. That said, I would like to see, in between unicorn feedings, how he would suggest we get the great sluggish DoD Beast to develop, “…a new accounting and personnel system that tracks the cost of developing its human capital and tallies each service member as an investment with a fixed value based on his education, training, experience and performance.” That said, I’ve observed the 65+-year-old fossils NATO countries have for generals and I think, “Yeah, I’m appreciating the up-or-out system a little more…”
Last, Mr. Gates should urge President Obama to confer with Congress and introduce national service at age 18 for all Americans. Under such a system, young people from all classes and backgrounds would either serve in the military or do other essential work like intelligence assessment, conservation, antipoverty projects, educational tutoring, firefighting, policing, border security, disaster relief or care for the elderly. The best qualified would be assigned to the military. Read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. What is it with the Left and the draft? That’s what this is. And who’s to determine what “best qualified” for the military is? Will they be criminals because they already know how to load and fire a Glock? Here’s a thought: if you have a job, pay taxes over and above withholding, and have no criminal record—in other words, you are a productive and responsible member of the polis—then, and only then, you have the right to vote.
The 1.6 million Americans who have served in the current wars represent less than one percent of all citizens. We need to spread the risk and burden of fighting our wars. If more of our national leaders had been in uniform, or knew they might have children at risk in war, their decisions during military confrontations might be better. I guess that would disqualify Abraham Lincoln from leading the Union in that dust-up back in the mid-1800s. And this is not just about the struggle against terrorism: would New Orleans reconstruction have lagged so long if we had had a national service program in natural-disaster recovery? Honestly? Yes it probably would have. You want to get the Big Easy back on its feet fast? Leave them alone (after giving them their guns back), suspend government contracting rules, corporate taxes and provide incentives to those who want to rebuild to do so.
President Obama has the political capital to make these critical changes. Given the urgency of war and money available under the economic recovery plan, now may be our best chance for decades to truly modernize America’s defenses.
My understanding of service manpower management is limited to the Navy enlisted world, but the 2x pass over rule must not have been briefed to me...I was passed over for Senior Chief 6 times, and haven't noticed being forced out. Human capital strategies and the understanding of the value (not the cost) of a trained Sailor is not a new concept to us. Sailors are given career options...it may not be what they want, but they are given options (perhaps oversimplifying the PTS system). If they choose not to remain for another 15 or 20 years, the onus is on them not the
beastsystem. Kane fails to see that not everyone can be the F/A-18 pilot or Special Operator; someone has to cook, clean and pack the chute.</vent>
r/
Chris
Yeah, in my last command, 40% of the officers in my Group were pass-overs. One had been denied promotion 7 times. He was still going to be allowed to stay 'til 20 and was one of my best liaisons to the Army. That, coupled with a habitually abused NCO corps, made it an interesting "leadership challenge" but it was fun and I'll never regret the assignment. If you've ever watched "12 O'Clock High" you'll understand what the "Leper Colony" was all about. Underachievement has a quality all its own...and when you're finally asked to perform, you'd be surprised at what you can do with the "outs" in an "up-or-out system." Heh.
As I read the Op-Ed, I was thinking, "This guy must have been in a different military than I was."
More time that The One has even spent on military bases in his life.