Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On the Defense Strategic Guidance
As promised, I live-tweeted the press conference with the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. A few quick comments, which are based on the press conference as well as the defense strategic guidance reproduced below.
1. I spent the months before Christmas meeting with some U.S. allies in the Gulf, who expressed their concern that a U.S. shift to East Asia would mean the United States was abandoning its security commitments to the Gulf. The president, the secretary and the guidance explicitly pushed back against that worry. So our Gulf allies should rest easier tonight. (One rare specific offered by Sec. Panetta during the press conference was the scenario whereby the United States fights a land war in Korea and also keeps the Straits of Hormuz open.) But I wonder how this will change if the behavior of U.S. allies make continued cooperation more difficult. If Bahrain continues its brutal crackdown on democracy activists into 2012, the United States will have a huge political problem on its hands -- as well as a potentially huge engineering problem as it considers other basing options for the Fifth Fleet.
2. Europe is so very 20th Century. The United States has a deep appreciation for its European allies, but those same allies are going to have to figure out how to fund and support their own defense. Because in terms of U.S. priorities, Europe ranks lower than ever.
3. Quoting the strategic guidance on counterinsurgency and stablity operations:
In the aftermath of the warsin Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States will emphasize non-military means and military-to-military cooperation to address instability and reduce the demand for significant U.S. force commitments to stability operations. U.S. forces will nevertheless be ready to conduct limited counterinsurgency and other stability operations if required, operating alongside coalition forces wherever possible. Accordingly, U.S. forces will retain and continue to refine the lessons learned, expertise, and specialized capabilities that have been developed over the past ten years of counterinsurgency and stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.
This may surprise those of you who still consider me some kind of FM 3-24 fundamentalist (which I never was), but I feel really good about that guidance. If the United States has to fight another resource-intensive counterinsurgency campaign (and I pray that we do not), it is easier to design and build new brigades than to design and build new aircraft or ships. I am more concerned the U.S. Army and Marine Corps will abandon the doctrine, training and education wrapped up in preparing for counterinsurgency and stability operations.
4. A lot of folks remarked that Sec. Panetta's ideal force sounded a lot like that of Sec. Rumsfeld. True. But the latter tried to continue to build that force while ignoring the needs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. role in those conflicts has now either ended or is in transition. Thom Shanker once told me that he always faced an up-hill struggle convincing his editors Don Rumsfeld wasn't wrong about everything.
We may live to regret
We may live to regret this:
"Europe is so very 20th Century. The United States has a deep appreciation for its European allies, but those same allies are going to have to figure out how to fund and support their own defense. Because in terms of U.S. priorities, Europe ranks lower than ever."
From, like, the end of the last ice age till1945, Europe was one of the worlds hotter war zones. The last one was about as near to an actual apocalypse as anyone needs to see. Since 1945 or so, the US (and the Soviets, for much of the time) has paid for their defense. This has just happened to coincide with Europe becoming one of the world's happier un-war-zones. As we pull back, they'll step forward, which means bigger militaries, and larger temptations to solve problems and disagreements through war. And those wars tend to suck us in. Will it be cheaper to fight another WWII than just paying for their defense indefinitely? Is it worth the risk? Do we have any choice? Probably not.
It's inconceivable that civilized, progressive, peace-and-culture loving Europe could descend into the maelstrom of war again. Which is what everyone thought in July 1914.
" I am more concerned the
" I am more concerned the U.S. Army and Marine Corps will abandon the doctrine, training and education wrapped up in preparing for counterinsurgency and stability operations."
Dude, of course they will. The career path isn't going to be in preserving counterinsurgency knowledge and so, like post-
Vietnam, it's going to wither on the vine. You think that Gian Gentile's going to spend a lot of time on COIN in his West Point classes?
It seems as though the WH,
It seems as though the WH, etc. is trying to force the U.S. into taking Neo-isolationism as its Grand Strategy because they fear over-extension.
This idea that the U.S. needs to end its security commitments to Europe (and other places) will end poorly. Charlieford has it right. This will only set the U.S. down the path to war with/in the European theater. After all, hasn't Europe proven that war is the normative state, not peace?
laglecp@gmail.com
Europe was also quite
Europe was also quite efficient at prosecuting war if I recall…
Putin is not going to cry at this. His leverage over Europe will grow by leaps and bounds.
Number one, first sentence,
Number one, first sentence, "committments" should be "commitments"
Number three, "stablity" should be "stability"
@Charlieford Europe's states
@Charlieford
Europe's states are not children. They have a responsibility to protect themselves, and they have to take control of their own future.
Is Obama now going to
Is Obama now going to implement more Flexible, Agile, and Smarter entitlement spending? Because that is the drain all these savings are heading down.
This is probably for the
This is probably for the best, and I bet the Soviets had wished that they'd 'lead from behind' when they were in Afghanistan, or drew down their forces to sustainable levels.
As far as Yrip, war between them and Putin seems unlikely in the extreme, it'd go nuclear before he could take off his shirt, and they know that. Hell that's the same reason there won't be any war with China, they'd get vaporized and /at best/ for their part they'd be able to nuke the west coast.
Our nuclear deterrence is costly and risky; there's got to be more of a pay off from it, and that pay off is not having to have a massive army for land invasions.
Obama hit the nail on the head when he said that we have the best and most powerful military that's ever existed in history. When you think about it, it's kind of a /weird/ artifact of history, and european ideological history at that, that we have such an over-the-top military today. I'm not saying we /should/ be second best, but we can certainly bear to go from super-hyper-power to super-power. Hell we're practically fielding invisibility cloaks, to fight enemies that are just using /our own weapons that we've sold them/ against us.
The comment above re the
The comment above re the interaction between Europe and Russia in the event that the US draws down significantly was more aimed at general economic leverage. Russia has already “turned off the spigot” a few times in conjunction with demanding rate hikes. If the European countries economies do not bounce back they could take a serious economic hit which could make them feel pressured in the extreme. Countries, as with people or other animals, react in ways that are perhaps not in the best interest of all when they feel they are facing an existential threat.
Has anyone developed thoughts
Has anyone developed thoughts on how the Army will both draw down this time without “hollowing out the force” and also having an improved capability to grow in the future as well? Are they talking about pushing out HYT to the right and raising pay and percentage of authorizations for SNCOs and Warrant Officers so that the “corporate knowledge” would still be there in sufficient numbers should more battalions be needed but not keep as many Junior Enlisted and Junior Officers? That can work for a period of time but 10-15 years down the road you are back into the same experience gap in the E-7/8, W-3/4, and O-4/5 ranges.
Think the key word in this is
Think the key word in this is "guidance"
In other words it is motherhood statements, generalizations that a few months from now Obama can point to as an example of a promise kept. What does it really mean?
An example, a quote from the guidance text.
"Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational presence, and advisory capabilities."
"When ever possible". When and how often will that happen? " Innovative, low cost, and small footprint " Crap, I am on the floor laughing. How many government projects does that statement fit ?! DARPA, not.
Charlie Ford: Please do not concern your self over the lack of Euro defense support. That must be a difference between the way that US men and women process information. There is a little of mothering in your concerns, you and Hillary need to get past that limitation. Most American fathers tell their male children not to let the door hit them in the back side on their way out to make a life. Actually, the gender comments aside, Charlie Ford will still get to use other American's money to pay for the European defense budget under Obama's plan. Europe depends on the Asian Rim for manufacturing as much as the US does. Dependence on energy is the same, a lot comes from the ME. There is not too much to fight over if you have energy and money in your pocket, Euro expansion is in China (as well as the revenue to pay for Greece's social programs). Asia is were the politics are, that is a 21st century concept.
Thing that hurts me the most is the fact that the US made China what it is today by taking away jobs from American families. The ME is a concern only because American buys their energy and pays dearly for it twice over, once to pay for it and again to protect it. Once you get past the fact that American money is the root cause for the negative politics in Asia and the ME, the only thing that is left are the American defense jobs which are created by all this hub-bub. It is a house of cards.
Guess it is all friendly fire. We all like to use our feet for target practice. Political Islam just wants the west out of their business, Iran still sells oil. Has anyone ran the numbers on the cost of energy comparing today's strategy of providing American security complete with western ideology from ground-to-market .vs. just buying oil on the open market? Taking the cost of the ten years of war and burdening the cost of gasoline at the pump with that war cost, I figure the US is paying about a 2x cost or $6-8/gallon.
Obama is missing a golden opportunity. Russia can balance both European and Asian defense. No Pacific fleet required.
Then that would be doing this......"Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational presence, and advisory capabilities."
I want to know who is going to build all this new US military stuff per the plan, China or South Korea? More and more defense contractors are subcontracting costs. That is another 21st century concept.
lol.
Jeffery Immelt thanks you. Business opportunity in both China and the US, US tax deferred and with all the protection of the US taxpayer.
American politicians, not just Congress, are dumb as rocks.
Yet again we as a country are
Yet again we as a country are preparing for what we want to do. Not an all bad thing to be certain and there is enough wiggle room in this document, after all this is a non-binding document, to allow us to do what we need to do. If Israel dropped multiple nuclear weapons on Iran to keep them from having the bomb we would certainly have plans for how to deal with that…
Well Andrew this post and
Well Andrew this post and what you highlight in it does betray at least some partiality to being a "fundamentalist" of FM 3-24. Why did this strategic guidance even need to state that we must maintain the "lessons learned" over the last 10 years with coin? Why didnt the guidance direct that we maintain the "lessons learned" as to combined arms operations when the US took down the Iraqi regime, or in the first months of OEF. Are those lessons not important too?
You see the fact that this strategic guidance highlights coin lessons, as do you, shows a strong link to the FM 3-24 coin narrative. That is to say the assumption that the conventional army is stupid and has to be always reminded that it must not jettison the lessons of coin from these wars, as purportedly the american army did after Vietnam. The other assumption, really a hypothetical, is that if the american army had learned the true lessons of Vietnam as people like Krepinevich and Nagl have given us then the first three years of the war would have turned out differently.
So in this sense Andrew you display your colors as a coin fundamentalist.
gian
Some of us have seen this
Some of us have seen this movie, and it sucks. It's called 1991 - 199x. The suck with that came front loaded. Dr Exum may think back to his first assignment before he went to Ranger School. It's just that it goes on...and on..and on.
Get ready to witness the destruction of that which you have spent a decade building. As Human Nature = self preservation will take over, unless the economy is utterly turd [may save you] the warriors will leave, the Pog's will inherit the earth. The Lesson's learned have already been learned - how to survive RIF.
The reason to strive on to preserve the lessons of the last decade is the reason the Vietnam LT's and CPT's and SGT's who led the Light Infantry revival in the 80's did - to preserve. COIN happens to be intensive yet not necessarily high budget training. And you won't have sh*t for money for training and maintaining heavy Divisions.
Break out the old/new FM 7-7.
Congrats Dr X-M. You're a
Congrats Dr X-M. You're a new Yoda. Enjoy Daghobah University. Try upstate NY, that's pretty close.
Or you could go full bar for invasion, occupation, Stuff White People Like -fication of Iran. The women of Iran need us to liberate them, it can be a Persian Spring, they will welcome us with flowers and Sharia Compliant nylons, and besides Crazy Amen-itjiahd and the Cancerous Caudillo of Caracas are preparing nuclear Armageddon.
They've forced our hand.
And yes, I am down with the Dark Side. Warned you what happens you hang around DC.
The last time the United
The last time the United States withdrew from the world it only cost 60 million lives and the devastation of two continents to fix the ensuing mess.
Good luck with this.
In the aftermath of the
In the aftermath of the warsin Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States will emphasize non-military means and military-to-military cooperation to address instability and reduce the demand for significant U.S. force commitments to stability operations. U.S. forces will nevertheless be ready to conduct LIMITED counterinsurgency and other stability operations if required, operating alongside coalition forces wherever possible.
YAY! Ding-dong the COIN witch is dead.
;)
"mean the United States was abandoning its security commitments to the Gulf. The president, the secretary and the guidance explicitly pushed back against that worry. So our Gulf allies should rest easier tonight."
so just where are our magical ME forces gunna be deployed? In Bahrain? In Yemen?
Not in Iraq. Not in Saud, KSA wont allow it. And i think not in A-stan. And definitely not in Pak. Imran Kahn is gunna get Zardari's job. And he hates America. He led the Arab Spring style sit-in that closed the NATO supply routes last year and he is suing the US in the International Court over our droning of Pakistani civilians.
I think America wont get a single permanent base in A-stan and we will get kicked out of Pak just like we got booted out of Iraq.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/12/2011122514241338231.html
But you just keep ladling out that happy horseshit, Father of Lies.
The last time the United
The last time the United States withdrew from the world it only cost 60 million lives and the devastation of two continents to fix the ensuing mess.
Which resulted in the very thing the you fear Iran having.
Part of those 60 million was because of US involvement, we will never know what the world would have turned out like otherwise. The people on the other side of the pond could have stopped it before it started and didn't. US went into cold war with Russia because of it. North Koreans would have spoken Japanese, Kim Jong ill would never be. Today the US defense budget is larger than that for anything else in the American budget.
Now the US is pushing for a World Order, go figure.
The Nazis took their political opposition and put them to work. Capitalists go to China to get cheap labor, the transaction gets washed cause it is not the American hand that does the deed. The Nazis just took out the middle man and made the system more efficient.
My father listened to Roosevelt swear on a stack of bibles that the US would not be involved, then he went to shoot his cousins. Kill them he did.
It is a funny world we live in. It is about the future not the past.
Some countries have conflicts
Some countries have conflicts brought to them, that being said they may have done things in the past to cause these events however they will not see them that way. Some conflicts are sought out by leaders in their positions for their own ends, political or personal, we can all think of one or two. We must remember that in any conflict there are always going to be “winners” and those people will help to push their views, properly concealed in many cases, to enrich themselves. Consider in the world of “Overseas Contingency Operations” if the true objective is not to win but mere to fight them…
Do not fool yourselves, when there is a war someone is winning in some manner every day. This is ok, it is the way the world has been for centuries even if it was easier to conceal 200 years ago due to global educational levels mass communications systems.
Add your comment