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.
What Americans Think About the Defense Budget
The New York Times generated a handy budget calculator that allowed its readers to trim dollars off the budget of the Department of Defense. As my colleague Travis Sharp noted, the cuts they collectively voted on reveal some really interesting things about what a reasonably informed public -- the kind of people who participate in online defense budget surveys, for example -- thinks about defense policy.
1. John Mearsheimer and Bob Kaplan may believe in the stopping power of water, but the public isn't so convinced. It has little idea what the U.S. Navy (SEAL teams aside) does in terms of national security. The public is more ready to stop building ships than it is to stop buying aircraft or to cut ground forces. Here the public is at odds with the majority of defense policy analysts I know.
2. Half of the public is in favor of removing one leg -- nuclear weapons on bombers -- from the nuclear triad.
3. The public wants to close bases overseas -- even though, as Travis noted in an email, these bases can save money by reducing the cost of getting soldiers in and out of theater.
4. The public might not fully understand how much of the defense budget is eaten up by personnel costs. The public was very reluctant to cap the pay of service personnel and wanted to keep TriCare -- though it was open to a raise in TriCare premiums.
I think we in the defense analysis community have to do a better job explaining some things to the public, such as why, in the event of a major war, you can recruit and train new infantry battalions quicker than you can design and build ships, and also how much of the budget is eaten up by personnel costs. If you are a member of the Congress, meanwhile, I think you will find that you have more support to cut the defense budget than you might have previously thought. It will be up to you, though, to explain to your constituents why some cuts are smarter than others and why some "obvious" cuts are not as smart on second glance as they are at first.
While I agree with most of
While I agree with most of this (although I feel you are wildly optimistic about the general ability of the US public to be persuaded by sound arguments), I think you discount the carnage that has been inflicted on newly trained infantry battalions (North Africa) and hollow infantry battalions (Korea).
Personally, I truly believe
Personally, I truly believe that the America public has a huge capacity to understand defense issues. We do live in a democracy and we are the government, we hire people to do our will. Currently the country is split 50/50 and money is getting tighter so that makes for some interesting politics.
Not every one is a Harvard grad. Many do not read defense analyst papers. There is a collective intelligence that exists in America that if you take the time to listen you might be surprised.
NYT should have asked the public why they trimmed were they did. It helps to take a few steps in the person's shoes that you are collecting information from.
More than anything else, you really can not blame the public for being a little jaded on Government spending. Figure than anyone you stopped in the street, they most likely know someone that works in government or has been in the military. That becomes part of the knowledge collective. Many people have seen waste or heard about it. Many more have seen government employees gold bricking.
At tax and election time, everyone comes together to discuss the American experience. With CNN, people are tuned in.
If Defense asked for only what they needed, did what they say, and managed their cost overruns the public might have more trust in the management.
Those in government have a hard time taking projects that are not needed off the table. Politicians like to keep their districts happy. Daddy war bucks likes to game the system. All part of the collective knowledge.
If you want an answer from a person that has their feet a little closer to the fire, ask the returning Afghan GI's if American money is being well spent on the Afghan Military and Police.
Our countries "leaders" have
Our countries "leaders" have very little to gain from even trying to educate the "average American", and regrettably would fail if they tried. As those that have been in/around the military, or many other communities for that matter, will attest that it takes time to even begin to understand what questions to ask. It takes far longer to truly develop a nuanced understanding of requirements to execute missions to respond to threats globally…
The idea that we can just have a few chats with the people on TV designed for 30 second to 12 minute sound bites and somehow educate people is perhaps idealistic at a minimum. Heck the last Republican Debate even the moderator could not ask a question that might lead to the nominees explaining in any substantive way how they might go about dealing with any real problems in the world, they just wanted to know about their tax return from x years ago being off by .01%...
Hopefully this push for a
Hopefully this push for a smaller, leaner force means we will begin to see an evolution in not just how we operate our defense establishment but also in how we percieve it. While I honor the sacrifice our soldiers have made most Americans generalize way too much. Most of the military isn't made up of soldiers rather the support network those soldiers need (and in many cases dont need). We should really push hard on privatization of many aspects of military life, downsize combat brigades (the soldiers that had to fight in WW2 and Vietnam did just fine on their limited training) and instead concentrate the money on areas where short training isn't enough to bring a civilian into the military (pilots, navy, intelligence, etc). Also TriCare must be reformed and those who are eligible to recieve its benefits as well. I am totally for giving life care for combat veterans but a drone pilot or financial officer that never leaves the U.S....?
"2. Half of the public is in
"2. Half of the public is in favor of removing one leg -- nuclear weapons on bombers -- from the nuclear triad.
3. The public wants to close bases overseas -- even though, as Travis noted in an email, these bases can save money by reducing the cost of getting soldiers in and out of theater."
These two assumptions by the author lead to his conclusions - what is the first strike force aimed at us that the triad is needed for? Why aren't the Tridents totally sufficient to protect us as we save more by lowering the nuclear arsenal to 150 warheads?
...and the overseas bases we need to rush troops in and out of theater are...where? For which anticipated war?
Very arrogant attitude
Very arrogant attitude towards the American Public. I warrant the American public is aware that they pay the bills, and we don't win wars anymore. I think the author and the legion of experts have lost sight of those two most salient facts.
"2. Half of the public is in
"2. Half of the public is in favor of removing one leg -- nuclear weapons on bombers -- from the nuclear triad.
True, then why not closes down bases in Diego Garcia, Alaska and Turkey?
3. The public wants to close bases overseas -- even though, as Travis noted in an email, these bases can save money by reducing the cost of getting soldiers in and out of theater."
Then pick strategical locations better than what we are using now, like Djibouti, Ethiopia, Liberia, Japan, Gernany, Poland. Most of the bases in these locations can be shut down and there is no real reason for them to be there.
These two assumptions by the author lead to his conclusions - what is the first strike force aimed at us that the triad is needed for? Why aren't the Tridents totally sufficient to protect us as we save more by lowering the nuclear arsenal to 150 warheads? 150 warheads sounds reasonable but isn't this something to be discussed in a Nastional Nuclar Security Website than a COIN?
...and the overseas bases we need to rush troops in and out of theater are...where? For which anticipated war?
Djibouti has been used for over a decade for staging area and base for troops / for black op surgical strikes on radical Muslim terror traing camps in Somalia and other parts of Eastern Africa and Middle East. Perhaps we should make this a Super Base, like what U-Dorn Thailand was used for in Vietnam? 10,000 troops can live Djibouti on any given day. I saw we triple that number, maybe even quadruple. We should close down 90% of the EUROCOM bases. Bring the troops to the rear war, rather than letting them get FAT on European food women and beer.
Sounds like a good plan doesn't it?
wallah Exum. YOU LOST this
wallah Exum.
YOU LOST this dumbass infantry argument in Baghdad and continue to lose it in Kabul and Islamabad.
i think you should be looking forward to the next R&D cycle.
Bioweapons and nanotech? Or Strong AI?
infantry is like, so stonage. we are already in teleop/telepresence with droning. that is only place we have had any success with OBL and al-Awlaki.
fucking infantry is useless in the age of social media. you cannot maintain control of the population.
You know a day hardy goes by
You know a day hardy goes by that the knowledge collective gets updated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/world/middleeast/us-navy-plans-to-conv...
“This is a longstanding request that, with the opportunity now before us, we are fulfilling,” said Capt. John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman.
The teams work hard and have a hard job to do, I have a lot of respect for the thankless job they do.
First you have to realize that they are a subset of a very large Navy. Then you to have understand that they operate in just about every corner of the world. By itself, you take a request for the Ponce and it seems reasonable. Add the single request with the rest of the many requests, it leaves you with questions in your mind and a person has to think of priorities. Now you have become a manager. Then add in the requests of the other armed services, and those services also have SpecOPs with just as many needs and desires. We have not even talked about logistics.
At what point do SpecOPs become as bureaucratic and weighted down as the rest of the BIG military?
If you take a look at the SEAL teams new floating "base", the HELO pad looks like a giant bulls eye ( What do you think? This is the Ponce's deck is in Florida .. http://spacecoast.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/imag0760.jpg )and the 41 year old hull is as sluggish as the Navy that requested her changes. Seal teams are suppose to be mobile and agile, that is the essence of why they are who they are. Seal teams are almost as quiet as submariners, when the "new" Ponce comes to town the Navy might as well put up a billboard and sell tickets for tours. Next stop is not the twilight zone, but the Strait of Hormuz.
Who thought of this? The Department of Decoys?
Personally, I would rather see a class of ship that has a broader capabilities, one that is modular that can be rigged for multiple uses and built to serve over time. Keep the decision out of the committees and make something that does not turn out to be a floating brick and costs a mint. If used in multiple services and common enough to be transparent in its use, then who knows what lies within. That solution needs to be combined with the over all future vision. That vision needs to be realistic, some one needs to do their job rather than look for a retirement. Ownership of that vision is for life, not just a career. I am not sure the Pentagon is capable of that.
Everything is distilled down to the answer to one question.
How can AQ hold a super power hostage? Make America waste $4 Trillion with little return.
! sevlesruo ot ti od ew, rewop on sah QA : rewsnA
It might be quicker to
It might be quicker to recruit and train an Infantry battalion than to design and build an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, that Infantry battalion has to be trained by somebody who knows what he's doing - expertise that he presumably built up by being in....an Infantry battalion. Moreover, to actually command the trained battalion in modern combat requires quite a bit of specific skill, especially in combining arms; this skill would be developed, presumably, while serving in....Infantry battalions.
1. My attitude may be
1. My attitude may be influenced by having been pushed out of the trough by other, more capable or connected feeders.
2. Question the overall size of the trough.
3. Do we secure global commerce, quash incipient overseas threats and generally act as a world police force?
4. Or do we insure the physical security of the fifty states and various territories. I.E.: No Arab hordes wading ashore, weapons at high port at Myrtle Beach.
5. Strategic defense or simple self-defense?
6. Suspect the decision will be made for us by an international restructuring agency -similar to what most of Europe will be facing soon.
7. All the recipients of entitlements will have long faces -along with large portions of the defense establishment.
8. Am not looking forward to the loss of national prestige or inroads upon our quality of life.
9. The rest of the world will be well satisfied. At first.
V/R JWest
Visitor on January 28, 2012 -
Visitor on January 28, 2012 - 10:45am
Hordes on Myrtle Beach? Do you think Washington will let American civilians touch them, it might upset the invader's civil rights once on US territory. Joking aside, it might be just me, what I have seen out of Iran and AQ have been mirrored responses to US actions. OBL's main issue was the US in Kuwait in the early 90's, the attacks started in that time frame. US ran AQ out of Afghanistan after 9/11 and OBL diffused his organizational making the US work harder at fighting radical Islam. The US is still chasing the spread of AQ out of the post 9/11 conflict. That is why CIA drone bases have been developed within fly time of both Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia. Aircraft carriers are a big asset to risk in the Persian Gulf , that puddle is too shallow for a submarine to effectively operate, and the US is running out of countries to operate from in the region to herd Iran's pin prick threats then in comes the request for the Ponce as a floating base as a real time quick-get-it-done (AKA, someone did not have a plan, now they need a response to a threat) operational need. It is all about radical Islam bleeding US resources dry and America has been a willing party both in pride and need of economic stimulus. If America stopped being aggressive and backed out of Muslim lands, I really think political Islam would react in kind. One flaw in that utopia is America's relations with Israel. Iran will not stop until Israel is somewhere else. US would be hard pressed to talk Israel out of its nuclear weapons. Helping the Palestinians find a home will help, not sure it would end the disputes over religion and ME economics the local players are pulling all the strings to get power. OBL wanted a Palestinian state if he saw one today he might call off his dogs-of-war and the US closed that option forever, having OBL change his attitude publicly would have been a powerful event. Conceptually more meaningful to negotiate with OBL than the Taliban, that is where OBL would have been useful.
Part of the problem is we have a lot of smart people in Washington whose jobs and status depend on the US flexing its muscle in the ME. There is a lot feeding back on itself that is self destructive. The US needs to know its limitations, let loose of its grip on the ME, and let the ME work out its own issues. It is more humanitarian to let the Arabs end it.
The US can have its cake and eat it too. Both US security at home and on the high seas, we just have to stop being so stupid about it. The Republicans get in office and they want BIG Defense spending. Democrats get in office and every humanitarian conflict needs resolution. Mix both agendas together and you have a Pentagon with no spending control. If Industry wants to manufacture offshore and open new markets in the Asian Rim, they need to step up to the plate and realize the cost of US Defense protection. That is not about the 1% paying more personal income tax, that is changing the US tax code to get industry to pay for the benefit of doing business in the largest consumer market on the face of the earth, America. Companies would pay BIG to have more market share in the US and the American people give access to our market at a bargain, the cost of a lobbyist.
It is all about the US deciding what it wants to be to the rest of the world. Right now it is more trendy to worry about AIDS in Africa than your US neighbor's mortgage problem next door.
If Iran turns into a shooting war, let our military take off the gloves and put a major dent in Iran. That means no repayment for war damage, no discussion of civilian damages. Just make sure that Iran starts the battle, the US is off to a really bad start by running a blockade on a foreign power.
Make war something that both sides fear more than anything with a defined us and them. Then people will want peace.
What he thinks of Defense -
What he thinks of Defense - we're a utility, that his seamless global supply chain pals can count on. He makes the point again that the jobs aren't coming back because anything can be done anywhere.
Not without global security of the Commons Tommy. Not to mention the nation -if you'll pardon the archaic phrase - where the work is seamlessly being done. China for instance is beginning to show seams.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/friedman-made-in-the-wo...
The vindictive part of me can't wait to see the look on the Tommy boy's faces when the Capitol One Jacksonian's show up wanting to know what's in their wallet. Guess I'm going Red.
"I think we in the defense
"I think we in the defense analysis community. . . ."
Ah, you mean, "we in the defense industry's think tank-marketing arm. . . .", don't you? Which is why eliminating the wasteful, inefficient and destablizing missile defense program is simply not discussable. Poland is under threat from Iranian ballistic missiles, you say? What a load.
Obviously, the Cold War mentality has a hard time dying, when so much cash is associated with it.
As far as the personnel issue, why not just do what American agricultural and meatpacking corporations do - rely on undocumented immigrant labor. Hire them through private security contractors to avoid paperwork checking. Works great for them, and they're cheap, cheap, cheap!
Elf knows Exum loves Friedman
Elf knows Exum loves Friedman on January 29, 2012 - 12:45pm
Jeepers, took the words right out of my mouth. Echo. Thanks for the reminder. Maybe Red, White, and Blue all parts of the same future.
Friedman is going to have a very bad day when he no longer has grease to lube the cogs in his new toy.
Good to see Elf living on.
At least listen to the
At least listen to the public. Back in the late 1990s I was a straphanger at a Pentagon conference on US forward presence, chaired by the Vice-Chair of the JCS & with many senior military & civilian defense experts in attendance. A USN rep admitted that when it came to carrier battle groups, the Navy's peacetime rotation schedule required more CVNs than did the current war plans.
That was the same conference at which I heard a well-known national security scholar opine that the Iranian Ayatollahs were troubled far less by the US military presence in the Gulf as they were by the fact that they couldn't keep out Beavis and Butthead. A dated reference, but probably still relevant.
Comment by Ralph Hitchens on
Comment by Ralph Hitchens on January 30, 2012 - 8:42am
Ralph, what you say is the essence of discovery. That never goes out of style.
Consider:
This.... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/world/americas/afghan-family-members-c...
and this.... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/world/middleeast/iraq-is-angered-by-us...
The Iraqi's got it broke off in them cause Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich got demoted rather than thrown in the Brig. Meanwhile the Islamic countries have a policy to forgive those who waged Jihad on Muslims themselves, killing Muslims is something that is at the very core of Quran tabu. Then East meets West in Canada. Hillary gets up on the bully pulpit and calls for Women's rights in the ME, then a higher level court in Oklahoma stands up to prevent banning Sharia law within the State.
I am confused.
Seems to me it would be more humanitarian to leave the people in the ME alone.
to all, the defense budget
to all,
the defense budget isn't about defense. that seems self evident.
i'd like to know how the Seals insure national security. their opns appear as magic moments of hype. neither the killing of UBL or the latest Somalia rescue mission have anything to do with war fighting. killing a few brigands isn't THE GREAT RAID.
we have a lot of tit suckers living off this illusion of national security and defense.
jim
Instead of discussing the
Instead of discussing the strategy and resources planned in the current defense review, does anyone have any thoughts on how facts encountered going forward should affect how we reflect on the underlying assumptions and the conditions under which plans should change?
Another issue is how to create institutions that can force reevaluation in strategy if a war is not progressing according to plan so that future Congresses will have a choice in between "cut and run" and standing by a president who insists that victory is just around the corner. This was the situation in both Vietnam and Iraq where the president endorsed a strategy that did not produce desired results and over 3 years were required to force a change in strategy. In both cases, the change in strategy produced some measure of success, but in Vietnam it was not enough to overcome the public's desire to cut-and-run and the outcome from Iraq is still uncertain. If those changes were made earlier, it is likely that more could have been achieved before other events forced a pullback that undermined or endangered that progress.
So much to think about here,
So much to think about here, thank you all for a good read. Two points, or rather two interlaced points:
1) We are just entering the crisis of the new century. This will be the century of the problem solver, the practical man. Military skills translate best over if you focus on that. We have an awesome capacity in the west to do good, if we choose to employ some military hardware in preemptive humanitarian strikes.
2) This skillset and the understanding of the necesity for it is actually the one point wich COINtras cant seem to refute. WHen you analyze, say, Fallujah or many other contacts, you see the lack of humint glaring at ya. Its just pure brutalism, WAR. ANd thats just stupid. I do hope the US is following their euro-sisters in some parts. Hah, all from Haditah got off, lol.
Dr. Exum, What do you make of
Dr. Exum,
What do you make of Gary Schaub and James Forsyth's argument that the US could downsize its nuclear arsenal to 311 warheads and still be able to deter a first strike?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24schaub.html?scp=1&sq=311%20w...
I'm not an expert on military spending, but if, as the NY Times says in its Defense budget calculator, eliminating the bomber leg of the triad could save $39 billion over 10 years, surely having a smaller triad (even if it's not as radically downsized as the two authors suggest) could save considerably more, making it less necessary, for example, to reduce the size of the Navy as much as the public seems to want.
Hold the axe folks. Prior to
Hold the axe folks. Prior to discussing cuts in the military I want to know what our national stategy is ? What are the core interests we must defend with force( more to the point our citizens lives)? Why I want to know this is based on the belief that our military needs to fit a national stategy based on our core national interests grounded in an unconditionally hardnosed assessment of the ground truths of the world as it is. I do understand that an election year is a bad time to ask for a reality break but this issue is too important for sound bites. As an example suppose the battleship admirals had won the pre WW II arguement and there were n o carriers in the Pacific? Or what if Churchill and Roosevelt decided not to supply Stalins Red Army because the marxist-lenist were the mortal enemies of the west? Far fetched I know but one bad decision at this level really can kill you.
"It might be quicker to
"It might be quicker to recruit and train an Infantry battalion than to design and build an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, that Infantry battalion has to be trained by somebody who knows what he's doing - expertise that he presumably built up by being in....an Infantry battalion. Moreover, to actually command the trained battalion in modern combat requires quite a bit of specific skill, especially in combining arms; this skill would be developed, presumably, while serving in....Infantry battalions."
This criticism only holds if you cut virtually all infantry battalions, which is not the suggestion. It's to cut SOME infantry battalions. If the time comes that you do need to stand up more infantry, you take some experienced troops from the still-existing battalions and use them as the cadre to build and train new ones.
Second the need for more
Second the need for more information about our national strategy.
Re-instituting daily physical education standards in all grades would go a long way to assuring a capable population in reserve for need; flexibility starts with the physical health and education of the nation's populace.
The 4 Gambling was a
The 4 Gambling was a traditional past time back in England in the 1800's and brought over to the U Call your mom - you know she's dying to hear
My my how things change.
My my how things change. Navy can steam fast when it wants to.
Now the USS Ponce will be a floating bobber, ODYSSEY DAWN not.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-31/uss-ponce-isn-t-persian-gulf-se...
31FEB12
It would make little sense to concentrate a number of the nation’s most elite warriors on a boat in the Persian Gulf where they would be vulnerable to a variety of Iranian attacks and would require other vessels, missiles and aircraft to protect an aging ship, the official said.
only a few days ago
http://abcnews.go.com/International/pentagon-bigger-bomb-navy-seals-moth...
28JAN12
Pentagon Looking at Bigger Bomb, Navy SEALs Mothership for Persian Gulf
.
The Navy SEALs are scheduled to receive a "special operations mothership" in the Persian Gulf that will search for mines and adversaries. Set to be retired just weeks ago, the 40-year-old USS Ponce is now on a fast-track rebuild to act as a floating U.S. base in the Persian Gulf.
Helping the Palestinians find
Helping the Palestinians find a home will help, not sure it would end the disputes over religion and ME economics the local players are pulling all the strings to get power. My thought exactly. That's my point.
-Forex Contest
Add your comment