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.
The U.S. Army: Bruised but Unbroken
I am a strong critic of the U.S. Army and the way in which it has struggled to explain how it best serves the security needs of the nation beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we must give credit where it is due, and the way in which our all-volunteer U.S. Army has maintained its health and integrity through a decade of war is nothing short of remarkable. It is a testament to the men and women who serve in the institution, and they are the subject of my latest column for World Politics Review:
Six out of seven soldiers and Army civilians, [a new study] reveals, trust their senior leaders to make the right decisions for the Army, and 90 percent of those surveyed remain willing to put the Army’s needs above their own. Whereas the soldiers who fought in Vietnam considered themselves amateurs and conscripts, 98 percent of the soldiers in the Army today consider themselves professional fighting men and women. As such, those who serve in the U.S. Army today are in no danger of losing their pride, heart or soul. And based on personal observations from the field, I can report the U.S. Army is today more combat effective than it was when I myself first led a light infantry platoon in Afghanistan in 2002.
The Army still has real problems, which I get into, but the larger questions in my mind revolve around the social contract between the all-volunteer military and the people it serves:
[The] American people should be asking other questions about the costs of having asked so few to bear such a heavy burden for so long. For example, will the way in which the Army has weathered a decade of war make U.S. policymakers more likely to deploy ground forces to combat elsewhere? Do the American people have a moral responsibility to share the costs of wars in which a relatively tiny percentage of the public has served?
Read the rest here.
Abu M I think at this stage,
Abu M
I think at this stage, it would be better to say, Bales' *alleged* massacre.
"Based on personal observations...more combat effective...2002": elaborate, please. I think Kilcullen, in one of his articles or briefs, stated US GPF approximated SOF quality, and US SOF were best-in-class. Does your observation pertain to the mental health issues that you appear previously to be referencing, improvement and evolution of TTP per Kilcullen, both, or something else entirely.
Regarding Parris Island, I am a remarkably big wussy who has never served and, if confronted by the likes of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, would undoubtedly lose control of my bladder and bowels with astounding rapidity. Nor do I have any desire to "out" or identify myself beyond a really dumb set of initials. That said, a friend recently conducted training for what is considered a high-status USMC unit (not MARSOC strictly speaking, but very selective and prestigious so far as I can ascertain), and was discomfited by at least two separate phenomena he observed.
I find this article fairly broad and wide-ranging, and would encourage greater follow-up on the issue of mental health. FWIW, I generally consider it a good thing if soldiers/Marines, etc., feel free to consult mental health professionals; everything else being equal (while acknowledging that is rarely if ever the case), I suspect mental health professionals can provide assistance and care, and that is far better than attempting to deny or suppress one's problems, emotional or otherwise. At the same time, I was struck by the sheer number of soldiers taking psychotropoic medication, and am curious as to the significance of this "trend."
Best
ADTS
Andrew: Gosh, by now i would
Andrew:
Gosh, by now i would have thought you would have come off of this new age of war as the "graduate level" nonsense. I mean do you really think that if the United States Army had had to fight the Soviet Armies (as unlikely as that possibility was by the 80s) that it would have been an "intellectually simple" affair?
gian
Sir, Perhaps the Army needs
Sir,
Perhaps the Army needs to change the way it trains it's recruits. By instilling in the "soldiers" that they have not earned anything until they graduate and reserve the right to call themselves "soldiers".
I guarantee that if I were to take a Marine from World War II, Vietnam, and Afghanistan and put them in the same room to discuss their Recruit training, each would have similar comments on the life altering changes it provided them.
END RANT!
I always enjoy reading the blog Sir and hopefully one day I'll get to meet you.
OUT
I think Kilcullen, in one of
I think Kilcullen, in one of his articles or briefs, stated US GPF approximated SOF quality, and US SOF were best-in-class
The historical difficulty for US GPF is that only war hones them. SOF (which actually has mechanisms like comprehensive selection, a training budget that takes the craftsmanship of war seriously, and the expectation of going to war even during the dullest peace) will be an entirely different animal than the GPF after 10 years of peace, despite JRTC and NTC.
"I suspect mental health
"I suspect mental health professionals can provide assistance and care, and that is far better than attempting to deny or suppress one's problems, emotional or otherwise."
Mental health professionals are also used by those in command / positions of power to certify enlisted troops incompetent, non-deployable and medicate them when they question authority.
How gullible are you to think that general other than honorable, bad conduct and dishonorable discharges have actually decrease in the last 10 years Dr Exum? Spin those numbers any way you want, but it only shows that the sheepish AFN listening masses out there in the US Army are afraid to say what's really on their mind.
Keep drinking that Koolaid, sucka.
Visitor 2:39 AM "I
Visitor 2:39 AM
"I suspect...or otherwise."
It probably would not be wrong to emphasize that those words are mine rather than Abu M's (aka Mr. Exum, PhD). And I am not sure quite how to interpret the "sucka" comment (quite frankly, it makes me think of Keenen Ivory Wayans' excellent parody of Blaxploitation films - far superior to "In Living Color," depending on your Netflix habits). Still, perhaps the issue you raise falls relatively neatly into the category or categories - i.e., mental health issues - I suggested Abu M explore in what I (once more) considered a fairly broad survey.
Best
ADTS (but you can just call me "sucka")
It is called a volunteer
It is called a volunteer organization, if folks do not like the participation rate or perks they should not volunteer.
It hazes me a little to hear people complain that the military does not get enough perks, that is not a popular view. I know of people that were pulling over $100,000 over a five year period from re-up perks based on MOS, that is not a bad pay-rate for an enlisted GI Joe. You compare the Military to the private sector and benefits are not equal. Tri-care has hardly increased its pay-in (for a length in time that only a taxpayer can afford, go figure!), compare that to the private sector out of pocket health care expense. Who in the private sector gets preference in hiring decisions or is guaranteed employment from a leave of absence. Education help is generous in the military. Pensions for twenty years of service are hardly heard of in the private sector. The guy twisting bolts at Boeing does not have access to the VA hospital system, unless they are double dipping. The taxpayer foots the expense including paying for all the subcontract services to the volunteer military because of all the things that they cannot be bothered to do. The retirement packages are mind boggling for the career officers. In the end, the person that made the war toys has to bury themselves no flag provided, no bugle calls, no 21 gun salute, just silence. The owner of the factory does not even show up for the memorial service.
There is more inequality between the civilian and military sectors in the economy beyond volunteering rates. Not sure the military needs more perks. There needs to be less entitlements, not more. As a volunteer military and the perks that enable participation, it has become another employer/employee relationship. Volunteer fire-fighters do not get credit towards full-time fire fighting service, pay, or benefits to volunteer to save their neighbor's homes. The people that get full-time fire fighting jobs (with pensions) are usually politically connected (works in Chicago) or the son of daughter of an existing fire-fighter (that works in Chicago too), go figure.
Exum, based on what Congress allows, the Army headcount is about 2.8 that of the Marines. In the discussion of the organizational identity the size of the organization is not comprehended. If the two organizations were the same, there would be no reason to assign them different labels or DOD budgets, money could be saved from the economy of scale of combining the roles. Considering the age old competition of the four services, consolidation would be a turf war. SOF has always been different, that is why they call them elite with an elite budget to match. Think that has something to do with the expected results if you send out the grunts pushing paper to do kill/capture, it not about capability it is a difference in training budget and mind set.
As far as Vietnam goes, there was a core career military and then there were the draftees. They all bled the same. Vietnam was about who in society was available, those that disagreed voted with their feet so in the end the military was still volunteer. There were problems in yesterday's army, there are also problems in yesterday's civilian ranks. The 60's were a cluster f*ck and the 70's was the resulting hang over. Some people today want to bring the 60's back, but with a social changes of today I really do not think people have the patience for it. The words in the military's study could be easily repeated at many times in history with only corrections for generational updates. You cannot over lay today's experience to yesterday's history, it is not a fair comparison. The results from the surveys would be more credible if they had a control group of people that had their discharges in hand and were no longer depended on the military for their future.
In the end, bureaucracy to funds itself in times of unrest or plenty. We will hear more of "problems" and "cures" as the budget cuts get more realistic after the 2012 election. There will be more people tagged unfit for service as the war unwinds, unless the administration finds more unrest in the world to serve its needs.
Experience exposes the agenda, been there done that.
BTW....It is illegal for a sitting politician to influence hiring decisions for the private sector, it would be considered pay-for-play. I am happy that Obama can get someone a job, the rest of the unemployed will have to vote in the elections.
Must be hell to sleep at night to purchase votes for your six-figure for life public service salary with other people's disposable income that can not afford to make end meet. Inequality has different faces.
sorry to hijack this post,
sorry to hijack this post, but Ahmed Ben Bella passed away today at 93.
obituary:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/africa/ahmed-ben-bella-algerias-...
what a life, what a story.
The Savage War of Peace by A.Horne is an all time classic on COIN, and Ben Bella is larger than life in this book.
Isn't that
Isn't that nice.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/travel/Obama+daughter+spends+spring+break...
How many people in the US cannot even afford a vacation that had to pay for this? There are a lot of nice places in the CONUS that would provide spring break for the Obama children and the American people would appreciate the business. How many US children would be happy to have spring break at the White House or Camp David? Any meal you want and service included.
Maybe spring break should happen at one of the resorts operated by DoD ! Hitch a ride with this person http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_PAH3Kr7TxWUacmPhtYyeRHPBuXwEJ... who has her own travel budget, chair skid, and ego the size of a globe master.
Taxpayers not allowed just keep paying your taxes, only four more years.
"Do the American people have
"Do the American people have a moral responsibility to share the costs of wars in which a relatively tiny percentage of the public has served?"
Share the cost? I pay my taxes, what more do you want?
The whole point of an all-volunteer military is that those who want to "share the costs" of the war do so, and nobody else. I have no further moral responsibility. It would, in fact, be profoundly immoral to force people to serve against their will.
Highjacker, check your data.
Highjacker, check your data. Chances are the President's salary is actually paying for his daughter to be there - as well as having to defray at least a portion of the Secret Service costs. Not everything the First Family does is paid for directly by taxpayers.
On the issue at hand, I flew into MSP with a group of USMC reservists coming home from 7 months in AFG this past weekend. The 30-ish corporal I was talking to and I agreed that we have seriously messed up a lot of young kids in the past few years, having put them in situations where they are dealing with life and death every day. Seeing death, dealing death, saving lives, and sparing lives - not easy decisions. The USMCR felt he was much better prepared at his age than the young guys, and more willing to step up so that some of those "kids" didn't have to.
Most of us in uniform are adaptable, finding ways to cope, and probably exiting the past decade stronger than ever. It's not universally true, and we should all recognize that by willingly paying more to the VA. We also recognize that despire the hardships in our own lives, we're actually doing pretty well for ourselves right now with pay and benefits. It's been the stay-at-home warriors who haven't been deployed who I suspect don't want to lose their benefits. Anyone who's deployed recognizes sacrifices must be made, but are also the same group you'd like to reward.
On that social contract – I’m
On that social contract – I’m convinced it’s broken, and that that brokenness is bad for the country. I’m a veteran in his early ‘60’s – one who cleverly avoided the draft by volunteering for Naval Air - and my immediate group of friends includes several who served. My son, a late-20’s, a soon-to-be captain in the Air Force, has to search far and wide for any civilians between the ages of 20 and 40 who can relate to his experiences. He doesn’t sense antagonism between the professional military and civilians, but there is a gulf of experience and understanding between them. This can’t be good for the country. It especially isn’t good when only a select few are sent to fight and die. Most Americans have no skin in the game. I see this as a danger – it lets politicians come up with all sorts of asinine ideas (Iraq, Iran, you get the idea) with no blowback from the general public because the public and the politicians are shielded from personal consequences. I don’t want politicians sending my children overseas to fight their wars unless their kids go along for the ride. I assume this means conscription. And, you know what? I think that’s a damn fine idea. If my son has to go off to war I want my congressman’s son, and my neighbor’s son and my coworker’s daughter to share in that. If it’s a war of necessity, the congressman and neighbor and coworker will likely suck it up. If it’s a piece of stupidity or chest-thumping, there will be screaming from the heartland. And that screaming’ll mean American democracy is alive and well.
Unbroken? Now there's a
Unbroken? Now there's a shock - who would "break" this Army? The 1st Iraqi SS Panzer Divizion? The Taliban's 309C Regiment?
No where - not at Tora Bora, not in Ramadi, not in Fallujah, not anydamnwhere in Central Command's AO between 2002 and today - was there or is there the muj equivalent of the NVA 304th Division whose 24th Regiment attacked Lang Vei in 1968, or the 33rd and 66th Regiments that fought the 1/7th Cav to a standstill at Ia Drang three years earlier.
All those "...professional fighting men and women..." with nothing out there to fight but a passel of raggedy gomers in headscarves whereas the "...amateurs and conscripts..." only went toe-to-toe with the little hard men who had beaten the Japanese and the French and were hell on rubber-tire sandals. Their problem isn't that they didn't "trust their senior leaders" (probably since they'd gone where their "senior leaders" sent them and seen how useful farkling about smartly in the middle of a foreign civil war was for the foreigners who were told to farkle there...) but that they fought the wrong damn enemy. Had they been matched up against the Babe Ruth-league enemies we've faced over the past decade; no echelons-above-squad, no heavy artillery (or even much in the way of mortars), no decent intel, no Red Ball Express rolling down the Cambodian border...we might not be talking about how tall we're standing.
Hey, I loves me some Army - the eagle crapped in my pocket for 22 years - but I'm not gonna get all chesty and cocky because my boys bitchslapped a bunch of raggedy-ass muj around central Asia for a decade trying to recreate Churchill's Malakhand Field Force in pursuit of a geopolitical impossibility. The strategic "thinking" behind this muddle has all but invalidated our tactical prowess; as the apocryphal Vietnamese general said; "Yes, you won every battle. And your point is...?"
Add your comment