Military Not Focused on Current Wars?

If you have ever doubted the existence of the Military Industrial Complex this article in the Washington Post should end those doubts convincingly. The article Gates Urges Military to Focus on Current Wars, contains several important underlying concepts about the thought process that occurs inside this institution of war. There is a surreal quality that runs through your mind as you read the text. The most glaring question is why exactly Gates has to remind them about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today implored the U.S. military to focus more on wars against insurgents and militias such as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than focusing time and money on potential conflicts.

We are engaged in two wars right now. These conflicts are supposed to be transcendent challenges holding off the threats of our destruction. Why aren’t our resources being geared towards the war we are fighting now? John McCain believes we need to be there indefinitely, meaning that the war in Iraq is actually the war of the future as well as the war of the present.

One underlying theme of the article is the military and corporate focus on the long term. Much of this long term focus is necessary because the weapons systems cost billions of dollars and are supposed to last for decades. Some of our aircraft may end up lasting to a century in service. You need real vision to plan for something like that. Some of our more expensive systems are also those that have little relevance to counter insurgency. For example,

He has focused in part on the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, which the service covets for its speed, agility and ability to battle advanced fighters from countries such as China, but which has not made a single combat sortie over Iraq or Afghanistan.

As cool as the F-22 is the cost is exorbitant. The total cost of the program by 2006 was $62 billion. In April 2006, the cost of the F-22A was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft. Again, not one sortie in either of our current wars. This is just not a sustainable defense policy. We cannot fight wars effectively if we spend all our money of weapons systems that are not directly applicable to those wars. Gates spent time pointing out this annoying fact saying

"I believe that any major weapons program, in order to remain viable, will have to show some utility and relevance to the kind of irregular campaigns that, as I mentioned, are most likely to engage America's military in coming decades," Gates said. "Without a fundamental change to this dynamic, it will be difficult to sustain support for these kinds of weapons programs in the future."

Whether he is saying this so that the corporate interests understand that the future Democratic majority will feel this way or that he himself feels this way is not particularly relevant. The message needs to be sent that utility and multiple uses are also a major factor in funding projects.  

Mixed into the article is also the idea that America is not able to fight the conventional war that the MIC is planning and developing weapons for. This idea is one of the constant themes the Democrats are advancing, the military is broken and the war in Iraq is not sustainable in a responsible or sane manner.  This has particular relevance to any potential conflict with Iran. Iran appears to be the most likely target for the next, or just an expansion of the current, war. China, Russia, and Korea are not ruled out though. Gates talked briefly on the interplay between Iraq and Iran

He said that the Iraqis' recent operations in Basra led to the discovery of substantial caches of Iranian-supplied weapons, and "awakened them (the Iraqis) to the reality of the magnitude of Iranian meddling in Iraq."

"We're being very aggressive in going after the networks in Iraq, and the individuals who are interfering or supplying weapons from Iran," Gates said. "We have a number of other activities under way. We take it very seriously. But at this point our activities are focused pretty exclusively inside Iraq."

He initially said without qualification that those activities which he did not define were "exclusively" inside Iraq, but he quickly stopped himself and restated it as "pretty exclusively" inside Iraq, which seemed to leave open the possibility that the U.S. also is operating inside Iran.

It is not particularly surprising to learn that we are raiding inside Iran. The most likely scenario is targeted Special Forces operations against training facilities or weapons cahes along the border. At the same time he addressed future threats other than Iran.

He said it is "hard to conceive" of any country confronting the United States directly in a conventional war for some time to come, hinting at potential adversaries in North Korea, China and Russia. But he also acknowledged the stress on U.S. forces.

"It is true that we would be hard-pressed to launch a major conventional ground operation elsewhere in the world at this time, but where would we sensibly do that?" Gates said. "The United States has ample and untapped combat power in our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any, repeat any, adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan. There is a risk, but it is a prudent and manageable one."

I am not a military strategist but this does not make sense to me. I do not believe that air power or naval power alone would be enough to stave off a major offensive by conventional forces of any moderate size. I think Gates understands that also. He hints at what happens when we do not have the forces to deal adequately with a problem. The answer might be conscription, though i have not been able to confirm that Gates said the words all-volunteer force.

But Gates said that if the United States were to give up on Iraq -- to lose there -- it would send a message that the Army is broken, and such a failure could cripple the all-volunteer force as an institution. He noted that the war in Iraq is the second longest in American history since the Revolution.

Exactly what he is talking about here I am not sure. It sounds like the standard line about prestige except not. The army is either broken or it is not and staying in Iraq with a broken army will not deceive people into thinking every thing is fine. The question becomes just how important is Iraq in the long-term security plans of the United States.

The army seems to think Iran Iraq is not the long-term commitment that Bush and Co are portraying it. The military might be happier to withdraw from Iraq and rebuild the traditional military forces and develop those sexy high priced weapons systems. However, if we are going to be in Iraq for a very long time then we would really need a radical reallocation of our resources to the current conflicts. So which is it going to be money for the insurgent focused war in Iraq or the potential war with China/Russia/Iran?

Wapo Articles used here
Gates Urges Miliatry to Focus on Current Wars
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Gates: Reject tendency to focus on 'Next-War-itis'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

•  Tip Here

  Man those f-22s cost a lot.

  by Liberal Youth on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:22:33 PM PDT

  •  Yet our troops still use the M-16

    It wasn't even that great when it was first introduced. Hell, the more elite units have abandoned it, why can't the rest of the military?

    by Hannibal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:52:00 PM PDT

    •  it was ok

      the military just tried to derail it by making changes without actually studying the consequences. They changed the powder type and that caused jamming problems leading to the deaths of gi's in vietnam. there were some other changes as well but thats the one that sticks out the most.

      it is true that the m-16 is getting a little old but the military does not want to switch to a non us model for the regular infantry,iirc.

      by Liberal Youth on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:50:05 PM PDT

      •  Actually

        The M16 has been mostly replaced with the M-4 carbine variant in Iraq.  It keeps the standard receiver/action assembly but has a shorter barrel, a shorter and collapsable stock, and a low-power scope.

        There are some variants being fielded that are integrated with a cut-down version of the Land Warrior kit that are as good or better than anything else in use.  It's always in fashion to bash on the M16, but it's really not a bad weapon.

        by APoxOnBoth on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:15:38 AM PDT

•  I read an article yesterday

  in the International Herald Tribune, about the Predators that the military uses now.  Seems that military aviators enjoy using Predators because they see more "combat" time than they would if they were flying manned-aircraft, without actually being in a combat zone.  Only a few are needed "on-site" to help the aircraft take-off and land.  

  One thought, what will we do when we begin to sell these technologies to other armies.  What if they, one day, get into the hands of enemies that can attack us without having to use "cells" and waste lives.  

  A good diary I think.  The US will never be able to stop fighting until we stop developing increasingly lethal weapons.  Nukes showed us that.  

  by Transient Smitty on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:39:30 PM PDT

  •  The sales of the equiment

    are effective cost saving measures. We actually do not sell the f22 yet though some of our allies have expressed interest.

    most of our stuff is technically advanced and fragile enough that insurgents could not use it.

    by Liberal Youth on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:44:36 PM PDT

    •  That's promising

      and I'm not a fear-monger.  I just can't help but see the irony in so-called "military buildups".  And I can't help but think, "What will they come up with next?"

      by Transient Smitty on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:26 PM PDT

  •  the officer interviewed was lying

    pilots hate the predators.

    by nathguy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:41:31 PM PDT

    •  Bigtime

      Tours as a UAV pilot screw up your promotion schedule and don't get you loggable flight hours.  Gates was recently bitching publicly about the USAF dragging their feet on providing enough pilots to meet the demand in Iraq as they add more UAV's to the force.

      The elephant in the room there is that you don't need a hyper-trained fighter jock to fly a UAV.  But the USAF sees a day coming when UAV's fly combat missions and doesn't want pilots reduced to mere technicians (which is how they were considered in the early days of military flight).

      by APoxOnBoth on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:28:41 PM PDT

•  I guess the Repugs

  are generally worried that the cash cow may dry up once the Republican's aren't creating and maintaining war around the world - that corporate welfare is hard to walk away from /snark

  by shiobhan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:09 PM PDT

•  Fast and DECISIVE wars..... THAT was the priority

  of the post-Vietnam - post-Cold War military.

  NO MORE long drawn-out unwinnable insurgencies like Vietnam.  The junior officers of THAT conflict LEARNED that lesson and learned it well.

  The military was CONSCIOUSLY REMADE to fight quick wars - like Gulf I.

  Let's be honest.  Gulf I was a quick decisive victory - so was the overthrow of Hussein in Iraq Redux - BushII.

  It WORKED.

  Our military does NOT want to be - and was NOT equipped to be - a long term 'occupying force' in a hostile environment opposed by irregular forces.

  Coincidentally that is EXACTLY what we're doing in Iraq now.

  OF course, the Air Force and the Navy still want their big expensive toys - even if we have no serious enemies, no real threats to the US...... be REAL now.  there is no power on earth at the moment that could overthrow the US government - EXCEPT the US government  

  Got to have brand new fighter planes for the hot shot pilots - thogh PILOTS are now the limiting factor in performance.  UNMANNED aircraft are really the future - as Predators and others show - but we can't lose the macho fighter aircraft.  Nevermind how much cheaper the unmanned appproach is as well......

  Got to have lots of big SHIPS and SUBMARINES too.....  not for DEFENDING the US but for PROJECTING force (and making money for their producers)....same for 'anti-missile systems'.  Damn - and to think we could have BOUGHT all of Russia's fissionable supplies for a song after the fall of the USSR........

  Ironically, China is becoming the pre-eminent force in this century through economic and diplomatic efforts - USING all the $$$$ made selling Wal-Mart all the crap we buy.  China has NO troops overseas - unlike the US.  They are BUYING power and influence - signing long term energy contracts in Asia, Africa and all over the world while the US just blew a TRILLION DOLLARS trying to CONQUER Iraq's oil fields.  Who's the fool?

  The US has put its military through a meat-grinder, bankrupted itself and accomplished what?  All in pursuit of a few hundred, thousand 'terrorists'?

  But Bush ignored the generals......  he knew better........ BWAHAAAAAAAAA...............

  History will look back and ask 'How were we SO STUPID?'

  by xrepub on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:59 PM PDT

  •  No to long term

    Yes you are right the Military made a concious decision to design themselves for short sharp decisive wars a la Gulf War I, and "never again" to Vietnam like conflicts, they also designed the military in that they could not operate in significant conflicts without calling up the Guard and Reserves, as they had a fear after the end of the Draft that they could be in a pposition of being sent to an unpopular war with little support and most of the country not caring as they had no personnel comitment.

    The idea of embedding the Guard and Reserve to such a degree was to try and ensure they would only be used in substantial conflicts if there was national consensus.

    In terms of the Air Force and Navy yes they want big new toys because they have to be bigger and sexier than the previous generation, because, because,.....

    When you ask who on earth they might be used against you get scenarios where the equipment would not help or which are simply unbeleivable.

    i.e. A Chinese aircraft that has not yet been designed, is built, sold in quantities to Iran, and we then need to support Kuwait or Iraq against Iranian aggression!!
    The much more likely scennario is a coup or revoloution in Egypt or Saudi and they have all those nice shiny US made weapons to use.

    China is regularly built up as a potential threat for the future in Air Force and Navy propaganda and there are 2 scenarrios were there is potential US China conflict

    1. China takes Taiwan

    2. North Korea, implodes or moves South and either way China gets involved.

    The idea of scenarios in paperbacks of China sending a carrier strike at Pearl or the Panama canal are so far away that Michelle Obamma will be finishing her second term in 2024 first.

    The Taiwan scennario is a real possibility but the second one the more likly scenario at present would be US and China co-operating to minimise the Chaos post the Kim regieme in Korea.

    Does the US public realise that a very large % of their Military budget in the end can only be justified not by defence of the US but by Defence of Taiwan, as there is no country on the planet who is not already a US ally which in Air-Force and Navy terms would not be beaten by the US reserves, with the exception of China or Russia.

    Russia if there was a conflict would need actual US Navy and Air-Force rather than reserves but if there is a possibility of conflict with Russia you need to double or tripple the size of the Army as well as buy high tech kit for the Air-Force, if you are happy with an Army around the present size then you do not beleive in a conflict with China or Russia, and the high tech weaponry is being bought to artificially create jobs, profits, and because a burocracy does what a burocracy does replace things whether you need them or not!

    The Dems need to start thinking about how to frame a debate in saying some of this expenditure can be released for more useful things while not being painted as "weak on defence".

    i.e. in Carriers the US not only has 12 Super Carriers but the USMC has a further 12 small Amphib Carriers, but the "small" USMC carriers are bigger than anyone else on the planet.

    So
    US 24
    UK 2
    Fra 1
    Russia 1
    Spain 1
    India 1
    Italy 1
    Thailand 1
    Brazil 1

    or US 24 v Rest of the entire planet 9
    or US and NATO 29 rest of the planet 4,

    The ratios with most other high tech equipment is similar, there is not a conventional military threat to the US forom any nation on the planet or any combination of nations realistic in the next 2 Presidential terms.

    there are threats to the US national intrests but they are AQ and other similar groups, Piracy and criminality on the high seas particularly off Somalia and a few similar areas, not things were an F-22 or a Nuclear Submarine is going to help.

    by dansmith17 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:47:59 AM PDT

    •  The Basic Problem

      We are building the equivalent of the WW2 battleships.  Those ships were the finest examples of the big-gun navy ever built, and they were completely obsolete.  By the time they saw combat, warfare was dominated by carriers and the only thing the battleships did was shore bombardment (which cruisers could have done just as well and a lot cheaper).

      Now we're building the best fighter aircraft ever.  And if they are ever used, it will be against something that so outclasses them as to make them completely useless (directed energy anti-air, UAV's that can fly circles around them, there are a lot of possibilities).

      by APoxOnBoth on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:34:57 PM PDT

•  keyword search "global guerrillas"

  and "John Robb."

  He's a highly respected military theorist, widely read among the mid to upper ranks in the Army, including those who detest the Bush regime passionately.  

  Bottom line: drawn-out conflicts with gray-zone subnational groups that are constantly morphing and changing; resource wars; and an increasing degree of private-sector entities initiating or engaging in hostilities against the US & allies.  A huge stinking mess or an increasingly fractalized, disordered world, where there is always low-intensity conflict going on somewhere and threatening to spread.  And most ominously, a transition to a "market state" defined not by inalienable rights but by tradable privileges.  

  I'd say more except I'm exhausted from a long day.  

  by G2geek on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:58:45 PM PDT

  •  For Which The Military Complex is a Ridiculously

    inappropriate tool.

    But impossible under our system for us to terminate or sufficiently adapt.

    by Gooserock on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:22:52 PM PDT

•  Sec. Gates and John Robb....

  dumb questions always come to mind when I see Gates, former CIA [Iran-Contra, yada] and his term as a Pres. of a Univ. known for its Corps of Cadets + Campus Crusade in TX.

  John Robb's bio with the AirForce Academy + Special Forces makes me leary. [See Mikey Weinstein for the AFA and Eric Prince, Blackwater and his side-kick Black [CIA], special forces.]

  I don't trust Gates and I would want to know more, much more about John Robb.

  Just sayin', the thoughts of "Contractor Intelligence" are dancing in my head.

  by deMemedeMedia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:14 PM PDT

•  Long-term is not quite what most people assume.

  I have to chime in on this, since I am a strategic historian and this is my particular field of study.  There are some confusions here that we need to clean up, though in several ways I agree with our Liberal Youth on his analysis, just not quite on his conclusions...so here we go.

  To begin with, the military must be engaged in long term planning for reasons that have nothing to do directly with weapons development.  Indeed, weapons development must flow from true long-term planning and strategy, not the other way around (and I'll get to why some things like the F-22 don't meet this criterion below, but bear with me for now.)  The simple fact is that no professional military should be without developed plans to meet any conceivable threat, both the likely and the unlikely.  This is how wars are won (when they become unavoidable) by being able to use and adapt pre-existing plans in a crisis.  

  The U.S. strategy in WWII is a fine example of this.  In the 1920's a whole series of war plans were developed for any conceivable enemy, not only obvious threats at the time (like Japan) but every other world power including Great Britain.  These were the famous "Color Plans" that were dusted off in 1941 as war loomed and it was the Orange Plan (for fighting Japan) that was the core of U.S. Pacific strategy.  The Black Plan (for Germany) was modified a bit more than that, but only because the military planners had never foreseen the rapid conquest of Europe (when the plans were formed, mechanized warfare was still in its infancy.)

  This is the proper realm of long-term planning and exactly what our military should be doing.  Sometimes that will include a reorientation of our weapons systems, as the Orange Plan made necessary.  The early potential of aircraft at the time the plan was written made sure that this would be included and led directly to the development of our carrier force, the spearhead of the Orange Plan when it was actually put into execution.  But the carrier came from that specific strategic problem, not the other way around.

  Many of our current weapons systems in development are "guns in search of a strategy", so to speak.  They have no basis in any real conceivable threat planning, not even against other potential powers like China or Russia.  The same is true of other elements, though by no means all (see my first Kos diary here for a look at one particular system that has a clear, and frightening, strategy buried behind its apparent and unworkable strategic justification.)  We need to think much more economically and clearly about what weapons we actually need and what they are really for.  In my opinion, we could have weapons systems that match our best strategies for a hell of a lot less than we spend now and a hell of a lot better security into the bargain.

  Not that this makes Gates correct.  He is dead wrong in his attempts to reorient the Army, Marines and to a lesser extent the Air Force and Navy for COIN operations.  This is the absolute last strategic goal we should be pursuing, since it inherently involves us in occupation and the immense costs and strategic liabilities thereof.  The Army is looking to move on because most of them know (at least the ones who aren't political creatures like Petreaus) that Iraq is an albatross around our national neck, one that we must get rid of as soon as possible to repair our strategic position.  This is how high-ranking officers are trained to think (and rightly so, I might add) at the Army War College and other military institutes.  I've known many of these men (I earned my own degree with some of them elsewhere and know many others as friends and acquaintances) and their training emphasizes this kind of strategic thinking because they are the ones best suited to do it on a regular basis.  That is why they are less than enthusiastic about Gates' little admonition, because they know full well that what he's calling for would make them less able to fight the wars they think we may need to fight and more likely to fight the ones we don't.

  by Stwriley on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:04:50 AM PDT