Americans and Their Military
 

Editorial with some valid points .
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/americans-and-their-military-drifting-apart.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

I share some of these concerns, they are legit.

But mitigating factors...

The officer corps has always been a different caste whether made up of educated elite, or the children, grandchildren, etc of officers. I suspect they were more insular in past when most everyone lived on base...now at least the majority of officers tend to live out in town. Also modern communications and social media mechanisms keep us all in closer touch, whether we want to be or not...after being deployed for 20 years it wasn't much of a leap for a Roman legion to come home and cross the Rubicon.

But most of the officers came in with some ideals and still have a connection with the people because they all know their service is temporary...they can't stay in forever unless they are promoted to O-9/O-10. I would be somewhat concerned if we modify the retirement system to eliminate the 20-year pension and subsequently let most folks stay in to age 60+...then you would create a civil-service like organization which would be primarily self-serving (google "IRS scandal" for more details). It would also be far less dynamic as it gets clogged with older, set-in-their-ways people.

As a product of the professional military system, I'm very leery of a draft just for the sake of having a draft. 30 years ago we could take almost anyone without physical or mental impairments and whip them into shape, but now days with all the touchy-feely sensitivity crap there's no way you could force someone to play whose heart was not in to begin with.

The reserves are actually a great counter-balance to this concern...as long as they are utilized enough so that the active duty gets to know and trust them they can serve as a liaison between America and it's military.

But grain of salt...this is a NY Times article. I have some lingering (and growing suspicion) that some people in the government would prefer to dilute not only the size and capability of the military but also it's character...right now it is probably the only component of the federal government which could (if push came to shove) be relied upon to stand by the people rather than those shoveling slop into the federal trough. For all this talk of an insular military, the vast majority of the triggers pullers are junior enlisted....first or second term types who retain close ties with the hometown they came from, and are not planning on a military career.

No, this is not a conspiracy theory, I don't think anyone is planning anything it's just the natural progression as we drift towards a socialist nanny-state...eventually the nanny could morph into Big Brother.

More of the usual "it's the poor who cannot hack it in real life who join" rubbish. All three of my kids elected to serve when they could have gone to just about any school and pursued a civilian career.

It further insinuates that it is the lower ranks who suffer, while the officers sit in air conditioned shacks, sipping lattes and communicating via SATCOM. Maybe the O-5's and up do, but the lieutenants and captains are in the thick of it, leading from the front in many cases.

What the author needed to emphasize was the pathetic lack of mission focus. Afghanistan should have been over in a year. Overwhelming force, destruction and ejection of the Taliban and Al Quaeda; then, get out. Let it be known to them - "See how easily we crushed your forces? Behave yourselves. Export violence again, and we will return to do it once more."

Instead, we build schools, clinics, conduct shuras with village elders and goat herders, and bleed a torrent of cash into a social construct that will not last.

Ultimately, the military enforces political decisions drafted by civilians in Washington. It does not do this on its own.

Yeah, the military was not in the business of nation-building when we invaded AF and IZ, and had to learn fast and improvise. That should probably not be a military mission in most situations.

I thought this line from the article was telling in the thought of the author and goes in line with what you said above FO:
The armed forces don't need to rethink their missions; the leadership of the country needs to rethink their use of military force. The Armed Forces are *thinking* (and planning and executing) their missions just fine.

Staller should read this, especially the comments. I totally agree with Gen. Eikenberry. He is a true American Patriot.

Its about 50% truth and 50% horse****

What is the horse****?

So the fact that this was published in the NY Times automatically makes you take this with a grain of salt? First of all, this is not an article by a NY Times reporter. This is a guest opinion piece by a retired General. The only editing in guest opinion pieces are for grammar and syntax. Whether the trendy opinion that the NY Times is a "liberal pinko rag" is true or not has nothing to do with this piece.

"drift towards a socialist nanny-state"? Sure sounds conspiratorial to me.:rolleyes: But I digress.

How many of you while watching a talking head interview a high ranking member of the military wish that they would be asked the tough questions ?
I remember watching one such member who had retired and it was just softball all the way around and I,m thinking
-Why the hell don't you ask your guest about the Rules of Engagement that our troops are under and if that is partly responsible for the high casualty rate .
MacArthur was so correct in what he said in his farewell speech.

-Nation-building: The military is not a fortune-500 company that just suddenly decided to expand it's business model into a new venture. The civilian leadership is 100% responsible for the nation-building tasking; the only blame the military might bear is that it's possible that a few yes-men in the higher echelon weren't forceful enough in injecting reality into the civilians' thinking...assuming that would have made any difference.

-Eliminate contractors: Warfighters are paid a premium (pay and bennies) to be available for forward deployment, sometimes frequently and with no notice. We don't need uniformed service members doing the laundry, cooking the food, mopping the floors, or handing out towels an the gym in CONUS. Contractors/GS civilians are more cost-effective where you don't need to engage in combat or forward deploy. They are also useful in near-combat environments where you need to quickly ramp up certain skill sets which take years to grow in-house. Contractors can rapidly incentive ex-combat-arms types (esp SOF) to return to service. They should be used judiciously since they are probably more expensive than regular AD.

-That social media isolates military from civilian. If anything, I think it's the opposite. The most isolating factor I've observed has been the last decade of extra deployments and long hours...when guys do make it home they barely have time for their families, not much left for community involvement. And just like everyone else, they tend to socialize with co-workers. I am an advocate of getting all officer and senior enlisted CONUS housing off base where practical, including eliminating commissaries and large exchanges (keep a mini-mart/gas station and MWR stuff for single junior enlisted).

-Using guard/reserves as a "brake" on major war commitments. If you don't like what your politicians are doing with the military, vote them out. Don't try to "rig" the military to be less flexible and responsive so as to further your own agenda long after you're gone.

The real problem with an all volunteer force is not the force itself, it's the reduction in military experience in the general population....which is the pool from which voters and elected officials are drawn.

Contractors are the biggest problem out there. Guaranteed that the military contractors are lobbying to keep these quagmires going. It's just too darn lucrative to quit now. A long but good read is No End In Sight, by Charles H. Ferguson. Nothing but interviews with the lowest grunt up to Rumsfeld. After reading this book, I am convinced that when the civilian leadership under Paul Bremer ( a puppet) took over from the Generals, the decisions that were made from then on we're made to throw the game, to create a quagmire. Why? Because quagmires are so lucrative for the defense industry.

The problem with voting civilian politicians out is that the only replacement choice you get is typically no better.

We need to eliminate the democracy and restore the checks and balances of the republic upon which this country was founded (which we really have no chance of doing either).

Until China (or whomever) overtakes us for global dominance, we're screwed. We will never make any headway against our military industrial complex as long as we are the top dog and have people afraid of what might happen if we are not.

The contractors I (and the article) was referring to are the specialty manpower providers who but hired boots on the ground, and did a boom business over the last decade. They are a minor line item as far as DoD spending goes, but the author feels their existence distorts the public perception of the military.

You're talking about the big military-industrial complex companies...that animal is what it is and has been for thousands of years. You can't defeat it (nor would you want to), you just have to fight constantly to reign it in.

They're out of control and controlling Washington. They use our troops to execute their business plans. They have used these quagmires to plunder the treasury.

..right now [our military] it is probably the only component of the federal government which could (if push came to shove) be relied upon to stand by the people rather than those shoveling...

Rick...I've heard this too and it concerns me. Either people don't trust their civil leaders (seems to be common place these days) and/or that Americans believe our good natured red, white, and blue small town military heroes will discern between civil leaders proper/improper use of the Insurrection Act to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act and then if they disagree will somehow stand by their civilian brothers/sisters. I have my doubts.

Some sort of check an balance is a MUST. The draft may work for the Army, but as for the AF our systems are too complex and training takes too long and costs to much get ready for conflict. The Guard and Reserves for all the ad-hoc ways of hacking the mission (and they do) frustrate AD military leaders but stand as our best way, at present, of retaining some sort of connection between the govt, military and civilian sectors and serve a that check to unrestricted conflict.

I also concur with the author that taxes are a HUGE check and balance. It will wake up America more than most options absent the draft. So conspiracy theories on this then go to who doesn't want America to wake up?

Why are we still in Afghanistan? Because there's no money in World Peace. Like deep throat said a long time ago, follow the money. How's Haliburton's earnings been these past 10+ years? And what about all the jobs at all the aircraft manufactures, shipyards, HumVee plants, etc.

Yeah...

Now, that said, imagine the mess we would be in if someone waved a magic wand and there was World Peace tomorrow and the Military Industrial Complex shut down, for good. Imagine the unemployment numbers, when half a million unemployed troops hit the streets.

So, where do you want your tax dollars to go, if you're one of the lucky ones, who still has a job in the World Peace Economy?

Option A; The Military Welfare system we have today, where your tax dollars go to training and educating kids that would otherwise be unemployed and smoking crack, and building all that military hardware that provides jobs at home as well.

Option B; The World Peace option, where your tax dollars go welfare benefits and to building more jails to house those unemployed kids when they get out of high school and have no training and no jobs.

There's a lot of money in war, obviously, that's why our politicians keep doing it. They need the reelection campaign contributions from the military industrial complex. But where would you rather have that money going? Would there even be any money, or jobs, if all the contractors were out of business? Where would all us military pilots get our free flight training to become tomorrow's Airline Pilots??

Pick up a copy of P.J. O'Rourke's "Peace Kills" and "Parliament of Wh0res". Great, fun, reading.

It's probably a bit of a stretch but how does 3025.12 come into play in relation to Posse Comitatus ?

3025.12 is simply the DoD directive that explains how DoD will comply with Posse Comitatus (which is complicated).

An instantaneous transition from our current military to zero military would have enormous economic consequences...but that's a theoretical discussion and won't happen.

There is a peace dividend to be gained by converting economic power from military to civil purposes, but if it happens quickly the transition involves pain.

If we do ramp down, odds are it will be slow enough to avoid economic catastrophe (if not some pain).

The post IZ/AF/GWOT drawdown will be somewhat limited, as resources will be refocused to the Western Pacific. Most of what's going away are junior ground troops and support equipment, which are not big-ticket military-industrial items. Not counting possible long-term sequestration effects...

people forget that the military... and defense contractors and OTHER companies that provide services to the military support hundreds of thousands ..nay...well north of a million well paying jobs in this country.

Anyone (besides me) in the Military back in 1992, when there was a massive BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) to help balance the budget? I was in the NH Air Guard up at Pease AFB, NH, when they pulled all the active duty KC135's and FB 111's out and closed the base. Within about 6 months, an entire shopping mall,many restraunts and 3 car dealerships just beyond the front gate all went out of business and the local housing prices tanked for then next 10 years.

The last manned fighter has already been built, so how many jobs will Drones provide? More, or less, than building manned fighters. Now multiply that job loss times all the other supply chains used to supply the US Military with men and equipment, and see what you get. Massive unemployment is what you get. So yeah, the transition is going to be painful. Many people lose sight of that.

Many of those jobs that will be lost, are in the high tech industry. Without Government Contracts requiring and paying for tech development, to keep us ahead of China's military, who's going to pay for it? We've already given China and India most of our low tech manufacturing jobs, I guess we can outsource our high tech and military jobs to them too...what could go wrong?

But fundamentally all that economic gain is a command performance, paid for by taxes. I think the local pain of a few mom-and-pops going out of business pales in comparison to the potential greater gain.

All of that economic capacity, converted to civilian use, will contribute to an improved economy, higher per capita GDP, and better QOL. Bases, runways, warships, tanks, fighters, and guns are things you have to have when you need them, and they have a cost. But if you don't need them, they don't contribute to QOL...those resources applied to civil housing, infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc have a potential for significant QOL improvement.

There are some management issues...

-First and foremost, you can't get rid of military capability unless you truly no longer need it. This requires a national discourse because "need" is a subjective sliding scale: global cop, defense of select allies, homeland defense...where do we want/need to be? If you guess wrong, the result could be regional or even global instability with enormous economic consequences (and not the good kind). While I'm pointing out the benefits of transitioning defense economic capacity to civil focus, I'm not advocating that we do so lightly or carelessly.

-The transition, if not paced and controlled, will cause temporary pain. Us older guys saw that in the early 90's...but we also saw the subsequent economic boom a few years later.

-Defense spending emphasizes high-tech, R&D, and education. If you allow those to fall by the wayside during a transition to a civil economy, you will pay a big price...maybe bigger than the peace dividend you seek in the first place. But that can managed.

Well said...if we talk about spending its not an A or B discussion. It's a matter if how best to wean the DoD and Military Industry from the crack pipe. We need a common defense and it must be credible (robust and the will to use it). But DoD and Industry have to come down out of the clouds and get back to spending with in the annual budget. Supplemental appropriations have been padded a long time now and we need to continue the on going efforts to determine and fund requirements/needs. If we intend to continue to compete globally (beyond military industry) then investment in other sectors is require for economic sustainment.

Read the previous responses, we need to get off the military spending crack pipe. There are civil equivalents to these "economy-boosting" targeted expenditures that produce recoupable resource value. Waste production (war capacity) is generally not recoupable, unless you wish to export your new guns to your enemy (wouldn't be particularly wise).

BL, you don't torch the ground in order to keep people employed. That's effectively what an economy sustained by war capacity appropriations does in the long term. Our DOD spending, along with our social entitlements, are bogging down the economic labor value of our proletariat.

We agree the government is an integral part of directing economic efforts; some of the posters here are merely saying the MIC doesn't have to be the conduit. As a servicemember I happen to agree with that assertion. Crazy right? :rolleyes:

I'd be careful about the cause/effect relationship with this. Military spending as a portion of GDP has actually declined since Vietnam, even with the Reagan build-up and the GWOT:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...10_to_2007.png

File:US defense spending by GDP percentage 1910 to 2007.png - Wikimedia Commons

The break-up of the Eastern Bloc/Iron Curtain and the new markets that blossomed there and in the USSR former client states, along with the ramp-up of trade with China, along with the "gridlock" of a GOP Congress/Senate and a Dem President all contributed to the 90's boom. To name any single stream as having the primary influence is difficult to substantiate.

I'm not saying that the cold-war drawdown was the cause of the 90's boom, it's probably too complicated to even know for certain how much of an impact it had. I used the word "subsequent", not "resultant", for a reason. But that drawdown, after some initial adjustment pain, didn't hurt the boom either. That's the point I'm making...there are valid reasons to assess and adjust defense spending, but fear of short-term economic pain in a few sectors or locales is not a good one.

Also your graph is very hard to reference since there are two variables, and a change in either one moves the plot...can't tell (other than historical context) whether any given change is in defense spending or GDP, or both.

What?

Filler

I agree with your statement here. My point is only that expecting any subsequent stimulus in the economy is not probable. The money saved will not be returned to the taxpayer. More likely it will go to unnecessary programs that kill individual initiative and responsibility in favor of dependency on government (to use just one possible redirect of the spending).

^^^^^Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!

Well that's a possibility.