SWJ Editors:

Ref your comments on the "21 Aug SWJ Roundup" concerning the short Time piece by Mark Thompson on the implications of the recent Russian attack into Georgia for US Defense policy.

You said:

"Okay, agreed. Got it. No one here argues against the need for "full-spectrum" capabilities - we just get nervous about any talk of jumping on the way-back machine to the good ole days of fighting the two up, one back, enemy in the Fulda Gap."

I submit that none of us who have voiced concerns that the US has become too heavily focused on Coin to the detriment of our conventional fighting capabilities has called for a return to, as you put it, the "good ole days."

I think it is incorrect to infer when somebody says that tanks and mechanized infantry are still relevant in light of recent Russian operations in Georgia that they by default want to enter Rufus's telephone booth time machine and go back to 1986 to prepare to fight the ruskies in the Fulda Gap.

Instead "full spectrum" capabilities means just that and in a modern sense with an eye toward the security environment of the future. But to achieve balance means to make some hard choices about priorities and organizational structures based on a realistic assessment of where the American Army is today and where it needs to be in the future, NOT the past.

thanks

gian

Thanks Gian - I'll move your name over to the "gets it" column - in pencil. I fully understand the implications of full-spectrum as you do. Not everyone does. I think we agree more than you acknowledge. That said, I'll remain concerned until fully satisfied we can operate in a future COIN environment without reinventing the wheel at cost of national resources and capital. - Dave

Dear Dave:

Fair enough and well said. Agree that we do agree on the important aspects of national defense. After all we are both American patriots who place duty first.

your friend

gian

Speaking of “overarching” news articles, have you noticed the rash of quotations supposedly from George Kennan to the effect that ‘Russia can have on its borders only vassals or enemies’? Google returned 15,800 hits for this sentence, but none took me back to Mr Kennan. See my musings on how this sentiment has become this week's conventional wisdom. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

After reading Gian's latest (on the early bird, I believe) on Georgia and his ongoing effort to keep the land forces piece balanced, I felt compelled to contact him. This forum seems apropos.
At any rate, I would offer that the curriculum at the Command and General Staff College still expends a considerable amount of time on conventional warfare. After all, the scenario we use is from the Causcasus (although focused on notional enemies to the south). The capstone for this scenario has always been a conventional combined arms fight. General Petreaus did TRY to have us address more irregular/unconventional/guerilla warfare in the curriculum...but the pendulum seems to have swung back and continues to swing back. If it could stop I would say that an appropriate balance has been achieved. It's a dynamic world but educating military professionals seems to lend itself to retrenchment in the curricula. We need to fight that...constantly. I teach military history and about 25-30% of what I teach has to do with counterinsurgency. Our tactics department teaches much less than that.
best, John Kuehn