Small Wars Journal

SWC Discussion: The Best Trained, Most Professional Military... Just Lost Two Wars?

Tue, 10/30/2012 - 3:23pm

Small Wars Council discussion: The Best Trained, Most Professional Military... Just Lost Two Wars? Register, and have at it, professionally of course.

Comments

carl

Tue, 10/30/2012 - 7:33pm

In reply to by Bill C.

That seems always to be the first reaction to this, long thoughts on what the words losing and winning really mean. What they mean or don't in this or that situation has little to do with the primary point, which is described below.

Define "losing." Tell me what "losing" looks like.

For example: Little or no viable and sustainable progress made in (1) transforming the state and society along modern western lines and in (2) soundly defeating those who do not wish to see such a transformation take place?

Another "losing" example: Population as a whole -- and hard-core conservatives/status quo anti types especially -- have not been successfully coerced and/or convinced into believing that the transformation of their state and society (along modern western lines) is in their best interests.

Define "winning." Tell me what "winning" looks like.

For example: Viable and sustainable progress made in transforming the state and society along modern western lines -- and in defeating those who do not wish to see such a state and societal transformation take place?

Another "winning" example: Population as a whole -- and even many hard-bitten conservatives/status quo anti types -- have been successfully coerced and/or convinced into believing that the transformation of their state and society (along modern western lines) is in their best interests (and, if not in their best interests, then certainly something that they cannot hope to avoid or overcome).

Thus, what military force is needed to (a) avoid "losing" and (b) achieve "winning" along these lines?

Based on on the above criteria, have we "lost" -- or "won" -- these last two wars? Or is it too early to tell?

Ken White

Fri, 11/02/2012 - 10:44pm

In reply to by carl

Carl:<blockquote>"...you say "Isn't reality annoying...". I'd say it is more disappointing."</blockquote>Yeah. It is. To all of us -- but it's even worse for those that have to live with that particular reality day in and day out....

carl

Fri, 11/02/2012 - 8:13pm

In reply to by Ken White

Ken:

Your statement "It wasn't intended to shut you up, merely to illustrate to the world that you don't understand all you think you know about what's wrong and how to fix it -- as you acknowledged. ;)"

So that's why you asked the question. Ohhhh.

You are almost right when you say "Isn't reality annoying...". I'd say it is more disappointing.

Ken White

Fri, 11/02/2012 - 1:27am

In reply to by carl

Carl:

In this case, your statement<blockquote>"Or maybe I won't because that 'question' is a variation of the 'if you don't know how to fix it, shut up' device that is meant to shut people up.</blockquote> Is about what I expected in reply but yet again you guessed wrong. It wasn't intended to shut you up, merely to illustrate to the world that you don't understand all you think you know about what's wrong and how to fix it -- as you acknowledged. ;)

That and to highlight those logical inconsistencies that you contend are not such. You may be correct, they're more nearly illogical consistencies. I asked "<i>Second question. If the breakout from Normandy doesn't count anymore, why do the Yeoman archers of England count?"</i> Your response includes this:<blockquote>"-that is a logical inconsistency. Wait a second...no it's not."</blockquote>True, it isn't -- nor did I say or imply that it was, I asked why one historical event could be discounted and a historical group was of consequence when neither has any real bearing on the issue. Just seemed sort of illogical to me.

You are indeed consistent. For example:<blockquote>"...yes the gov got snookered and yes the multi-star part of the military that was involved in the area (paging Mr. Mullen, paging Mr. Mullen) got snookered also and to as great a degree."</blockquote>I submit that is your opinion stated as fact. It may or may not be correct but as written it is what you wish to believe not the fact you impute. You're certainly entitled to believe what you wish but as Ol' Pat Moynihan said, "You are not entitled to your own facts." I doubt that it is true, certainly not to the extent you seem to believe but the real fact is that neither of us knows for certain. It's totally academic in any event, we are where we are.

That, apparently is far from where you wish we were. Isn't reality annoying...

carl

Thu, 11/01/2012 - 11:03pm

In reply to by Ken White

Ken:

I know I'm not supposed to answer a question with a question but I am going to anyway. So If Bob Feller had such a great fastball how come guys were able to hit it? You'll notice I said "gets in the way", not 'absolutely prevents under all circumstances all people from seeing at all times even when they are wearing their glasses'.

The Cs identified the problem, blind boosterism getting in the way of seeing problems. I can't take credit for that, I just think they're right. As for the solution, stop being a blind booster.

As for your grandmother's words (I don't remember my grandmother saying much except don't run in the house with your winter coat on because you'll catch cold. I never did understand that.), I am an idiot. I don't claim to know how to fix the structure of a aircraft design that has proved itself faulty by breaking up in flight a lot. But I would reserve the right to say there is something wrong with it.

For your second question, you've caught me in a logical inconsistency. When I said somebody considering fighting us in the near or immediate future isn't going to consider Normandy, they are going to consider our actions over the last decade on the one hand; vs. saying that if you want to call our military the best in history you have to include the Yeoman archers of England in the comparison on the other hand-that is a logical inconsistency. Wait a second...no it's not.

For your third question, yes the gov got snookered and yes the multi-star part of the military that was involved in the area (paging Mr. Mullen, paging Mr. Mullen) got snookered also and to as great a degree.

For your fourth question, Yes I have evidence that other people agree with my assessment, Pundita for one. Just read what she writes. My brother agrees with me too.

For your fifth question, let me go to the library, get on the phone, buy a new computer so I can read rather a lot of SWJ material, make a special category of deficiencies pointed out by some of the more respected members and participants of SWJ and I'll get back to you in a few years. Or maybe I won't because that 'question' is a variation of the 'if you don't know how to fix it, shut up' device that is meant to shut people up.

Ken White

Thu, 11/01/2012 - 12:33am

In reply to by carl

Carl:

I have some questions.

Question. If you and the <i>On Violence</i> writer are correct, then <b>Hawkeye</b> wouldn't have been able to cite the issues in his 3d, 4th and 5th paragraphs, would he? Obviously since you think they're valid, there are those who see past McCain's admittedly hyperbolic statement and are not only seeing the problems but are concerned with fixing them.

As my old Grandmother used to say, "Any idiot can identify a problem, that's easy. Finding the solution is the hard part." You two contend you have identified a problem. I have yet to see a proffered solution that addresses the real issues and not just some symptoms -- and make no mistake, the 'culture' is a symptom, not a problem. Thus I ask, what are your proposed achievable solutions to address the problems you see?

Second question. If the breakout from Normandy doesn't count anymore, why do the Yeoman archers of England count?

Third question. You write, below:<blockquote>"...they are going to tell each other how those bozo Americans got snookered by the Pak Army/ISI for years and they still haven't caught on. They will plan their actions on how we've done lately, and there are a lot of things we ain't done so well."</blockquote>A three parter; are the US Armed Forces are guilty of being snookered by the Army of Pakistan and ISI <i>OR</i> has the government of the US for its own purposes entered with at least some knowledge of the snooker effect into what may or may not eventually prove to be a bad deal? Do you have evidence that other observers will agree with your assessment on that issue or is that mere speculation on your part? What specifically has the Army, the subject of the article that started this thread, not done well in your estimation and what would you recommend to remedy those shortfalls?

carl

Thu, 11/01/2012 - 11:30pm

In reply to by Bill M.

It don't think it matters much what we think we shouldn't have done. I think those potential adversaries are going to see what we did, FOBs, Green Beans Coffee stands and mostly overburdened infantry.

Nor do I think our opponents will remember what the military did to Japan or Desert Storm. An lot of them don't know history so good for one thing and for the other thing, that capability doesn't exist anymore so it can't deter anybody. I don't see why future enemies wouldn't plan off something that is regional specific if seems to show a basic tendency and if something goes on for over a decade, it shows a basic tendency. I think it is a military decision for the multi-stars to get snookered, they are military and they make the decision to get snookered.

I concur with the broad sentiment of your third paragraph. But I do think it matters to the long term security of the US if we prevail or not in Afghanistan. It matters if you say you'll stand by somebody and you don't. It matters if you get beat by clowns like the Pak Army/ISI and give them money to beat you with. Potential opponents and allies notice.

The point of this whole thing, one that I agree with, is that blind boosterism gets in the way of seeing faults, and you can't fix what you can't see. That's all. That's it. I am not saying we are the worst ever nor do I think we are the best ever. Rah Rah tends to make one blind to faults. You aren't Rah Rah and you ain't blind to the faults. Would that all were like that.

Bill M.

Thu, 11/01/2012 - 3:35am

In reply to by carl

Carl,

Many in the last administration and most now agree OIF and OEF-A strategies were an aberration and they are to be avoided in the future. Read the Defense Strategic Guidance published in January 12 it clearly states we should avoid these situation when we can, and we could have in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The military achieved its military objectives early in both conflicts, the politicans then decided to create mirror democracies and free markets that would forever prevent terrorists from returning. Even if we achieved that if wouldn't have worked, and the mission wasn't achievable to begin with. Of course the COINdistas are going to cast blame upon the military for failing to adapt to this doctrine that came to us from heaven.

Our opponents do and will remember what are military did to Japan and what we did to Iraq during Desert Storm. I hope you honestly don't believe that our enemies don't see that capability as a deterrent? Of course they would love to see us drug into a quagmire, but 9 out of 10 times we can avoid that by scoping our operational objectives to what is realistically obtainable. You're darn right were were and continue to be snookered by the Pak Army/ISI, and that isn't a military decision, but future enemies won't plan their actions off of something that is regional specific. They will definitely look for ways to mitigate our military superiority, which means we also need to be strategically superior.

The military isn't above criticism, and for one I welcome the criticism from the media because it does drive fixes; however, as Ken has pointed out in some cases it drives the wrong changes such as the MRAPs. The bottom line and this is painful for me also is it doesn't matter to the security of the US if we prevail against the insurgency or not in Afghanistan, but it matters very much from a humanitarian view to many of the Afghan people. It does matter very much to our national interests if we can't defend our nation against a wide array of threats, or if we get defeated in battle by a state actor. That is strategic, and the risk associated with these failures is much higher than our ability to be successful at COIN.

Taking it a step further, Special Forces prior to 9/11 and in many parts of the world now outside of Afghanistan have been and continue to be very effective at FID. FID is strategically successful when the HN government not only improves its security forces but improves its ability to address the concerns of its people. If they don't then our support normally won't work, and again that isn't a military failure.

We have a lot of shortfalls, but we're not near as bad as you're making us out to be. We also welcome the criticism so we can fix problems, but we need constructive criticism, what is really broken?

You can start with micromanagement, but then what?

major.rod

Mon, 11/05/2012 - 5:51am

In reply to by Bill C.

Bill - Your last two posts were awesome. If the military has a problem let's fix it. If the problem is bad national leadership/decisions no Army is going to fix that unless there's a coup. Micromanagment enabled by technology (UAVs and e-mail in my opinion) is a scourge. I also believe Army Special Forces being directed/focused (with no complaint) on direct action hurt us big time. Conventional Infantry aren't the best trainers of a foreign military.

Love your "COINdistas" term.

Bill C.

Wed, 10/31/2012 - 10:40am

In reply to by carl

Carl:

Do you believe that the tumens of Genghis Kahn, the yeoman archers of England, the Legions of any number of eras, the Army of the Cumberland and the Army of the Tennessee circa 1865, Nelson's Royal Navy, etc., etc., etc. -- given the same restraints/constraints and the same requirements that our military has had to work with -- would done a better job in modern-day Iraq and/or Afghanistan?

I do not.

Given the same requirements and the same restraints/constraints as our military, it is likely that these other Armies/Navies/militaries you mention above would have done a much worse job/would not have done as well as we have.

Thus, if the problem does not lie with any particular Army/military (yesterday's or today's), then where does the problem lie and what, actually, needs to get addressed/fixed?

carl

Wed, 10/31/2012 - 4:12am

In reply to by Bill M.

Sorry Bill, I can't "get over it", especially not Sen McCain's comment. He said in history, which would put us up against the tumens of Genghis Khan, the yeoman archers of England when they were ripping up the French, the Legions of any number of eras, the Army of the Cumberland and the Army of the Tennessee circa 1865, Nelson's Royal Navy and on and on and on. Statements like Sen McCain's are just unthinking bluster. This isn't an argument about sports teams, whose better? etc. There is no way to actually know that short of battle anyway. It is about blind boosterism getting in the way of improving the faults we have now. And talking about the faults we have now has not much to with what the Army managed to do post Vietnam, 30 years ago, nor does it dishonor that accomplishment. This is about how dopey 'We're Number 1 in history!' statements get in the way of seeing the faults we have now.

If you want to say the US military was the greatest institution for good in the 20th Century, I think you have a pretty solid argument. But in history-I don't know about that. It is a lot more fun for some people to say 'in history' but that isn't real good thinking.

OIF and OEF-A may or may not be aberrations in American military history, but when evaluating things for the immediate and near future, they are the norm. What we did after breaking out of the beachhead in Normandy doesn't count anymore (and I think we should stop reminding the French about WWII already...where was I?). Our potential opponents, whomever they might be, aren't going remind each other about how the USN battered Imperial Japan at will in 1945; they are going to tell each other how those bozo Americans got snookered by the Pak Army/ISI for years and they still haven't caught on. They will plan their actions on how we've done lately, and there are a lot of things we ain't done so well.

Bill M.

Wed, 10/31/2012 - 2:45am

In reply to by carl

Carl,

Get over it. Sen McCain's comments are not off track, and it was a long path to get to this point led by the Vietnam vets who were not disgruntled. I spent over 30 years in the ranks and I saw a signficant transformation and professionalization of the force, albeit with some significant faults, but relative to the number of other Armies I worked with they were relatively minor (again relatively). Despite our faults, who is better? Make that point, then you may have a valid argument, if you can't then you can't refute Sen McCain's claim. He didn't say we couldn't or shouldn't be better.

I also think this statement is correct:

"We consider the US military the greatest institution for good that has ever existed. No other organization has freed more people from oppression, done more humanitarian work or rescued more from natural disasters. We want that to continue."

Who led the liberation of numerous nations from the Nazi's and Japanese Imperial Army? What military led the liberation of Kuwait? What other military could? What military provides massive humanitarian aid that saved tens of thousands after the Christmas 04 Tsunami, major earthquakes around the world to include in Pakistan? What other military could?

We have lots of shortcomings, but more so than any corporation or other military we attempt to fix our shortfalls. OIF and OEF-A are aberrations, and definitely not the only missions I would use to evaluate the military. You need to look at more holistically and in a wider context. It may turn out when the dust settles that Bush's different form of war for both Iraq and Afghanistan was deeply flawed and the objectives we're not obtainable via military means to begin with, even if we were better population huggers (and most would agree with you, as would I, we failed to effectively engage the population initially which didn't help).

Eventually our leaders, not civilians who are influenced by the latest media buzz need to determine what they want our military to be capable of. I suspect they'll determine that 10 plus years of occupation and nation building missions aren't really in the national interest when it is assessed objectively.

carl

Tue, 10/30/2012 - 6:00pm

In reply to by Hawkeye

Hawkeye:

The On Violence blog post that started the discussion was about statements like this one from Sen McCain "We have the highest trained, most professional, best military in history.” getting in the way of seeing and dealing with problems such as you've outlined in your 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs. In other words, the US military isn’t nearly so good as it is cracked up to be and blind boosterism gets in the way of seeing that and you can’t fix what you don’t see.

Lets hope the thousands of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan don't get the news that the war is over and they lost. They might start to wonder why they are still there....

But for the sake of discussion lets talk about The United States Military's inability to wage effective counterinsurgency. (I will try to leave out effects of political decisions. I will however, quickly note, that these political ramifications play out hugely on the battlefield)

Let me share some thoughts on our primary weapon, the rifle platoon. The average age is, was and will always be 19. A platoon leader will have less than 3 years experience. Only one member, the plt sgt, will have on average more than 8 or 9 years experience. Team leaders and squad leaders primary advantage is having done battle drill 1A enough times to know how to put their privates in the right order.

With the natural rotation of most soldiers cycling through their 3 year contracts, it is nearly impossible to train a rifle platoon beyond 3-21.8. Hopefully the PL and some of the NCO's will have an understanding of SH 21-76. The senior NCO's and Officers across the Company and Battalion should have an understanding of 3-24 and 3-24.2. Thats the best your can expect, and its what is generally deployed right now.

Counterinsurgency takes great skill, maturity, and training. The training required to operate proficiently at that level is beyond what you can give to a light infantry battalion with and average age of 19 and an average time in the army of less than 3 years.

We also can't correctly define our enemy. Terrorist? Insurgent? Terrorism is a means to an end. It is a method, a tactic. Insurgents uses terrorism to further their political movement. Calling someone a terrorist is like calling them a flanking maneuver. And to have entire anti-terrorist units. How can you combat a tactic?!?!?!? We will never stop individuals or groups from using terrorism just as we won't ever stop soldiers from laying down a base of machine gun fire prior to maneuvering. Its misdirected effort.

FM 3-24 is based largely on ideas generated from Galula. Today's insurgents aren't the same as those from the 1950's. The classical Counterinsurgency method isn't geared to face our current threats. The role that transnational militants play is larger that ever. We also have groups like Al-Qaeda, this threat is first of its kind. It is an Islamic insurgent movement without a nation, it is transnational. Al-Qaeda is a global insurgency.

We are fighting it everywhere, its successfully injected itself into virtually anywhere anywhere Muslims are poor, under-educated and under-represented in government. Its provides a compelling narrative which gains traction and then whatever populace they slithered into is now in the cross hairs of our GWOT. (Yemen, Niger, Somalia, etc.)

Ugh, I've digressed...