How Do You Solve a Problem Like Russia?

Dave—a really timely article and here was my response to another topic which fits into the author’s comments.

What is interesting is your article on MONTR as it goes to the heart of current failure– if there is a strategy towards Russia and it goes back to your comments a number of times on unconventional warfare and now political warfare and how the two can coexist and even comingle.

If we had not 13 years of war and had not USASF been so focused on that war and had indeed built a UW capability based on the previous years of UW experience of Company A 10th SFGA and Det A the current WH could have inserted any number of ground teams to assist the Ukrainian military under the current NATO/Ukraine agreements as well as the deep cooperation by the Ukrainian military in the GWOT.

Interfax press releases flipped out this weekend when it was being rumored the CIA Chief was on the ground in the Ukraine—what would have the responses been if in fact via actual training events USASF teams had been on the ground all under the auspices of NATO.

Here is a good example of a lack of a strategy—if in fact buzzed 12 times why was the aircraft not illuminated via radiation to signal the ships’ displeasure? The BMD destroy is a strong signal to Russia but then buzzing is what just an accepted practice–kind of deters from the BMD message being sent.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/14/us-usa-russia-blacksea-idUSBREA3D15Q20140414

Ned—Madhu has hit it on the head–there is absolutely not a single/no strategy coming out of the WH–example—the EU sanctions were reported in a Berlin newspaper today to have frozen exactly one single account—that must have really hurt Russia. Example—What has the US sanctions achieved if viewed against the actions in eastern Ukraine starting this weekend—absolutely zip, zero, nada, nothing and the sanctions were to “cost” Russia —that is suppose to impress Putin—evidently it has not? I guess the “cost” statement was just another “red line in the sand” statement—all words but no actions.

If one is supposedly a superpower in a unipolar world –bluffing and hope are not strategies.

As a private person I could list four items that will get immediate Russian attention and not involve military actions or troop movements–so if I can do that as a private citizen then where is the WH in their thinking and actions.

If the US does not lead in this critical moment in the 21st century then hang it up and Europe will turn from the US which is actually something Putin has been doing with the Ukrainian crisis.

Germany has basically walked away from the Ukraine and is not even via Merkel saying anything—some statements today from lower ranking but not from her personally—you have noticed a distinct lack of anyone from the EU visiting in the last week and even Biden is not scheduled until after the so called meeting of the 4.

The WSJ had an article in their Opinion comments that was highly critical of the US and the EU towards their non actions in support of the Ukraine.

Russia today via Interfax virtually threatened the eastern flank of NATO by saying if troops are send there Russia will be forced to counter and the assumption was militarily.

18:21 Russia to take measures in case NATO force configuration changes – Grushko (Part 2)

Some of my comments here were echoed as well in a very good article linked below which was released in the Kiev Post today and comes from an author out of DC. It is really a telling article.

http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/anders-aslund-putin-needs-victory-343466.html

Reference the NSA—in over 12 videos being published today by proRussian eastern Ukraine supporters there is virtually always a cellphone being used in the middle of the event—based on Snowden’s releases one would assume the NSA had everything being monitored–why not release to the world the conversations—no—-why not provide just basic intel to the Ukrainians on Russian troop concentrations–again a no—Breedlove had to resort to Digital Global to release open source photos.

Does this sound like a US government that has a strategy?

Some of these comments sadly parallel the appeasement talk of early WWII. Madhu’s comments are particularly telling insofar as the dollars often wasted in the medical community where she probably makes nearly 1/3 of a million $ most likely is one dollar in every six of the U.S. economy’s GDP. In contrast, the amount spent on defense is about one dollar in every 21. Shall we compare which sector contributes most to the annual deficit?

I offer the following response made to an earlier “Slow-Motion Coup” SWJ article quoting Eisenhower’s famous “military-industrial complex” speech. Read the facts and decide if we really are a more militaristic nation today. Then I invite Madhu to perform an inflation comparison of doctor pay and patient/insurance costs to include the government’s portion thereof between 1960 and today. My strong wager is that the military is using and wasting far less of our inflation-adjusted tax dollars relative to GDP today than the medical community:

Are President Eisenhower’s admonitions more true today than in years past? If that is the case how do you explain these figures from the following link:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

Service: Army……Air Force……Navy……Marines
1955:..1,109,296..959,946….660,695….205,170
1960:…873,078…814,752….616,987…170,621
1965:…969,066…824,662…669,985…190,213
1970:…1,322,548..791,349…691,126…259,737
1975:…784,333….612,751….535,025….195,951
2013:…490,000…329,000…285,000….182,000

If that is militarism, why is the military scheduled to be so small during a time of war with other conflicts potentially looming. Even as U.S. Servicemembers were fighting two wars, today’s active Armed Forces were a fraction of the size of Eisenhower’s non-war years, forcing many reserve component troops to deploy.

Scores of past Presidents and Congressmen over many decades had military experiences like President Eisenhower giving them an informed capacity to keep the military in check. With that trend lessened by a far smaller volunteer military, few legislative and executive leaders have military service. Civilian leaders who are clueless about the military are not a great argument for reduced military influence in how to employ the military. There remains no clear evidence that state department officials, NGOs, the UN and similar civil influence could end problems and operate securely outside major cities in war-torn lands. Past ambassador decisions have been just as problematic as those of military leaders, with both learning on the fly.

If ‘small wars’ are the most likely circumstance for the future of conflict, these, of necessity, require ‘small’ responses. Not just an appropriate force structure but a support establishment short of the scale and scope of the current Department of Defense with all its rococo embellishments. There is a need for specialized, scaled components specific to the need and not large, general purpose forces.

Small initial responses in Afghanistan led to at least a 13 year war with inadequate resources for wide area security. This was driven by an Army far smaller than in the past which meant that split war efforts required extensive Soldier deployment pain of 12-15 months for most of OIF and OEF. USAF aerial refuelers deploy for 2 months and most USAF tours are 6 months. Compare that to the new policy that has the Army deploying for 9 months without a mid-tour leave, and a major discrepancy exists in the sacrifices we ask ground troops to endure for the same or less (flight) pay.

Deployment duration is a function of force size available. Even Marines have just 7 month tours. In Eisenhower’s 1955 and 1960, the Marines were 1/5th the size of the Army. Today, that number is more than 1/3rd of the Army’s size and A2/AD strategies render forcible entry from the sea a less than viable tactic or strategy. Given such typically short USAF, Marine, and Navy tours, and the propensity for continued flying in the civil sector, coupled with stateside operation of Remotely Piloted Aircraft, you would believe that all services that fly fixed wing aircraft could have a far larger reserve flying component.

In addition, many world Armies are as large or larger than our own. That isn’t the case for the world’s Navies and Air Forces. Adversary populations and Armies live and hide on the land, far from the reach and targeting eyes of the air or sea. Our abhorrence to committing collateral damage increases threat likelihood of hugging civilians, both their own and those of invaded nations, thus rendering less effective the reach of airpower.

Underground and mobile systems, typical of China, Russia, North Korea, Hezbollah, and Iran also shield threat systems from our easy detection and air attack. Abstract concepts such as the Global Commons are somewhat irrelevant when billions live far inland and only one nation has a substantial blue water Navy. The closest second place Naval threat has no reason to obstruct the Global Commons that are the lifeblood of their own trade.

Mr. Olson makes this interesting observation in his fourth footnote:

A return to isolation was not an option. Engagement was not the result of a motive for hegemony, the way many now read it, but a sense, based on some experience, that failure to engage now meant having to engage later when things were even worse and harder to deal with.

This was referring to U.S. entry into the long Cold War following WWII. Many would submit that it applies equally to U.S. engagement of terrorism most represented by Jihadists. With so many worldwide Muslims, and no U.S. intent to withdraw support for Israel, we can expect Islamic terror will continue all around the world whether we engage or not. Some say our engagement causes the problem. Others can claim with legitimacy that terror unaddressed is terror that increases both in amount and effectiveness. WMD proliferation brings new meaning to the idea of hybrid warfare.

As the recent attack of a Pakistani air base and past attack on a Navy facility thought to contain Pakistani nuclear weapons illustrate, extremists without a Jihadist diversion against armed international forces demonstrating resolve, are extremists able to focus more efforts obtaining and using WMD on innocent civilians in Europe, the U.S., Asia, and Israel. When extremists are unafraid to die, advocate suicide attacks, and are eager to impose Sharia law, their extremism is hardly deterred by the prospect of international community retaliatory strikes that could return their homeland to the stone age…condition not altogether unlike their current aspirations for how their people should live.

Drone attacks and limited use of GPF and SOF are a preferable solution when the resulting casualties, both military and civilian on both sides of the conflict, are a fraction of those ignorantly considered acceptable in past conflicts. In Afghanistan, despite a decade of efforts of varying emphasis, U.S. casualties remain fewer than those of 9/11. Others argue that we are spending too much treasure in addition to blood. In his famous speech, Eisenhower said this:

We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Today, just the top 25 corporations paying the highest tax rates according to Forbes, generated over $364 billion in net income in 2011. Imagine the net income of the rest of the Forbes 500. Lockheed Martin, our nation’s largest defense contractor had only $3 billion in net income in 2011 compared to Exxon Mobil’s $41 billion, Chevron’s $27 billion, Apple’s $33 billion, Microsoft’s $23.5 billion, GM’s $20 billion, and Wells Fargo/IBM/G.E.’s 15.9 billion, and Wal-Mart’s $15.7 billion. LockMart received only 7% of Pentagon spending as the largest defense contractor employing 123,000 direct employees and countless indirect who enjoy the spending of their employees.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/which-megacorps…

So as we consider Eisenhower’s words, ensure that we place them in the current context of a larger world market with expanded economic interdependencies. Two of the biggest players in this economic market are Japan and Germany, past U.S. foes that we helped to rebuild following major wars. That investment has paid off insofar as these nations alone create substantial manufacturing jobs within the U.S.

In other rural areas, Servicemember spending is a hefty portion of many local economies creating many middle class jobs and providing training, education, and experiences that translate to the civil sector. Many of these Army jobs are in areas that otherwise would languish due to the lack of other civil sector opportunities. Also, many defense contractor jobs are the last vestige of science, technology, engineering, and math jobs. Defense procurement manufacturing jobs are not as likely to be sent overseas as other low skill non-defense manufacturing. Yet these same jobs also produce high dollar exports such as the F-35 fighter.

When Exxon Mobil had to pay an effective rate of 42% on its $41 billion net income, surely we can ask our nation’s wealthiest to pay a higher effective rate than the 13% that Presidential candidate Romney recently revealed. Recall that when Eisenhower made his famous speech and from 1950 through 1963, the marginal tax rate on the highest earners was 91% of the upper portions of their income. It was 70% or higher from 1964 through 1980, and 50% through 1986. The problem isn’t the military industrial complex, it is a portion of the conservative sector that refuses to make the wealthiest amongst us pay adequately for our nation’s defense.

Outlaw-09, Carl and MoveForward,

Beautifully stated. I hated the Viet Nam war; what I did not realize at the time was that that quagmire was not a military blunder or defeat but a failure of civilian leadership with consequences visited on the military.

Yes, we civilians have broken the trust with you in the military; my younger brothers and sisters in uniform are not the clean up crew / hired help of civilian leadership to bail it out of poor policy-making.

I salute you service to my country,
Ned McDonnell.
P.S. The articles that are posted on both sides are fascinating. Thank you.