A Military Discussion:

[frigidmagi]

With 8 minutes to go before Veterans Day is gone and the Marine Birthday behind me I have a thought on my mind.

It has to do with military structure and organization, or more bluntly how big a military is and what it is set up to do. That all hangs on a single question, what do you want the military to do?

So I'm gonna ask, just as a thought experiment. Don't worry about being expert or smart enough here, just chew this over for an hour or two and give me a serious simple answer. I'm mostly asking US citizens here but if you're from another country (like certain felines) please feel free to pitch in anyways.

Ladies and Gentlemen, what do you want the US military to be able to do?

[Hotfoot]

Defend the nation and it's people. To that end, we should have it geared towards fighting the wars of this new era.

Of course, we've talked on this before, and I agree, we should still be able to fight the wars that might happen, but so long as our Navy and Air Force are the deterrent they are, we're not likely to have an attack on US Soil any time soon. If the last 60 years have shown me anything, it's that we are in the age of asymmetrical warfare. If China does start a war, it seems unlikely that they'll do anything direct, and that we would have to deal with intermediaries rather than a headfirst fight. If they did start a full-scale war, we would probably need to reinstate the draft.

There should be a focus in the Army and Marines for dealing with the new breed of warfare. Marines go in and bust them up, Army comes in and stabilizes the area. To that end, Army and Marines gets more ability for close air support. A-10's, drones, etc. Maybe even some AWACs. Air Force can suck it. They want zoomers, they can have zoomers. Let them have air superiority.

As far as procurement, let's see some new body armor, APCs, drones, infantry-scale weapons, and so on. I'd call for 6.8mm, but only in a perfect world. I'll leave how the military procures things alone since that's not what you asked and I've probably gone too far off topic already.

[Norseman]

I want the US military to be able to stop unspecified countries from invading Norway. Not a very great aim, but then again I'm rather biased. Maintaining the freedom of the seas come a close second, from my own biased PoV.

[Steve]

The military as a whole should protect the nation from existing and potential threats, foreign and domestic. Second, the future of the world is going to see the US Military as a police baton as often as it's a weapon of war and our officers and armed personnel should be trained in a way to permit them to perform this function where necessary.

[SirNitram]

I am posting this because I was forced by a Marine. He nagged me.

The problem is, I don't know what I want the military to do. Going rampaging through Iraq for someone's ego trip is obviously on the no-list. On the other hand, I do want to be able to defend the country and drop a hammer on groups that are directly involved in attacks on us and being able to defend our allies.

And yes, soppy liberal I am, I do want us to put some of the sheer machine we have, the sheer shipping and logistics we have, to work on disasters.

But chief among all this, I don't think I'm the right person to make big decisions on this. This is why most of my recent gripes on the military budgets are either eternal drawing-board nonsense, or stuff the pentagon or branch outright says 'Don't want it'.

[Dark Silver]

Hard to say, considering the spanse of the world political stage now adays, To say I want the Military to do any one thing, would probably leave us deficient in any number of ways.

In fact, I like to think I'm probably one of the least qualified people on the plane to make a decision LIKE this...

But If I had to, I'd define the US military's as being a defensive and peacekeeping force - the military on a whole should be able to protect this nation from threat of attack - be it by force projection or dominance in field. IT should also have personnel and equipment to be able to assist allied countries without taxing our own defensive forces.

By extention of this dominance, it should also be able to provide relief efforts in the short term, until such time as a dedicated relief force can be mobilized, to sights of natural disasters both the country and outside of it, while being able to help in the long term logistics of relief efforts.

[Batman]

It occurs to me that militaries are actually surprisingly well suited for disaster relief. I mean, airlift/sealift is pretty much the same wether you lift tanks and munitions or foodstuffs and medicine, medical support should work even better than planned for what with nobody shooting at them for a change, same goes for combat engineers. Clearing rubble is a lot easier without artillery falling around you or snipers trying to pick you off.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not their primary job, and I don't think it ever should be, but until now I never really thought about why they're used for it so often (as in every time nobody else capable is available, which is way too often). It's because they're actually quite good at it, and because way too often, it's either them or nothing.

Also, speaking as someone from a country that doesn't really need much in the way of protecting, at least for the time being, IF we have to have armed forces at all, they should be used to protect those that can't protect themselves.
The Bundeswehr presence in Afghanistan may never amount to anything worthwhile and the country is very likely going to slide back into the Middle Ages (even more) once the western forces leave, but for the first time since I've been part of this sorry excuse for an armed force, I think they're actually doing something worthwhile internationally.

[rhoenix]

I've thought about this question quite a bit since it was posted, and I still don't have a completely coherent answer.

It would be easy to say "the military should just be used for defense," but most military actions are posed as defensive actions in the first place.

What we have now, with American military bases in most countries over the world, gives the US military close to omniscience over the world, seeing with a watchful eye for anything that might erupt. This is primarily due to America's place at the end of the Cold War with the USSR, I think, because the US was the only remaining world superpower at that point. We viewed it as our responsibility, ostensibly to "make the world safe for democracy."

However, as South America and other places prove, the US military is not above doing some "grey area" operations to "make the world safe for democracy."

I don't disagree with this capability, but my view as a civilian is that offensive-based "defensive actions" skirt the line a bit too closely. As an example, particularly against terrorism, where the idea is to excise the infection from the world so the rest can grow. However, it still smacks to me of using a Buick SUV to swat a fly. If the US wanted to show off its moral standing, making efforts to delegitimize the terrorists' war cries using non-military actions (even if done by military personnel) make more sense. I'm not saying the US should bend to terrorists' demands, but I do think efforts should be made to remove as much popular support for the terrorists' stated causes from the countries from which they operate.

An example of us doing so would be us air-dropping food and supplies to Afghanistan. However, I think the message was muddied when we also dropped bombs there, however legitimate the cause may have been.

Now, again, I am not in the military, and I speak from my own (civilian) perspective, so I certainly do not have all the facts as to what happened with specific efforts, or what their causes may have been. But I do think that civilians in Afghanistan being told by Al Queda and the Taliban that the US is this horrible satan of the world, while all the civilians see is US military personnel setting up hospitals, schools, and helping to ensure farmers are paid much more for planting things like pomegranates instead of opium would do much to kill the popular support the Taliban or Al Queda was seeking.

With all that said, I do agree with Batman's point above that the military is also quite well suited to disaster relief. One can make as many jokes as one likes about the military chain of command, and how it might slow operations down - but I doubt a civilian operation could work as efficiently or as well in such cases.

[frigidmagi]

I have to point out Rheonix that the bomb dropping is necessary. You can't set up hospitals in Afghanistan if the Taliban is still in power.

[rhoenix]

I have to point out Rheonix that the bomb dropping is necessary. You can't set up hospitals in Afghanistan if the Taliban is still in power.

I may not like the idea personally, but I do agree that to some degree it is, and was necessary.

[Derek Thunder]

Frigid compelled me to reply to this thread and after a good deal of thought I've formulated some basic and tentative 'organizing principles' of my ideal military, as well as some ideas of how to realize these principles.

1. Humanitarian Intervention

As international capitalism seems to be replacing the nation-state model of the 18th-20th centuries, our primary threats are non-state actors such as terrorist organizations (rogue states matter, but I think the danger they pose is vastly overstated). These organizations exist for several reasons, but principle among them are political matters, and matters of perception. Setting aside the fact that humanitarian aid is the right thing to do morally, a prompt and expansive role in providing disaster relief, training, and boots-on-the-ground intervention in a Rwanda-like situation would do much to improve the image of the United States worldwide and work to discredit the "Great Satan" stereotype. My guess is that our actions after the 2004 Tsunami did more to make us safe than having to get to third base with a homely TSA employee.

The political matters are a whole other matter, but that's neither here nor there.

2. Protection from 21st Century Threats

It is only within the last few years that we have realized our exposure to risk caused by our digital interconnectedness. Our military must do more to protect sensitive infrastructure necessary to modern life such as the internet (the backbone of which is primarily in the US), power distribution, and personal/corporate information.

3. Realistic Defense

I believe that our defensive forces must be cognizant of our geography as well as the emergence of a multi-polar world. To that end, I would propose the following changes.

- Mothball the U.S. Army (less special forces): We do not need an active standing army who's role is still in large part dedicated to fighting a ground war against the Soviet Union in the fields and forests of continental Europe. We should preserve the equipment, and an expanded army reserve, but I believe we can suspend the army proper.

- Severely cut the Air Force: Carrier groups seem far more flexible than expensive stationary air bases which cost both money and in many cases public goodwill (I.E. our bases that existed in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s). Re-orient the Air Force to Nuclear defense and cyber-defense.

- Continue treaties shrinking world nuclear stockpiles, but modernize as well.

- The Marines and Navy can stay largely as they are.

- Look abroad for working weapons technology. The F22 project was a testament to the self-indulgence of the defense industry - Parts for the plane are made in 44 different states (link), making the project the Kurgen of defense procurement, un-killable but for the intervention of either a dictator with unlimited budgetary power or The Highlander. I believe that we should seek out the best technology at the best price, regardless of nation of origin, rather than being held hostage to large corporations that know how to game Congress for maximum effect.

Overall, I'd like to see a 50% reduction of military spending, with the savings going towards infrastructure repair, education, scientific research, aid to states hurting from the recession, and an expanded social safety net.

[General Havoc]

You want to know what I want from my military? Not what I think is achievable, not what I think could be produced, not what I think we should go out and do, what I actually want?

I want the US military to be capable, willing, and able to destroy the evil forces that infest regions of the Earth. I want them to decapitate North Korea, militarily conquer and pacify the Congo, annihilate Al Quaeda and all their affiliates, extirpate the Pirates, overthrow the Junta of Myanmar, and destroy the cartels of Mexico. I want every upstart dictator and tinpot generalissimo to go to bed knowing that if they execute their people in the streets or throw the children of dissidents into death camps that they will be visited that night by a thunderbolt of righteous indignation the likes of which they have only dreamed of. I want a military so incomprehensibly mighty, of reach so absolute and aim so unerring, that no comers, no other army established anywhere in the world, indeed not every other military force put together could hope to stand against it. I want a force that will destroy Evil, utterly and totally, and will stand ready to do so every time it shows itself in some remote corner of the globe. I want a military that will not only do this while providing for the defense of the nation and its allies, but will do so without boondoggles, without PMCs, and without private vendetta wars on the part of its chief executives. I want a military that needs to never fight, so total is the absolute certainty of disastrous retribution that will come should anyone seek to violate the ideals it enforces.

That's what I want. And I'm well aware of all the myriad of reasons why I will not, and perhaps should not get it. But I want a military that will fight evil and win. Because if you don't have that, then what the hell's the point?

[Hotfoot]

I'd disagree with mothballing the army completely. I agree we don't need a massive ground force for the purpose of fighting a land war in Asia, but as simple as it is for us to smash open most smaller nations like the eggshells they are though massive air superiority and judicious usage of Marines, if we intend to stabilize the regions after the fact, we need a force designed to do just that. That's why I recommended the Army become more of an occupation and peacekeeping force, to clean up and keep order after we've burned everything to the ground.

As far as the restructuring of the Air Force, that's not a bad idea. They should probably focus on space and information, at least in general. I'm sure they would balk at the return of parts of their service to being a glorified Army Air Corps, but hey, if it works.

I deliberately avoided military procurement though, because it's essentially a completely different beast. Pork and procurement have gotten so bad I think that ethics committees and criminal charges should be brought to bear.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Remember, it is not necrophilia if the body is still warm...


Alright. Simply put, our military should be capable of defending our country from external invasion, help clean up natural disasters, and enforce our legitimate interests abroad. It is well suited for the first and second bits, the last, not so much. Gone are the days of pitched battle on open fields and the forests of eastern europe. We will be engaging in asymmetric urban combat, and we need a force specialized for that.

We need to upgrade our air support and munitions in order to engage in urban warfare with less collateral damage. Having optics systems that deliver a grainy black and white image for target ID in an urban warzone is not sufficient, as the Wikileaks helicopter strike video showed us. Our soldiers are also not sufficiently well trained for this. You Do Not Use Troops Trained for Set Piece Engagements In Urban Guerrilla Warfare. Bad US! BAD! *hits US with rolled up newspaper*

We need a Shock and Awe force specialized for set piece engagements and taking down the legitimate military of an aggressor state. The Marine Corps and Airforce are good for this. Then, we need a long term occupation force, specifically trained and with specialized equipment for the task. The army and much of the Navy should be used for this. Large numbers, relatively short rotation cycles. I could go on.