Posted on 06/20/2007 6:48:31 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
WASHINGTON — Today’s armed services focus too much on decades-old warfighting skills and not enough on roles such as reconstruction and irregular warfare needed to handle future missions, a panel of military experts told Congress on Wednesday.
“What the military doesn’t do well is handle new non-core competencies,” said John Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We’re very good at winning wars, but we’re not very good at rebuilding afterwards.”
The comments came as part the House Armed Service Committee’s new effort to re-examine the services’ roles and missions, to ensure the military is both efficient in its current efforts and prepared to meet future defense challenges.
Lawmakers said defense officials’ inability to anticipate the need for specialized equipment and training for troops in Iraq prompted the review. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said too often lower enlisted troops have petitioned for better armor or better vehicles only to be bogged down in inefficient supply systems.
Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said such an analysis has not been done by Congress since 1948, even though lawmakers have discussed such plans before.
The panel said lawmakers don’t need to re-examine basic military missions — the Navy is the unquestioned leader in the world in amphibious assault capability, and the Army has no equal in battle maneuvers, Hamre said.
But adapting to new threats and missions — areas such as cyberterrorism, border defense, combating insurgents with weapons of mass destruction — has been a “remarkably slow” process, according to Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic Budgetary Assessments.
“Our efforts seem to be primarily reactive, instead of getting out in front of these problems,” he said.
The House included language in its 2008 defense budget bills requiring the services to conduct a quadrennial roles and missions review, similar to the department’s already-required four-year total-force review but with more of a focus on future planning.
However, Skelton said so far he has not received support for the idea from members of the Senate, and could not say if the proposal will likely become law.
Darn that Duncan Hunter, fighting the DoD and the Pentagon. He doesn't know his place. /s
Same as always.
Politicians, mostly lawyers, making military decisions.
Look at the Marine Corps procurement system. It’s so much better, and should be copied by the other branches.
Just damn.
Gee Wally, sorry I kicked the @hit out of you because I was trained to kick the @hit out of you and those around you.
I’ll write a nice poem in your honor,you Islamo bastard.
Not.
That is all.
That’s not their job...<< BINGO!
Yeah, for sure. And, the USMC’s number one criteria of it’s purchasing organization is prior to signing a contract to purchase any new piece of mechanized equipment it must demonstrate an ability to leak hydraulic fluid - in great and constant quantities! heh, heh, just kidding, just kidding...
I was a ground pounder. We didn’t get rides. (except on airplanes, and then only half of the flight) ;^)
” not enough on roles such as reconstruction”
I don’t want a kinder, gentler army of seabees.
Oh, yeah. What’s the MOS identifier for Post-War Rebuilder? Oh, wait. I’ve been in the Army for 5 years now, and I haven’t seen that MOS. Maybe the military should concentrate on doing what we do best...destroying the enemy. If government wants us to just flip a switch from kill, kill, kill to “rebuild” and “win the hearts and minds,” they should rethink this strategy. It’s very difficult to flip that switch. But, this is government trying to blame the military for their political shortcomings.
...and I thought I was the only one that was gonna connect the dots!....Well said!!!
Instead of the DoD, why don’t we send HUD and HEW over there.
Reconstruction sounds like a job for Jimmy Carter and Habitat.
Well, I was with the 82nd, and we had some pretty intense rides from some pretty intense pilots.
Proud to say, they only made me puke once! ;^)
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.