Posted on 03/03/2014 7:25:48 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
Armies are like newspapers. They have become 21st century anachronisms. To survive, they must adapt. For the press, that means accommodating the demands of the Internet. For the United States Army, it means adjusting to a changing security environment. Nostalgia about a hallowed past is a luxury that neither armies nor newspapers can afford to indulge.
So the hand-wringing triggered by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s plan to reduce the Army’s size, while predictable, is beside the point. Yes, those cuts would leave the U.S. with its fewest active-duty soldiers since the eve of World War II.
So what?
This isn’t 1940. Moreover, as an instrument of coercion, that smaller army would be more lethal than the much larger one that helped defeat Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. Given a choice between a few hundred of today’s Abrams tanks and a few thousand vintage Shermans, Gen. George Patton would not hesitate to choose the former.
More relevant questions are: Do we need even a few hundred tanks? And for what? In its 2012 report to Congress , the Army’s senior leadership described the service as “The Nation’s Force of Decisive Action.” In the 2013 version, they “guarantee the agility, versatility and depth to Prevent, Shape and Win.”
Yet to judge by outcomes, the Army is not a force for decisive action. It cannot be counted on to achieve definitive results in a timely manner. In Afghanistan and Iraq, actions that momentarily appeared to be decisive served as preludes to protracted and inconclusive wars. As for preventing, shaping and winning, this surely qualifies as bluster — the equivalent of a newspaper promising advertisers that it will quadruple its print circulation.
Washington’s preoccupation with budgets provides Army leaders — and the entire national security establishment — an excuse to dodge core questions. The most pressing: What should the nation expect of its armed forces?
After the Cold War and especially after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, expectations of what the U.S. military should be able to accomplish expanded considerably. Defense per se figured as an afterthought, eclipsed by the conviction that projecting power held the key to transforming the world from what it is into what Washington would like it to be: orderly, predictable, respectful of American values and deferential to U.S. prerogatives.
The “Global War on Terror” put that proposition to the test, with disappointing results. Putting boots on the ground produced casualties and complications, but little by way of peace and harmony. It did nothing to enhance the standing and reputation of the United States. And as a means to engineer positive political change, America’s Army proved sadly wanting. That’s not a knock against our soldiers. They performed admirably, even if the same cannot be said for those who conceived and mismanaged the wars our soldiers were sent to fight.
Americans today are not inclined to indulge this experiment further. With his widely noted preference for drones and Special Operations forces, President Barack Obama has tacitly endorsed the public’s view— even if his improvised way of war is devoid of any serious strategic rationale.
The principal military lesson of the Global War on Terror affirms what ought to have been the principal military lesson of the Cold War: Force held in readiness has far greater political utility than force expended. Armies are well suited to defending and containing. But invading and occupying countries are fraught with risk.
It’s the Bush Doctrine, just inverted: Rather than engaging in preventive war, commit troops only after exhausting every other alternative. As long as that approach pertains — may it do so for many decades — the projection of U.S. military might will come in the form of bombs and missiles, falling under the purview of naval and air forces.
What role, then, remains for the U.S. Army? The honorable and necessary one of defending this country. For that task, absent the emergence of a major Mexican or Canadian threat, a smaller Army should serve just fine.
Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. He wrote this column for The Washington Post.
Your reply is spot on. Bacevich’s books, more so since his son died in Iraq, have aligned with the Democrat party ideals of immoral war, re-instate the draft so all can feel the pain of loss in war, it’s easy to manipulate the current volunteer force, contractors rule over the Pentagon, etc. He obviously feels his son died in vain in an unjust and immoral war. It’s the same reason Jim Webb became a Democrat when his son went off to war in Iraq. He’s Cindy Sheehan with “street cred.”
As you are a veteran I respect that you have an opinion of the size and structure of the military.
As someone that made the following statement- In an article of The American Conservative dated March 24, 2008, Bacevich depicts Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama as the best choice for conservatives in the fall.
You lose all respect and nothing you say has any value to me as a veteran and an American citizen...
I am retired military and I can count the finest officers I have served with on one hand. Andy Bacevich is one of them. I personally served with him in the 11th ACR while in Germany and ran into him many times at Ft Bliss while he commanded a squadron and I was in the SF community. If he hadn’t run into some very bad luck in Kuwait with that unfortunate explosion killing several US personnel I believe he would have achieved the rank of 4 stars.
True that.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." James Madison
“I believe he would have achieved the rank of 4 stars.”
It is fortunate that he did not achieve the rank, given his apparent lack of appreciaiton for the principle of a force in being and the futility of the strategy of strategic and operational defense as noted by Patton.
Merely evidence that the left most data point of the sample can be found even in the profession of arms.
The tooth to tail ration of most armies is at least five to one. The smaller the army, the smaller the tip of the spear. What are the consequences of having too large a force compared to having one too small?
What is really going on here is the classical "guns versus butter" struggle that marks welfare states. Dwindling resources force hard choices and butter usually wins since it has more constituents. The UK is a prime example of how a Great Power declines into irrelevancy. The UK had someone else to pick up the torch, i.e., the US, but there is no one to replace us as the leader of the free world. Nature abhors a vacuum and there will be nations that want to expand and increase their influence thru military power, e.g., China and Russia.
“The principal military lesson of the Global War on Terror affirms what ought to have been the principal military lesson of the Cold War: Force held in readiness has far greater political utility than force expended. Armies are well suited to defending and containing. But invading and occupying countries are fraught with risk. “
How did that work out for the French in 1936? They chose to held their force in readiness, and instead of executing an invasion and occupation when they enjoyed overwhelming force, they waited and suffered a catastrophic defeat in 1940. Hitler's very own words are haunting:
“If France had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs.”
The idea that wars are always won quickly and cleanly is a false concept that cannot be shown from history. The Indian wars were a protracted conflict that lasted over a hundred years, just for the United States.
I never served in the military, so perhaps my views don't count. But I can read a history book. Perhaps the author is right, and a smaller Army is just fine. But this writing seems to be totally backward looking, the old canard of “fighting the last war.” Some British tank designers were creating tanks to span shell cratered trenches even as the German army was rolling across France in 1940. It's easy to use your last experience as a guide and miss the tasks coming up, which may be quite different.
The appropriate size of U.S. forces should be based on projecting the jobs they will be expected to do in the future, not regret over recent operations.
One last point, that I have already posted on another thread. Per capita, the Army should have 650,000 troops to be the same size relative to the population as it did in 1940. Massive welfare spending and support for the bureaucratic state prevents that.
I don’t doubt Bacevich’s brilliance and have read some of his writings years ago when I was at Command and Staff college. My take is that he is being more introspective in the wake of his son’s death. Getting back to the topic at hand, my question is what requirement are we meeting by cutting the Army’s end strength to record lows? The answer is we are not. The bean counters determined how much we can afford in Defense and passed that to the service chief’s who then came up with a troop number. This so we can continue to pay welfare and disability to those who don’t need it, the EPA, the Solyndra’s of the world, etc. I subscribe to Reagan’s ideal of “Peace through Strength.” We will rue the day (sooner than later) by our continued downsizing. Do we want the only card to play in a future showdown with a despot to be the nuclear option? That’s where we are headed.
As a number of other posters have mentioned, Skip Bacevich is a retired Army Colonel whose views on our recent wars and on the military in general are at odds with most of his fellows officers.
Skip is, I believe, still bitter about his relief from command of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment following the tragic accident in Kuwait. He turned his back on the military and found another career as the Left’s favorite military nay sayer. The death of his son in combat contributed, but is not the cause of his current political and philosophical stance. His arguments have found a predictable audience and we will need to remind the American people and their fickle political leaders that we have been down this road before with disastrous results.
We are powerless right now with regard to the Crimea both in our weak capability to respond and because of the unwillingness of our President to do anything. Contrast that with the Cold War where we had a President who stood strong, an Army ready to act, and a people solidly behind both. We won through resolve without some great bloodbath that would have killed both Bachevich and me together with many of our fellow soldiers.
I think MOST forget too that YES I could build you a 100 story office bldg in a couple years.
But, building say a million man Army staffed with EXPERIENCED NCO’s and officers and PROPERLY equipped takes decades.
I think the Ukraine citizens had a couple days notice. Poor bastards. Like us, their country, which they now have probably lost, is currently run by feel good liberals that would rather stay home and sleep all day.
Sympathy and respect for his loss, but that doesn't change the nature of reality.
Bacevich’s policy recommendations are not based on protecting the US, but on forever diminishing its capacity to act, as some form of perverse penance for its collective sins.
Troop size is meaningless in times when a force chooses to not utilize the power and might of ones weapons inventory.
We don't need more troops, but more bombs.
Far too many brothers and sisters died because they were forced to clear buildings and towns instead of destroying the structures itself.
Why send forces into tora bora and other places for the enemy when you can nuke them.
Global terrorism started with Khomeini's takeover of Iran, making it the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism. It also signaled the rise of militant Islamic fundamentalism.
The US was a target of terrorism long before 9/11. We failed to use our military despite these repeated attacks. We waited too long.
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
It’s the Bush Doctrine, just inverted: Rather than engaging in preventive war, commit troops only after exhausting every other alternative. As long as that approach pertains — may it do so for many decades — the projection of U.S. military might will come in the form of bombs and missiles, falling under the purview of naval and air forces.
If we exhaust every other alternative, it may be too late to use military force. North Korea has nuclear weapons and Iran is developing them. Once you have a nuclear state, it is very difficult to use military force. We force ourselves into a box with just two choices: do nothing or up the ante to nuclear war.
When was this article written? 1916? 1939? Seems like we’ve heard this song before.
My first Company Commander told me that, “ Command is just a license to go to jail.” I realized pretty quick that luck played a part in having a successful command. Didn’t Napoleon say something about preferring lucky Commanders over talented ones? Ecclesiastes (Solomon) says it best. He said something like, “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity and a chasing after the wind. All your work can mean nothing for you while another takes your place and receives your rewards.” Solomon knew.
I served under several "Military Officers" (90 day wonders) that I wouldn't pee on if they were on fire....
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.