So what does the U.S. need to effectively defend itself?
It depends if the U.S. wants to get back to following the Constitution when going to war. For example; the Iraq invasion of 2003 should have had the President ask for a declaration of war. And yes there are times when that isn’t practical.
Some of the policy the United States signs off on is just rock-bottom wrong. And while I wouldn’t agree with my Internet friend at 40 years in the Desert on an 85 percent cut on the military budget, he has some very valid points.
How safe can the United States be if since 9-11 it is spending itself way beyond the poor house? That, with very little gain in any real defense of the nation. This includes no Osama’s head on a stick.
What does the United States need to spend its defense budget on? First; a healthy Army National Guard. This is real national defense at its core level. Add to this home air sovereignty missions and a good portion of airlift can be performed by the Air National Guard.
The United States needs some nuclear weapons. A small amount will do. That is; a smaller number of nuclear ICBMs; a smaller number of submarine launched nukes; no nuclear mission for long range bombers. This saves a lot of money all while keeping enough deterrent.
Next the United States needs a strong Coast Guard and a very strong U.S. Naval Reserve that has a good number of frigates, corvettes, auxiliaries and even 2 squadrons worth of AIP subs. This last one is especially important because it frees up the big expensive nuke subs for tasks only they can do.
Yes the U.S. needs a very strong Navy but with a much smaller Marine Corps. Not a tiny USMC but not something that ends up doing missions the Army can do. Marines are to do their specific skill-sets. The active duty U.S. Navy will need good nuclear submarines, carriers, destroyers and much of what you see today. No it does not need to burn up limited funds on stupidity like the Zumwalt, CCX or LCS.
The U.S. Army plan for expeditionary brigades has a lot of merit. All airborne and airmobile units need to be based stateside. Along with this, most U.S. Army presence in Europe should come home.
So what about the United States Air Force? With the Air Guard and Reserve and active duty in blended units, the U.S. needs about 20 fighter GROUPS containing 2 squadrons at 20 different ASA locations that do ASA and AEF. Pulling all of the USAF out of Europe would free up a lot of manpower and money. Keep as much of the long range bomber fleet going as possible. It will be needed desperately if ever there is trouble. As for the rest of the USAF, it is in grave trouble. I will be surprised if the USAF ever comes out of it’s mismanagement malaise. A shame considering the USAF has some excellent people.
With all of this, the DOD has to spend more money on research and development or we will fall behind to a point where we will never be able to recover. There is enough risk present today in a lapse of R&D funding to indicate that we are falling behind.
The United States is in serious federal budget trouble. Along with this, a total pull out from Afghanistan and Iraq will help the U.S. military get back to concentrating on preparation against real threats. Where there is a future war where the President can ask Congress for a declaration of war, a full draft has to be part of that. If the declaration of war is that important to the defense of the United States, every able person has to take part. As the sign says; “America is not at war. The U.S. military is at war. America is at the mall”.
I don’t believe in isolationism. I also don’t believe in no-gain moronic expeditionary warfare that bleeds our budget. There can be a good balance here somewhere. Maybe someday we will be lucky enough to reach that point.
Finally, if cutting the military is important, so is cutting federal programs that eat up funds we don’t have. Cash-for-clunkers, bailouts for the chosen ones that can buy the political graft, huge amounts of foreign aid and other programs that, if one follows the intent of the Constitution, have no business breathing air. One has the right to pursue happiness, not have it provided for them. It is the United STATES of America, not the United FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of America. America is at grave risk of failing. If this happens, it will make the break-up of of Yugoslavia look like a picnic.
Tags: U.S., military, budget, U.S. budget insanity
Interesting points Eric, as always.
Though I don’t quite agree on the America-centric deployment strategy. The US has excellent natural barriers, defending it from would-be invaders: ice to the North, water to the sides, Texas to the South. If one can ever expect a conventional invasion, this will be sure to be aimed at key cities on the coast.
Any other entry points would find the enemy surrounded, and quickly cut off from support, not to mention the difficulties of maintaining supply lines accross an ocean, never mind two.
While an invasion would not be impossible (a surprise attack on Washington and/or NY), it’d be extremely hard to do for even a peer nation.
However, the US is a super-power, and this means it’s the single most powerful player on a global scale. But this requires influence abroad, be it military or political. I imagine the US military has got the right idea, moving their attention and presence from Europe to Iraq and Afghanistan, this being the key area of future, energy-related conflicts, as well as the frontier to future peer-nations, India and China (well, mostly China being a worry).
Interesting comments. There is a nuclear weapon threshold where M.A.D. can’t be guaranteed, I would recommend staying above that, and that number is higher than most people realize (though definitely not as high as the current nuclear stockpile).
As far as R & D spending, I agree, but it will become increasingly harder to stay on top of things, regardless of the money spent, if there are fewer and fewer domestic engineers, physicist, manufactures, etc… to draw upon. Our trade policy needs to be more American centric as opposed to global development centric if we want to maintain what little leadership in technology that we have.
The air force could be saved if we bought maybe a thousand gen 4 “aluminum” fighters that are proven and work as a stop gap until the latest debacles are worked out.
The Army leadership needs to quit running with fads and get back to killing things and breaking stuff as their primary competency when called.
The rest of your article I pretty much agree with.
I doubt the US really needs to defend its physical self; when foreign troops invade the beaches of California or enemy ships steam the Potomac, then things have really gone wrong and some far away country will have ceased to exist in a big mushroom cloud(s).
The US needs to defend its interests abroad, overseas, over the horizon. Access to resources and secure sea lines of communication are among the core (read: strategic) US interests that need to be defended-slash-secured. Stable countries, either with national resources (gas, oil, minerals) or with economic resources (foreign consumers, trade items) are also part of the global economy the US is intertwined with, and can also be counted as strategic assets.
And vice versa; if Americans don’t buy from China, China will hurt – bad.
This means that – apart from an all-out invasion via Canada and/or Mexico – most conflicts the US has an interest in, will by definition be abroad, and that means expeditionary power.
And that translates into long range aviation (NGB, ISR, satelites), a powerfull navy, guaranteed access to friendly bases and airspace abroad, and a seat at the tables of the worlds movers and shakers.
It also means having a certain respected standing among the others (“first among many”) so the US standpoints are clearly understood, and respected, even when the core US strategic interests – nvm the CONUS – are clearly not at risk. Some call it meddling, others call it necessary.
I don’t think a return to a pure reserve/Guard force equipped, trained and funded for the Big One is the way to go. The Cold War really is over, conflicts now are going on everywhere and everytime. “Useless Dirt 1 & 2″ may be useless (I disagree btw), but they ARE going on now, and pulling out now may have such consequences down the road, that the US may be forced to go back in.
I am constantly amazed by the many gazillions spend on cancelled programs, and I am deeply worried of the effect the economic reality will have on US forces in the near future. But the bottom line is that the US military is an integral part of US foreign policy and the US cannot afford to pull back within its own borders and just wait the world out. If the US doesn’t act, the world will react, and 9-11 showed it can be sudden, and devastating.
The problem isn’t the spending, per say. When you look at the direction the DoD has been trending since Vietnam it has been a focus on more and more expensive equipment. A perfect example, for me, is the replacement program for the M109A6 Paladin, the mainstay 155mm self-propelled howitzer. After the Crusader debacle at the beginning of the decade, the Army moved to the NLOS. Meanwhile, several NATO Armies moved to the the PzH2000 from Germany, a much less expensive, more capable system. The US Army looked at it, then promptly snubbed its nose at it. The main complaint was A) the ammunition stored in the crew compartment and B) its inability to be flown in a C-130 transport.
Well, lets look at that for a second. The system was so expensive that the goal was to have one Battery that consisted of a pair of two-gun platoons (dropping the number of guns from four). This is only a tiny number. Not only does it defeat the point of having the additional firepower that such a system would bring (basically both howitzers can replicate the level of fire power that existed in the old model rather than giving any sort of improved firepower). Even if this wasn’t the case (which, I might add, adopting a PZH2000 would allow you to maintain a 2×4 configuration) you’re still having to make up for the shortfall of guns produced by the sheer cost by building a new generation of what is now an obsolete chassis. And guess what? The ammunition in both the M109A6 and the M109PIM is stored in the gun. So essentially the only thing that the fully automated ammunition handling system does is give BAE a bunch more money for a lot less capability. This seems to be the approach we’re taking with Lockheed Martin with the F-35, and Bath Iron Works with the Zumwalt Destroyer.
The rest of the guns were going to be the new upgraded model of the M109A6 (the B-52 of the Army, with its first iteration appearing during the late 1950s). The M109PIM, which rips out most of the guts and replaces them with M2 Bradley components, was going to replace the remainder of howitzer through 2050. The M109A6 can’t be flown in a C-130. It can barely fly in a C-17. In fact, when one looks at the majority of the money-making systems of a heavy Fires Brigade or a Heavy Brigade Combat Team it can’t be flown in anything smaller than a C-17 at a minimum. You have huge numbers of M1 Abrams (weight: 67 tons unloaded), the M2 Bradley (27 tons unloaded), the M270 MLRS (27 tons) and the recovery vehicles associated with them. You won’t be able to fly the majority of a Heavy Brigade Combat Team into theater regardless of how light your SPH is.
When I can be assed I’m going to write up a blog post about it. But in general it’s a huge case of shiny toy-itis. Yes, the NLOS would be built in the United States, and yes it would be capable of crew-independent ammunition management that allows for both survivability and multiple-simultaneous round impact. But all you’re doing is robbing from Peter to pay Paul. The system costs so much and has so many potential game-ending limitations that all you’re doing is screwing the next generation of commanders who have to WORK with the system. If it was a technology demonstrator I would understand, but the concept has already been proven (and, in fact, combat proven now) by other NATO armies.
If the budget was properly managed, with an actual focus on “off-the-shelf” rather than a cynical use of the term to fund unique build programs, we could actually quadruple our firepower and capability.
I haven’t the expertise of you guys, but I’ve been adamant since the end of ODS in my conclusion as well that USMC service must be down-sized to a different mission and structure, for long term, realistic sustainment and strategic mission planning. I envisioned that the MC should be based more around more numerous Air Assault and elite company and battalion size units which could operate independently or jointly as as higher octane rapid response capability. I envisioned all MBT should be given up. Fixed wing could revert to OV-10X/Super Tucano type and UAV only, backed up with increased Attack helo quantities. Either way they should be far superior equipped than they are now at the infantry level IMO; with better squad level stand-off, optic and Precision guided capabilities for more independent force-multiplication.. I’d be as aggressive as to assess around 80,000-100,000 total force size within 8-10 yrs.
So I’ll concur with Eric here that USMC should not be a long-term occupying Army in any contingency today – regardless of having to adapt and overcome, etc etc. The current employment seems to totally ruin their combat readiness and dangerously screws with the overall balance of power. (E.G., There should be the capability to employ 20,000 trained and prepared Assault Marines, on the ground (via increased C-130J, amphib air assault and that ANG airlift ELP was talking about) on any continent under invite or not, within say 72 hrs of call. It’s the actual capability which counts.
That being said, I’ll concur also with the inevitable downsizing of USAF tacair structure – not because of any newly revealed strategic planning findings and revised requirements – but by default due to incompetent DoD/service heirarchy policy making (for this tacair recapitalization) over the last decade and a half.
AIP subs? That has my vote too (Modify 3-5 older LH class amphib ships even to house one as a mother ship)?
As for bringing all the boys home from abroad? These numbers abroad have been reducing and will continue to, but foreign basing in principle should not be a unilateral forfeiture it itself. Same goes with redeploying home, the B-52s from UK and other tactical assets globally… these assets ‘should’ if anything, hold considerable negotiating capital to help mutually affect a corresponding reduction of global power – not increasing imbalance of power.
Same goes for Nuclear Bomber deterrent elements.. this is considerable negotiating capital which should be traded for a global ban on nuclear weaponized Aircraft if USAF is giving them up. That is a no-brainer and would only be a win-win.
Geogen; no military leader in his right mind would ‘assault’ anything as this approach virtually guarantees significant casualties. Helo landing troops right on an enemy-held objective via so-called ‘combat air assault’ was substantially discredited during the Vietnam War. Prudent leaders might secure a landing zone by insertion of small special force groups and then shuttle in infanteers using just a few helos (type unimportant) which can move a lot of troops over short distances within a pretty short timeframe.
Larger LPH (landing platform helicopter) vessels or smallish aircraft carriers with large helo complements are really an encumbrance and a juicy target as demonstrated in the Falklands War, whereas LPD (landing platform dock) vessels below say 15,000 tonnes displacement fully laden with just a few helos embarked are a far more versatile platform. More nations than not are moving toward affordable and cost-effective LPD.
Direct insertion/extraction of ground forces including tracked light armour and artillery close to prosective scenes of action by C-17 & C-130 is the most efficient means of conducting most military interventions augmented by some LPD capabilities in appropriate environments. Add to that mobile long range/endurance firepower like AC-130 and you have a pretty credible capability for many military scenarios. The US Marines are now converting some of their C-130 for a limited AC-130 role.
Military planners generally get too ambitious regarding force structures rather than focusing on how operations can be conducted more cost-effectively.
Thanks for the good reply, Bushranger. I was designating them ‘Assault Marines’ more generically to reflect a reformed doctrine of mission profile, rather than necessarily ‘Air Assault Troops’ under the traditional definition.
Expanded rapid reaction Assault would be a capability along the lines of the Joint Army-Marine, Haiti near-’intervention’ plan of attack back in the 90s. I.E. using combined air assault, amphib landing, Airborne para-drop and fixed wing transport landing insertion, etc.
The mere capability though, to employ such a large scale combined-means rapid reaction ‘intervention’ on any continent and hence the ‘show of force’ implements alone, could be a vital asymmertical deterrence as well as actual power projection to offset a reduced sized force. So yes, a significantly increased ‘Assault Marine’ capability as part of a smaller overall USMC could included active Airborne paratroop elements as well as crack infantry and would require combined use of commercial air, C-130/17/C-5 and helo/amphib. I didn’t mean to imply it as envisaged necessarily for such a massive helo assault of 20,000 troops into downtown Pyongyang as a retaliation against hypothetical NK missile attack. Yikes, no. But I truly think such meaner rapid reaction/elite infantry would be an asymmetrical means as well as a boasting right too of course.
That being said, I’d also envision Army transforming partly to such increased (smaller-sized autonomous operating unit) capabilities and readiness likewise, to offset it’s own asymmetrical off-set ‘needs’ in the coming years of serious budget cut-backs. Something I’m betting to kick in significantly by about FY2016-17.
Cheers.
Lastly, on the economic side, Eric nailed it. There is going to be massive Federal budgetary crisis probably by 2016 if not sooner. It won’t be because of cash for clunkers (peanuts in terms of budget), nor foreign aid (miniscule, again, in terms of budget and something which China is actually kicking our butts on to a significant additional strategic loss in posture and standing)… it will be Social Security payments requiring actually net funding and of course the far bigger medicare’medicaid debacle. They will be catastrophic in terms of ‘change’ (both sustained taxation and social turmoil given reduced services) but it is the cost US govt legislative branch will hand the citizenry due to lack of honesty and discipline to the general public over the decades.
Pay as you go, if it ever is adopted, will very sadly be too little too late I fear, and mere ass-covering when it starts hitting the fan.
Oh Eric, where do I begin?
What about our treaty obligations and our allies?
What about Taiwan? Israel? South Korea? Iraq? (yes they are a country)
We hear the cut and run drumbeat, we surged instead. The Iraq war was WON.
(and not amount of name calling will change the fact that even the Madi Army is quite today).
We choose to fight these “expeditionary wars” not because they are easy but because they are hard. Because we have pledged our blood and treasure to free nations. Look an Iraqi child in the eye and say you want the US out. Tell the mayor of Taipei or Seoul that his city does not deserve US help or Amercain troops when the shit fits the fan.
We elected our civilian leaders who in turn pledged our support to our allies. We are reducing the US military presence in Europe, brigades are returning in 2014-16. Two brigades stayed because those Middle Eastern nations refuse to unclench their fists.
Every decade some expert calls for abolishing the Air Force/Marines/Army Aviation/Armor/Missile Defense/etc etc…
And every decade they are proven wrong.
We’ve had economic train wrecks like this before. We’ll live. Leaner, but we’ll live.
In the meantime, our enemies will build up their missiles, tanks and conventional forces, in addition to the irregular forces. As a 14E, I get the briefings about threats that *don’t* appear in the Ares blog or Danger Room. And the world is a scary place.
Now maybe I’m wrong and I’m as obsolete as a T-Rex, I don’t know I’m ADA. Maybe our leader ship, the UN or some Mother Teresa-type will bring about peace in the world, don’t ask me I’m a 14E. Maybe the next wars will be fought with more insurgets and the nations of the world will put aside all those tanks, jets, missiles and heavy weapons they’re building and buying. I’m just an E-4 manning my ECS.
And maybe the leopard will change his spots and call himself a jersey cow.
In the mean time, we have GMD, THAAD, the FCS spinouts, the F-35, the LCS and V-22 that the DOD is trying to get off the ground. Guys like me don’t complain, we just show up and the right time right place and right uniform.
Sadly the world is as is was in 1939, armed to the teeth and bankrupt. Trust me, will find the money when the shooting starts. Hopefully before another Pearl Harbor.
Two extremes of US international strategy:
a) The pre-WWII type: don’t get involved with anything outside your own borders. You don’t have to fight Hitler anytime soon, but in the end, you can’t escape it, and you get Pearl Harbour-ed.
In the current age this is simply not a realistic choice, because there would be no way to guarantee oil import, or to keep Russia or China of anexating it’s neighbours, or the “oops, did we just nuke your capital, my bad!” approach. Europe certainly hasn’t the political leadership to prevent it.
b) the current, 9/11 age approach: invading strategically important countries, stabilizing them. You’ll get the occasional terrorist attack, now that all you need are some explosives and a martyr rather than a whole army to make an impression, but that’s the price of it.
Which I believe was the error the first time around with Iraq and Afghanistan: their leadership was bribed, but it was just a temporary solution, with no guarantees. Military presence is the only way for the US/EU(and Russia/China/India for that matter) to be guarantee continued compliance and stability of a vasal state. Expensive, but less trouble in the long run. Ask the Romans, or the English.
New Wars cites a good example of this, the energy resources in the Falklands. I always wondered why the UK would bother spending so much effor to keep such a remote location. But now, all these years later, their effort will repay itself.
And don’t give me the “it’s for the children” excuse. I don’t see any of the wealthy nations sending 100,000 troops to Africa to protect the milions dying there. No, they just sell the weapons that do the killing. To both sides ofcourse, it keeps the sales up, and you’ll end up supporting the winner either way. We didn’t save the children in Iraq from Sadam, we’re the ones who put him there in the first place. And we wonder why they hate us.