| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| Rumsfeld prepares for conflict in East Asia. Critics whine. |
| 2005-05-16 |
| It looks like Rumsfeld is once again ahead of the curve. All the ankle-biters who want the US military transformed into an anti-insurgency force are outraged. Outraged, I tell ya. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is using some controversial lessons gleaned from the invasion of Iraq to buttress his plans to overhaul the U.S. military. The unprecedented speed of the assault on Baghdad saved countless U.S. lives, Mr. Rumsfeld has often said. An even faster attack with U.S. forces streaming through Turkey could have crushed Saddam Hussein's Baathist leaders before they disappeared, he suggested in a recent Pentagon press conference, and might have prevented the bloody insurgency from taking hold so strongly. |
| Posted by:Zhang Fei |
| #16 Yep, army on a buget and you get a budget army . I expect man for man the Chinee army is hard to beat cost wise. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-05-16 19:26 |
| #15 I agree with the army on a budget idea. A US foreign legion would be the way to go. The UN pays peace keepers to wear the blue hat or pays the govs they come from. The US could buy peace keepers the same way form divisions. Use US forces as the rank leadership and use the us force units as rapid reaction forces to run in once a enemy is engaged to do what they do best fight in battles. On the FCS Rumsfield speed planning of future weapons. A lot of the reports are mis-understood the FCS is planned to be light and air mobile for rapid reaction yes with thin armour and speed. However that is for transport reasons. Once on scene from what I have read the idea is continuing flights or shipping in of add on armour packages that could be installed intalled on scene to move to a heavy force. Not to mention there will be a legacy force held for many years to come of the heavy tanks. This option sounds good to me the US needs a rapid reaction force of a couple of divisions that can be flown in fast if needed get a foothold then once in theater strap on some add on packages to to make a heavy force capability. If the 82nd airborn in the Iraq war would have landed ready to fight with some mobile firepower then armoured up and pushed south thier would have been a lot more of those dead enders would have reached thier goal earlier. And a lot of leadership and supplies smuggled out at the last moment would have been seized. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2005-05-16 15:19 |
| #14 mojo: Americans are very resistant to several ideas found outside the US. And while the French Foreign Legion was expelled from France for misbehavior, the typical American would see them as troops willing to turn their guns on Americans. Americans also have the (unfortunately fading) Posse Comitatus Act, restrictions against quartering soldiers and insistence that its military be as apolitical as possible, with civilian leadership. An essentially mercenary army would make them especially fearful. Now, of course, the "UN first" crowd would want to dispatch them on UN missions under UN control, but this would fail, as these individuals wouldn't *want* to work for the UN, they would want to work for the US. And unlike even the "volunteer" Army, these mercenaries would be under contract, so under no obligation to do crap work for Kofi Annan, despite what John Kerry or Hillary wants. The best part is that while even the largest corporation might only be able to field a Brigade-sized unit, and at considerable expense, a US government funded Army could field one or two million moderately trained infantrymen. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-05-16 14:36 |
| #13 The US needs to allow private mercenary forces to exist on it's territory (with restrictions, I'm not insane), and not get too involved when they go out a-hunting for Osaqma and his playmates. The Army can't do everything that needs to be done. |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-05-16 12:48 |
| #12 Mr. Moose, Isn't what you describe a good working definition for NATO? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-05-16 12:07 |
| #11 LOL -- or, JFM, were the two vehicles benefitting from limited 88mm AT angles of attack? Speed for armored vehicles is built on the premise that the enemy will miss as a result ... OldSpook, are you agreeing (as I have) with Thomas P.M. Barnett of The Pentagon's New Map: War & Peace in the 21st Century fame? |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-05-16 12:06 |
| #10 How about this for a proposal that could solve many great problems for the US military? The creation of a literal "American Foreign Legion". Strictly open to single men, mostly foreign nationals, billeted overseas, led by US military officers, whose emphasis is strictly infantry. That is, "boots on the ground." Now, they would not be toothless, as the regular US military would back them up with heavier and more complicated weapons and technologies, but they would be a force of sheer *numbers*, for these labor intensive programmes and missions the US wants to do. They would carry out the peacekeeping, police, disaster aid, and nation building missions; always with the support of the regular forces. The expenses would be their base pay, US minimum wage for privates, inexpensive billeting, food and medical care, just your basic infantry equipment (they could be given extra as needed), and perpetual training. They should be trained constantly until their discipline is perfect. If they serve their several years' tour, they should be offered US citizenship and induction into the US military, keeping their earned rank. The recruiting line for this American Foreign Legion would be miles long. This answers the question, "How can America have an effective million man army on a budget?" ONE MILLION MEN FOR $10 BILLION A YEAR. WHAT A DEAL! |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-05-16 11:56 |
| #9 Gromky The British had a slow but heavily armored tank called the Matilda. Dozens of them were destroyed by a few 88 mm AT guns during operations Brevity and Battleaxe (summer 1941, Lybia). But during the liberation of Paris the 88 AT gun set up by the Germans close to Eiffel Tower was easily taken out by two armored cars who were simply too nimble and fast for it. Problem is not as much speed versus armor as being on the middle of the road (too litle armor to protect and too slow to evade). Or perhaps the answer to the problem is to have several aces in the sleeve (a fast to aim and reload light AT gun would have been deadly against the thin skinned armored cars but powerless against a Sherman) |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-05-16 10:26 |
| #8 I've been saying this for years: We need 2 sets of Armed Forces. 1) Traditional - win a war, on ground, air, sea. That means the "get there firstest with the mostest" like the light, high-tech stuff many are advocating, as well as heavy follow-ons like the old M1/Bradley equipped Armored Cavalry regiments, and mech infantry. These would be supported with SpecOps types, like Rangers, Seals, USAF fwd controllers. Lots of USAF fighters, navy carriers, Army Tanks & Airborne, Marine Amphib/Heliborn assault capability. 2) A constabulary. These would be the "Culturally literate" troops whose job would be to stand in after the type-A formations above had done their job, and help rebuild a failed nation-state by acting as the police and civil authority until proper ones had been reconstructed. Basically, they would be trained for counter-insurgency, civil affairs, PR, with light spec-ops added into the mix for raiding and primarily training (Like the Green Berets do). Logistics troops, MPs, light infantry, surveillance capacity, and a bunch of civil engineering units to build bridges and roads, powerlines, water distribution/purification, sewage and telephone systems: the modern infrastructure. Why 2 separate sets? Beause we are primarily dealing with failed nation-states that require extensive policing and rebuilding, which will only happen after an invation and dismantling of their current governments and social systems (usually by force of arms, but sometimes they collapse on their own). But we are also dealing with large heavily armed adversaries in some cases (Korea, China), for which there is no substitute for the "A" forces. Constabulary troops do not make effective assault troops, and Assault troops do not make an effective constabulary. We need both types. And when not in use overseas, the Constabulary troops could be used to augment border security, and help rebuild areas in our own hemisphere Think of the immense amount of good that could be done civil engineers in the poorer parts of Mexico - not only to better their lives, but it also slows the illegals by giving them decent infrastructure where they are (and puts pressure on the socialsit kleptocracy that is the government of Mexico). |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-05-16 10:15 |
| #7 Verlaine: As with 99% of "doctrinal" battles, it seems, this one is greatly overblown. As in, the prudent course will be to do some of both (or all), it's not an either/or situation. I agree. Greg Jaffe, the WSJ reporter who wrote this story, once called an aircraft carrier a battleship (instead of a warship) during the run-up to the Afghan campaign. I suspect this is another hatchet job conceived to make Rumsfeld look bad. Since the WSJ's news pages are more liberal than those of the New York Times, this story is par for the course. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-05-16 09:43 |
| #6 His comment makes sense to me, Verlaine. It's pretty clear that Saddam spread both money and weapons around in the frustratingly slow buildup to the war. However, as we moved from the south, the Ba'athists were able to move north, moving people and money into Syria, out with the Bedouin tribes and into places like Fallujah. A presence in the north from the very beginning would have changed that dynamic significantly, making it potentially much more costly for Syria to enable the insurgency to be planned and sparked from there. It would also have trapped the middle- and lower-echelons of potential insurgents in a vise, probably reducing the local support for them in the sunni triangle and definitely reducing the impunity with which the top Ba'athists were able to operate in that part of Iraq. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-05-16 09:18 |
| #5 As with 99% of "doctrinal" battles, it seems, this one is greatly overblown. As in, the prudent course will be to do some of both (or all), it's not an either/or situation. We want more/better language capability, and we want M-1s when we need 'em. And we always want to prosecute operations with speed and maintain the initiative. Grist for many dull, rather pointless & fierce Beltway panel discussions here. Russian proverb: "two bald men fight over a comb." Suppose I have to check out the USNI article, however, if only because I thought Rummy's worst comment ever was the bit about no 4ID northern offensive making a material difference in Iraq. While it would have been preferrable to have it, I can't see how it made much difference WRT the dead-ender problem. The Ba'athist/Sunni extremists didn't offer battle -- that's kinda the whole point. And the foreign jihadis (for the most part) weren't present yet, at least not in the organized fashion they are now. Some 82nd Airborne patrols rolling in vs. a big 4ID column rolling in (Fallujah, Samarra, whatever) don't yield any differences if common sense is applied to some hypothetical situations. The sullen Ba'athist tribal mid-level dude just watches either force and sets about doing their dirty work. I was happy to save the $5B or whatever it was we saved by having to pay Turkey for their fraternal support. Rummy is exceptionally good on almost every front (probably one of the best cabinet secs in history), but that comment was a puzzler, at least to such as me. |
| Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq 2005-05-16 08:10 |
| #4 METT-T. Every tactical, operational, and strategic problem has a unique solution and should be analyzed afresh with no preconceptions. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2005-05-16 07:25 |
| #3 Speed over armor. Yeah, right! Tell that to the guys who get to crew these poorly-protected vehicles. The British had this concept before WWII, it was called the "Cruiser" tank. It provided entertaining target practice for the enemy. |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-05-16 06:58 |
| #2 Speed kills (the bad guys). Imagine how much more successful the invasion would have gone had we had a cooperative Turkey. There is simply no substitute for speed. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-05-16 06:30 |
| #1 My 2cs worth is Iraq is a one time thing caused by a unique combination of factors, not least the extra-ordinary dependence on Gulf oil. I don't see a repeat anywhere, including Iran, Nork and the rest of the gulf. Possibly it may reoccur in one of the stans but there will be nothing like the easy access for jihadis that Iraq affords. As far as I can see Rummy is right. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-05-16 05:37 |