Yesterday the Obama administration revealed how it plans to reorient our military in order to pay for the half a trillion dollars it wants in defense cuts over the next decade. Under the guise of creating a “leaner, meaner” and more mobile force, President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta will actually leave us with an Army, Navy, and Air Force that can be everywhere but fight nowhere; that’s able to act quickly but not decisively, and with few resources to deal with the unexpected — which tends to be the norm in strategic affairs — or project real power where it counts.
Even worse, the Obama-Panetta plan flies in the face of America’s experience in war over the last two decades.
The plan shrinks our Army and Marine Corps down to pre-9/11 levels, while slowing or halting new weapons programs, including replacement ships and planes, for the Navy and Air Force, including the next-generation F-35 fighter (which was supposed to be ruling the skies by 2020 but now will be making only the occasional cameo appearance). That will leave enough conventional forces, the administration insists, to fight one good long war if we need to.
Meanwhile, our operational emphasis will shift from big units and big bases to small, stealthy Special Ops forces and unmanned drone strikes (the one part of the budget that will see a big jump in funding, by 30 percent). These will operate from small “lily pad” bases scattered around the world like the new one planned for Darwin in northern Australia, where mobile Army units and Marine Expeditionary brigades can deploy to help local allies deal with threats, and then return to refit.
In short, Obama’s Team Six hit on Osama bin Laden, and his Predator drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, become the new paradigm for America’s future use of military power.
Let’s just hope our enemies cooperate. History strongly suggests they will do the opposite.
In fact, just about every administration and secretary of defense since the Cold War has aimed to create a leaner, meaner American military that’s more mobile and leaves a “smaller footprint” — while also requiring a smaller budget. Then events, and real-life threats, spoil their aim every time.
First there was Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War; then Bosnia and Kosovo; and then Iraq and Afghanistan. Each time the United States found itself having to mobilize large-scale forces with plenty of boots on the ground, and plenty of resources to keep them supplied and protected — the very things the Obama plan undercuts.
Indeed, the one war we did try to fight the Obama way with Special Forces and local allies alone — Afghanistan in 2001 — swiftly turned to disaster until we deployed enough firepower and troops, including Marines, to take the initiative away from the enemy and take and hold territory.
“Take and hold territory” is a concept totally foreign to the Obama way of war. But it’s something America’s fighting men and women have had to do time after time in the last century — and there’s no reason to assume they won’t be doing it again.
And here’s where Obama’s one-war-at-a-time standard spells trouble. It dramatically ties any future president’s hand in dealing with international crises since, unlike opponents in a Bruce Lee movie, America’s enemies rarely come on one at a time. They usually come in twos as in World War Two or even (as when North Korea threatened to heat up in 2003 when our troops were tied down in both Iraq and Afghanistan) in threes. How will a future president decide which conflict deserves the full commitment of American military resources, if he has only one roll of the dice — and how can he count on dispassionate advice on going to war from his military chiefs, who know the same thing?
The result will be a United States unwilling to use its power where and when it most counts, and reluctant to follow through on military operations that might trigger a conflict we feel our forces can’t handle.
That’s not a formula for peace. That’s a guarantee of future disaster.
— Arthur Herman’s newest book, Freedom’s Forge, will be released in May.
“Take and hold territory” is a concept totally foreign to the Obama way of war.
GOOD!
“Take and hold territory” has been a DISASTER. An expensive, indecisive waste of time and money that exposes our men to IEDs and arouses the hatred of the local population. We are far better off blasting people dead from the sky, preferably with robots, than trying to "take and hold territory."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePrior to the surge in Iraq, we eschewed taking and holding territory for the "small footprint" approach. This was ineffective and, as you stated, exposed our troops to necessary IED attacks and did little to win over the population.
What you don't seem to realize is just how much the war improved when the surge brought back the taking and holding of territory. This secured our supply lines, broke the back of the enemy, and made the population substantially less unfriendly.
The "small footprint" strategy didn't work before, and adding in more unmanned drones isn't going to magically vindicate that strategy. You can't win a war by killing a dozen or so enemies a week in drone strikes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think you get what the poster meant. In his world, we wouldn't have needed the surge because we wouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place.
I don't necessarily agree with this, but insisting we need a "take and hold territory" strategy in order to succeed when invading and occupying a country is begging the question.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe US military has been successful when it has been able to apply massive fire power to situation. Lose that advantage, and American lives will be lost.
When the bad guys learn, "Never bring an AK-47 to a 155mm howitzer gunfight" we win.
When they learn "The Americans only fire support is likely to be a pair of Navy fighter-bombers, which may or may not show up in the next 30 minutes, provided the their rules of engagement are being complied with," not so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is a formula for the continued Europeanization of America. The Europeans eviscerated their military budgets to pay for their social programs. Our fearless leader is embarking on the same strategy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe European military evisceration was predicated on having a strong US military to look to for their protection. How is O's proposal playing in Brussels, one wonders?
Also - just a thought - where now will these unemployed service people find jobs here?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a surprise just how? The O has to pay for his profligate spending somehow, Its too bad the Military has to be the designated fall guy. Will this country ever learn not to elect Dems. After a few thousand GI's pay the price.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHistory repeats itself. In WW1 our country was unprepared militarily for war, in both manpower and weapons.
This is Sisyphus rolling the rock up the hill again, and the most telling of all of Dear Leader's decisions to reduce our country's strength. He has accomplished this internally (economy, class warfare) and now chooses to weaken our national security as our enemies get stronger (see: China's military).
The end game is November 2012 when the GOP must win. Vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow many soldiers is he laying off? How many jobs is he destroying?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe most disturbing thing to me is what appears to be a deliberate plan to make our Air Force second rate. First BO scraps the F-22, already in production and by far the best plane in the skies, now they are gutting the F-35. The stated reason why we should scrap the F-22 was because of our commitment to the F-35. Now not so much.
The bulk of our Air Force strike capability are aircraft designs from the 1970's and 1980's.
Is this intentional? Does BO think we shouldn't have an "unfair" advantage. Congress needs to stop this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe F22 has been a financial disaster. When they can fly, the F22 is the best plane in the skies. But in the past two years the ENTIRE F22 fleet has been grounded 3 times due to design problems. Prior to that, its maintenance times were horrid. Its stealthy skin repeatedly flaked off and its software repeatedly had problems.
The only reason the F22 continues is that its manufacturing was split into a bunch of vulnerable congressional districts.
I am not a fan of cutting the military to the bone, nor am I in agreement with all of Obama's changes. However, our procurement process needs something done, and something done quick. With the way our world is changing, it is no longer possible to spend billions of dollars developing weapons platforms that take 20 years to go from conception to operational readiness.
The advancement of Drones is a perfect example of weapons platforms that are punching far above their weight, and weren't even on 99% of peoples' radars 15 years ago. In that time, we have gone through DOZENS of different drone designs quickly and efficiently. I'm not saying they are the solution to all our problems, but the fast development and concentration on keeping us from being "bought in" to a single platform both keeps our military budget down and ensures that we are developing to solve the right problems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm, I think you mean the Bush/Rumsfeld way here...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Indeed, the one war we did try to fight the Obama way with Special Forces and local allies alone — Afghanistan in 2001 — swiftly turned to disaster"
I hope the strategy is something like what Thomas Barnett is talking about. For example, here: External Link
I fear that the burden of massive social spending increasingly leaves no room for defense. This is what happened in Europe. I think it is happening here.
It may well happen that this President leaves a "Jimmy Carter Iran Scenario" to his successor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis "second-rating" of the U.S. military is not an unintended consequence of the president's policies--it is approaching his desired goal. In only one term. Obama will have irreparably gutted America's position as a global power. How well can the military function in a "one-war" situation when it will be constantly looking over its shoulder for our other enemies to take advantage of our limited capabilities? Aside from nuclear weapons, which will be politically unusable. we will be helpless to react successfully to regional threats.
Obama's mentors are probably planning the "Helpless America" parties right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, I can see how reducing military spending to levels seen in 2007 could be considered disastrous. "Snort".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd because you seem to not remember, the US military has not had the capability to fight two wars independently for decades. That's why Afghanistan suffered when forces were diverted to Iraq earlier in the 2000s.
Lastly, even with budget cuts, the US military will still be receiving funding greater than all other world militaries combined. And they will still be able to kick butt across the globe.
We never had to experience nuclear because we had a lot of deadly hardware (including troops) at our disposal before we had to pull the big trigger. This bunch thinks we can get by with small tactical actions with only the threat of the big trigger; our oversized threat will be scornfully ignored and the prospect of nuclear war will be more likely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe will suffer defeat after defeat, where our small forces are not enough to do the job and we do not want to go big time, until the threat we face is severe enough that it can't be ignored. Then we will have no other option than the big mushroom ka-boom.
It would seem to me that a "leaner and meaner" military would require state-of-the-art technology to maintan dominance. So why are we eschewing modern replacements?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Take and hold ground" is a false strategy. We take and hold minds. To do that, we have to attack ideologies -- which is how we won World War II. I don't think we want that ideological clash. We'd rather have our kids come home shattered and missing limbs so long as we don't have to take on this ideology. BTW, the followers of the religion of peace here in the US are also not taking on that ideology. They provide a smokescreen and cover for this long war.
"I don't want to get any messages saying that "we are holding our position." We're not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the (backside). We're going to kick the (sheol) out of him all the time and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose!" -- George Patton
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can't "take and hold minds" until after you "take and hold ground".
You don't think we won WWII by first taking and holding ground?
What would you call the Invasion of Normandy?
The battle for minds can't even begin until the battle for ground is finished. As WWII shows.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe battle for minds hasn't begun. When we conquered Germany we blew up all symbols of Nazism, shamed the populace with published photos of the death camps, and totally discredited and outlawed National Socialism. How can you do that with an ideology that has roots in a 14 century-old faith and that reproduces disciples at will? Have we closed down the Madrasses whose graduates march with the Taliban? What we do will require tough choices and tough actions. We've conquered the ground. We have no implementable strategy for conquering the minds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse