I have yet to read a post by Lind where it is easy to dismiss. This post like many others he has written for military.com makes a lot of sense.

I think we can possibly all agree, he has presented a history of our military wherein the sacrifices made when budget cuts arrive is always directed at reducing combat manpower. The DOD cabal has always defended wasteful spending on systems that have rarely benefitted the men and women on the ground. We spend billions of dollars on technology that has little value in fourth generational warfare, money that could be better well spent on less star trek technology. Again I will claim on an individual basis, I would rather have say 100 aircraft composed of CH 53's, Huey's, Cobra's & 46's than twenty-five V22's if confronted by a situation requiring moving men and supplies utilizing vertical envelopment. Chances are, I will run out of 22's faster than 100 mixed aircraft. I haven't calculated the cost comparison between a mix of aircraft and 25 of the new 22's but my sense tells me the cost will probably come close to being fairly equal and maybe even less for the 100 mixed aircraft...maintenance would probably be fairly equal and possibly less on the 100 aircraft.

Another example would be Humvee's. They were never constructed to withstand the rigors of attacks by IED's, RPG's, etc. Yet we have sent our combat troops out into an environment where we know such usage will cost American lives. Hell, South Africa offered us the use and purchase of a vehicle early in the war that was suited for such warfare and we rejected the offer. The SA government even offered to allow construction of the vehicle here in the US under license. The sale price for the vehicle was around $100,000 to $150,000 per vehicle depending upon how we wanted it outfitted. But no, we had to wait until the American military/industrial complex could provide one of their own. In the meantime, the wait cost America a number of its most precious assets, the lives of our fighting men and women.

We could also go into the body armor fiasco, the M-16 and any number of weapons systems where decisions were made on the basis of what was best for certain American corporations instead of the lives of our warriors. I truly hope the new administration will actually put people in charge of our weapons procurement process and who will be honest about what is wanted as opposed to what is needed. I sure as hell do not want to ever hear words uttered again by anyone in our government like 'you go to war with what you have and not with what you wish you had!' To me, that comment said it all about what DOD and corporate America had in store for our troops. Some heads should roll.

S/F Gordon

Another well thought out article by William Lind... I've been a member of Military.com for over four years and have yet to read a Lind post that was not fascinating and logically presented.

If members on this site are truely interested in doing what is best for our service men and women, take Lind up on his motto idea. Call your Reps and Sens and demand that our combat units are not short changed by the "perfume princes" in Washington.

Lind is a force in this field. Of that, there can be no doubt. His analysis is sound; but I still believe that his prescriptions for the cure are off the mark; namely: the United States should never regard what Lind has coined "4th Generation Warfare" (Urban gang warfare, spiked with explosives) as the central focus of its military.

What we have experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan are popular rebellions against an invading army(ours). WE are the PEOPLE's ENEMY! Not their liberator. Unlike Vietnam or Korea, wars during which we successfully formed large and effective indigenous fighting forces which were able to control large swathes of territory and eventually to do most of the fighting in their own defense, we have not been able to develop and field effective air and ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to nearly the same extent.

Special Ops is not as effective as Special Forces. The SF detachments can be supported by Civic Action Groups to win the hearts and minds, and by Ranger Battalions to act as ready reaction/strike forces wherever and whenever the rebels (aka insurgents or guerillas) mass for battle. But "Decapitation tactics" are sexier and more appealing to our leadership, perhaps because they know that they can't win hearts and minds over to the idea that the United States is going to run their country for them. If we fight 4GWs/insurgencies only where we are fighting to free the oppressed i.e. to defend their homes and families, rather than to bomb them, we won't need more than a tenth of our military devoted to the conduct of such wars.

Our military must be able to destroy the military forces of other advanced nations, who are competing with us to control the world's resources and to ultimately control the economy and -with it- the people of the United States. That's where our military thinkers and planners should devote their time and effort. At this time, China and (to a much lesser extent) Russia are the competing powers who demonstrate the intent, and are building the capability, to defeat America in the related arenas of globalization, geopolitics and global warfare. They also have proxies for fighting this war: lobbyists to the U.S. Government, Globalized Corporate Enterprises, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba. (You are free to name more if they come to your mind.)

Mr. Lind is fond of historical comparisons. Let me suggest that deeply misguided economic policies have put the United States in a position similar to the Kaiser's Germany. 1914 Germany could not fight a sustained war against Great Britain, because vital resources to sustain the war effort had to be transported by sea. 2010 America cannot fight a sustained war against China, because so much of our essential consumer goods and industrial components are being imported from China. Therefore, we must maintain a military that is able to mobilize quickly and to win a short and highly destructive war against China, so that the war could be won before the United states runs out of vital goods.

I agree with the futurists that, strategically-speaking, the winner will be the one who will be able to cripple the other in outerspace and in cyberspace. However, the war cannot be won without a lot of cruise missiles and antimissile-missiles being launched in the process. Naval and Air superiority will be vital to our war effort. The size and readiness of both our Navy and Air Force have been seriously eroded. Rebuilding and reinventing both should be our top priority. These systems are very expensive and take a long time to bring from concept to deployment.

Our devotion to and obsession with waging war with Islam is self-destructive. The arguments, that we have to fight them over there in order to prevent an act of sabotage over here, are perverse. And building an army, intended to fight against an adversary who cannot launch an attack against any American person or interest more than 150 miles from these remote areas, is foolish.

Lind, like many others who have always fought from far behind the lines is wrong. Dead Wrong. Focusing on a defensive force is a perscription for suicide. Defensive forces may win battles, but never wars. The way to win these "new" (and they are not "new") 4th Generation wars is to get back to letting the war fighters fight. As for the tech. it's absolutely esential, as long as we award contracts based on solid results. Those with the biggest, most accurate guns win. The ultimate in military force effectiveness is the ability to defeat your enemy before a shot is fired. Thats where we need to be.

falconrik:

I beg to differ with your assessment. A fourth generational war cannot be fought utilizing a second generational mindset and the utilization of its tactics...which is what certain people in our political and military hierarchy are attempting to do.

The one enduring fact of our past conflicts since Vietnam is simple...no support from the indigenous population. As long as we are viewed as the aggressor and occupier we will NEVER prevail in our current conflicts and conflicts of the future. We can throw all of the manpower, weapons systems and money at Iraq and Afghanistan and it will be of little value. Some may delude themselves into believing we can win such conflicts by utilizing our current strategies but they are pure works of fiction and it is merely an attempt to placate bruised ego's and ideology rather than admitting the truth.

Regarding your claim of allowing the military to make the decisions required for victory is again denying relevant evidence. The brass have had ample opportunities to demonstrate 'their' decisions would attain victory but in the end it is still the same...outmoded, stubborn resistence to reality. From a tactical position, their decisions have done nothing that would assure us of any victory no matter how the word is defined. The Middle-East is a quagmire wherein its nations are anything but supportive of anything we have done there since Iraq War 1. If you have had the opportunity to read and study the latest tome known as the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, it is easy to ascertain we have failed to adhere to very few of its tenets and tactics so it is a book with many pages between a cover but is of little value. And it will continue to be of little value as long as America and its political and military leaders maintain a belief in the so called limited warfare doctrine adopted back in the early 60's.

Sadly, what we have is total ignorance of our enemies and the people's surrounding those enemies. Until we realize we will never receive cooperation from indigenous populations at the end of the barrel of a gun, we will continue to waste precious resources...our most precious and valuable resource being the lives of the members of our military.

S/F Gordon
______________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by falconrk:
Lind, like many others who have always fought from far behind the lines is wrong. Dead Wrong. Focusing on a defensive force is a perscription for suicide. Defensive forces may win battles, but never wars. The way to win these "new" (and they are not "new") 4th Generation wars is to get back to letting the war fighters fight. As for the tech. it's absolutely esential, as long as we award contracts based on solid results. Those with the biggest, most accurate guns win. The ultimate in military force effectiveness is the ability to defeat your enemy before a shot is fired. Thats where we need to be.

I think we are missing the big picture here. Mr. Lind states near the end of the article that "the Defense Department will cut combat forces while preserving the bureaucracy and the money flow to the contractors".

Sadly enough, he is right. This is, I think, where the cuts need to be made. The military is becoming insanely top heavy. The ratio of flag officers to grunts is higher now than ever.

Maybe its time to retire the Pentagon, get the brass on its way out the door, and get the money where it is needed...the soldiers, sailors and airmen that fight.

by PO1_Kline:

I say amen to that...and hopefully they will take their hairbrained concept of limited warfare with them.

S/F Gordon
_____________________________________________


I think we are missing the big picture here. Mr. Lind states near the end of the article that "the Defense Department will cut combat forces while preserving the bureaucracy and the money flow to the contractors".

Sadly enough, he is right. This is, I think, where the cuts need to be made. The military is becoming insanely top heavy. The ratio of flag officers to grunts is higher now than ever.

Maybe its time to retire the Pentagon, get the brass on its way out the door, and get the money where it is needed...the soldiers, sailors and airmen that fight.[/QUOTE]

Mr. Linds analysis is on target.

As long as the general staff remains as bloated as it currently is and the defense acquisition project to civilian job situation remains unchecked, both the boots on the ground and taxpayers will continue getting shortchanged.

Anyone in charge of a weapons system acquisition on the military side will find themselves without a job on the civialian side if that system isn't ultimately purchased. Therefore, the system is inherently corrupt (look at how hard it is to kill even an unsuccessful weapon system). A special acquisition management office should be put in place to derail the "system" (such as it is) in place, and leave the officer corps to lead the troops.

This office should work hand-in-hand with a defense acquisistion process similar to that used by the British that couples warfighting strategy to weapons systems when determining what to purchase. That would resolve a number of problems:

1. Remove congressional mandates for weapons systems purchasing (thereby no longer forcing systems to be purchased that the services have not requested).
2. Derail the current "weapons are more important than the troops" syndrome.
3. Remove the conflict of interest between the military and civilian sectors.

His points are valid. However the politicians see the defense budget weapons buys, etc as their own pot. The appropriation system is broken and the politicians will not change it. I don't hold out much hope that his concerns will be heard (or more importantly acted on) in the halls of Congress. The status quo suits the political elites.