January 16, 2007

BUREAUCRACY LOVES COMPANY:

Will a Larger Military Mean Lower Standards? (Robert Haddick : 16 Jan 2007, Tech Central Station)

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld worked strenuously to avoid the very announcement Mr. Gates made last week. Mr. Rumsfeld hoped that "transformation" would reduce the number of soldiers required to achieve battlefield effects that previously required vast hordes to accomplish. Technology, as exemplified by the Army's Future Combat System, is only part of the transformation story. The Marine Corps's "distributed operations" concept will achieve immense effects on the battlefield, with platoons doing the work of battalions and companies doing the work of regiments. Under distributed operations, the Marine Corps will reorganize its infantry battalions to allow sergeants and lieutenants to lead wide-ranging patrols deep through enemy terrain. A battalion commander previously maneuvered with three rifle companies. Under distributed operations, that battalion commander will employ a dozen to 30 or more mobile, elite teams to find the enemy, direct airpower, or mass for attack. Small unit leaders will be given unprecedented authority and responsibility. However, the Marine Corps requires only the best recruits, trainable to elite standards, to make distributed operations a reality.

Mr. Gates is leading in the wrong direction. Rather than reinforcing failure, what the U.S. government should be learning from Iraq is a new way to fight its wars. Instead of using massed legacy American forces, the U.S. should move to a model that employs highly-trained U.S. teams either working in a distributed fashion to identify enemy targets, or as advisors to local allies and proxies.

This was where Mr. Rumsfeld was driving. Now Mr. Gates is steering the Defense Department off the road. Instead of being allowed to develop high quality recruits into elite warriors prepared for a complex battlefield, Mr. Gates is going to dump more marginal misfits on the sergeants and lieutenants. Let's hope someone can stop this ride before it ends up in the ditch.


Someone being W.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 16, 2007 4:53 PM
Comments

Isn't it obvious that W decided we have too few troops, and that Rumsfeld's transformation was progressing too slowly to obviate the need for more troops? Surely he supports Gates on this.

Posted by: pj at January 16, 2007 6:06 PM

I wish Bush had given this entire "surge" idea more thought. Unfortunately he is being irrational in overeacting to the Congressional elections.

Posted by: h-man at January 16, 2007 7:55 PM

Presumably he gave it plenty--retreat is politically easier when you're sounding charge.

Posted by: oj at January 16, 2007 8:47 PM

No. W supported Rummy so long because the transformation matters and the military is too 20th century.

Posted by: oj at January 16, 2007 8:48 PM

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the surge. The Dems and MSMs with no military understanding certainly don't get it.

Almost all of the 20K are going into Bagdad where all the violence is. They are not being spread out all over the country as some think. In this sense it is shock and awe in Bagdad to clean the most important city up so that the Iraq govt can get things under control themselves. Then the US can start pulling troops out or putting them on the Syrian and Iranian borders to prevent future trouble.

Posted by: AWW at January 16, 2007 9:52 PM

They aren't going anywhere. We might send 7k for show.

Posted by: oj at January 16, 2007 11:29 PM
« KNOWING WHICH SIDE YOUR BREAD IS BUTTERED ON: | Main | THERE IS NO BOTTOM: »