Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

George Bush's biggest problem is a vacuous incuriosity about the world as it really is. Instead of knowledge he substitutes faith. Faith is a wonderful response to those things we really can't understand like the meaning of life. It fails terribly when applied to immediate reality. It's his faith in Cheney and Rumsfeld and the neocon vision, his faith that global warming must of course be a fallacy even if the vast majority of scientists agreee that it is, and finally his faith in faith as a means of solving problems that has got us all in so much trouble. The question now is, can we set apart partisan differences and really hold this administration responsible for what they have done? Frankly it is not a Republican agenda that Bush has waged but an unreal manic agenda. Which is why I can't understand how all you Republicans on this site can't see that the party needs to be saved (soon) from this nutty view of reality.

Posted by Independent at October 24, 2006 09:47 AM

I'm not a Republican.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 24, 2006 09:52 AM

I think we ought to be billing for all this free, high quality psychological advice. An internet business model that actually works!

Posted by Karl Hallowell at October 24, 2006 10:04 AM

One of the things that has bugged me for a long time (since 9/11) is that in the middle of a real shooting war, we have made no effort to build up the military. We are still operating with the Bush 1/Clinton "peace dividend" military, not a wartime military. I don't understand and I like Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al., but I really wonder what they were thinking when they talk about fighting a long war, but don't do the work necessary to build the military to fight one. If we had a couple more Army and Marine divisions and aircraft carriers, would we really be saying that we don't have any military options vis a vis Iran and North Korea?

Posted by ucfengr at October 24, 2006 12:22 PM

I believe this was the exact point I was making under this post earlier...

Posted by Duncan Young at October 24, 2006 12:26 PM

And what would we do to North Korea or Iran with those extra carriers and divisions? How would they prevent Pyongyang from devastating Seoul with artillery?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 24, 2006 12:35 PM

I've been muttering for four years about standing up a couple of additional divisions of MP brigades designed for occupation duty. Instead we're getting an increment of total end strength increase. I still want them--it's not like there won't be any need for them given the state of the world.

Argh.

"You go to war with the President you have, not the President you want to have."

Posted by Karl Gallagher at October 24, 2006 12:59 PM

This endless discussion of 'more troops' is truly silly. Given the infrastructure (or lack thereof) in Iraq (particularly port capacity), there isn't any practical way to keep many more troops supplied than are already there. Similar limitations exist in Afghanistan (not that there have ever been a significant number of troops there) as well.

Lets remember that when the war began, and we ended up with a 'free' division (the 4th was supposed to enter via Turkey, which withdrew support at the last minute....a problem that had nothing to do with poor planning or inadequate resources), there was literally no place for it to be deployed. More to the point, nobody has actually explained what another division worth of combat troops (as opposed to military cops and other 'crowd control' types) would have been DOING in Iraq. Lets remember that none of the 20-20 hindsight crowd called for more troops with occupation in mind, they thought that troops would be necessary for FIGHTING. Iraq collapsed far faster than anyone gussed (or even hoped), which meant that the normal process of slowly pacifying areas under occupation never had time to occur. Retroactively annointing Shiniseki and his ilk (most of whom were more concerned about the Army's rice bowls being broken than any real sense of military necessity) as prophets because they were mistaken in a way that looks better in hindsight is hardly terribly useful.

As for living of Clinton's largess...what utter rot! Clinton cancelled (or tried to cancel) any program not already close to, or the in early stages of, procurement/deployment with the troops. In fairness to Clinton, I think that he is often accused unfairly of hollowing out the army more than he deserves, but just because he didn't make the situation even worse by not cancelling programs that had been paid out during the Reagan and Bush I years hardly makes him deserving of any significant praise either. Most weapon systems require 10-12 years (15 for aircraft, and sometimes 20 for ships) to work through the pipeline, Clinton didn't control much of what came out of that pipeline, and much of what he did agree to (truly revolutionary stuff such as JDAMs, for instance) were cheap 'bubble-up' systems that had been cooking for quite some time.

The last (and silliest) misconception is the idea that we can simply 'expand the special forces' (a big favorite of JFK2, and others who like the idea of fighting a war without actually having to admit it) with a few extra dollars. Special forces are fairly rare (hence the descriptor 'Special'), and are typically drawn from the same manpower pool that produces good NCOs and junior officers. As a result, even if you could expand the special forces significantly (unlikely for practical as well as manpower reasons), doing so would tend to undermine the quality (and cohesiveness) of your regular army forces, something the Russians discovered to their regret in the late cold-war era.

Posted by Scott at October 24, 2006 01:06 PM

Obviously they (extra divisions/carriers) couldn't do much to prevent a N. Korean artillery bombardment, though maybe an effort to make a deployable m-THEL (Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser) might have, but at at the same time operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched our current military pretty thin which does severely limit our military options WRT Iran and N. Korea or even Dafur. Plus dollars being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan are serverly crimping the procurement budgets of the various services, so we are not able to replace and upgrade our equipment as rapidly as needed.

Posted by ucfengr at October 24, 2006 01:10 PM

Clinton practiced a unique form of unilateral disarmament when he'd fire off a bunch of cruise missiles and then fail to put in for replacements.

Simply putting more boots on the ground doesn't do much good if the soldiers and Marines don't have the proper training for the mission at hand. For example, there isn't a lot of need for anti-aircraft units in Iraq but a pressing need for military police forces. Ordinary infantrymen can be trained for some of that duty but that isn't their primary skillset.

Back in the 1991 Gulf War, the US send about 500,000 military personnel to the region out of a total active duty force strenght of approximately 2 million. However, they knew that the mission of liberating Kuwait wouldn't require a sustained presence. In 2003, they knew that toppling Saddam would require an occupation, which means long term deployments. Those who keep insisting that we should've had much higher troop levels from the beginning are overlooking the strain that would've put on a military drawn down to an active duty force of approximately 1.3 million. Liberating Kuwait was a sprint, occupying Iraq is a marathon. You have to have sustainable force levels based on the size of the military you have, not the one we used to have.

Posted by Larry J at October 24, 2006 01:49 PM

Every time I see some waterhead write the word "incurious", I reach for my pistol, because I know that killer chimpanzees are loose.

Every single time.

Posted by Billy Beck at October 24, 2006 02:05 PM

But Lowry's right. If Bush had been in Lincoln's shoes, McDowell would have been in command of the Union armies for the length of the war. There's a difference between not giving up and trying new leaders and tactics when the old ones aren't productive.

Posted by Jim Bennett at October 24, 2006 02:15 PM

Hmmmm. Colin Powell has been replaced. George Tenet has been replaced. Several Generals in various roles have been replaced. I'd say that Bush does not like to yell, "You're Fired", like Donald Trump. Some of those replacements were no doubt simple retirements. But Bush impresses me as a man who can keep his mouth shut. So some of those replacements may have been something more than simple retirements, whom Bush allowed to leave without trashing them.

We may not know until Bush is dead.

My Dad still hasn't admitted he worked on nukes, and he retired over ten years ago.

Some people can keep secrets.

Yours,
Wince

Posted by Wince and Nod at October 24, 2006 04:02 PM

Could we please get off the "no effort to build up the military" idea?

We live in an information age, and the real need is for the ability to gather, process and disseminate information.

A huge amount of money, R&D, and production has gone into integrating info-tech (an American strength) into the military in general, and into the Army in particular. As a result, the Army (for example) no longer needs enormous quantities of artillery units. Rather, those slots (many in the reserve component) have transitioned to MP / Engineers / other slots.

Furthermore, a lot of money has gone into hardening the logistical units in the Army -- more
firepower, more communication, armored transports.

Think of the past three years in Iraq as a huge (5:1?) accelerator on modernizing the Army from its Cold War posture (which extended through 2001) to the expeditionary posture Rumsfeld has emphasized for the past six years.

Re: Operations outside SW Asia

The principal concerns in SE Asia (Korean peninsula and Taiwan) are battles for the Navy and Air Force, with supporting Army and Marine roles, respectively. The current optempo for the ground forces does not threaten the ability of the DoD to conduct these two missions.

Finally, our land forces are where we need them -- surrounding the Persian Empire. Sitting in the US (or even Okinawa, as if that were going to happen) is not nearly so helpful.

Posted by MG at October 24, 2006 04:33 PM

> One of the things that has bugged me for a long
> time (since 9/11) is that in the middle of a
> real shooting war, we have made no effort to
> build up the military. We are still operating
> with the Bush 1/Clinton "peace dividend"
> military, not a wartime military.

To expand on what others have already mentioned, the reason why Bush and Rumsfeld didn't respond to 9-11 by expanding the size of the military as it then existed is because the military that we had then was designed primarily to fight World War III (the Cold War), and that's the wrong kind of military to fight the war we're in. World War III required a military that could put large quantities of Army and Marine firepower to task on the plains of Europe, supplied by a blue-water Navy battling it out with the Soviets mid-ocean, while the Air Force fought for the skies by shooting down MiGs by the thousands.

This new war (let's call it World War IV) will be fought with smaller, faster land units that can deliver small quanities of firepower cleanly and precisely, backed up by a Navy operating close to shore while the Air Force provides close-air support, mobility, and ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). You don't get a military like that by taking a Cold War military and making it bigger. What Bush and Rumsfeld have done -- they started even before 9-11 -- is to attempt to transform the military we had then to the one we need now while fighting two major campaigns in a global war.

They started with the Army, converting the Future Combat Systems (FCS) from a modernization program to a transformation program that will emphasize rapid deployment and precision engagement. If the simulations are correct, an FCS-equipped Army will be able to fight and not just win but annihilate an opposing army five times its size halfway across the world.

The Navy is also being transformed, from a blue-water Navy designed to fight the Soviets in the mid-Atlantic to one that can operate close to shore and project power inland. No longer will the Navy be built around the Carrier Task Force. It will still have one (called the Combat Support Group, IIRC), but it will sail to provide air cover and combat support to the Marine Expeditionary Forces (renamed the Amphibious Assault Group, IIRC) based on the helicopter carriers. Armor and heavy weaponry will be provided by the Maritime Prepositioning Group, which will sail with the CSG and AAG. The CSG, AAG, and MPG will train together, sail together, and fight together with the mission of projecting force inland.

The Marines will, with FCS-like weapons supplied by the AAG and MPG, be transformed by default. The Coast Guard is also being transformed from a maritime support role to a coastal defense role, with the Clinton-era Deepwater program being expanded and modified for the new mission.

Sadly, Bush and Rumsfeld have yet to get to the Air Force. That's understandable, since the USAF is the most formidable air force in the world and should be the lowest priority for transformation among the services. But, if anything, in Rumsfeld's absence the USAF has grown even more entrenched and money-wasting than before. Perhaps someday....

Anyway, this is more than I planned to write, but I couldn't just let this pass. Bush and Rumsfeld have done more than anyone since Eisenhower to modernize and transform the military (except for Reagan of course), and they get no credit for it, even among conservatives.

Mike

Posted by Michael Kent at October 24, 2006 06:10 PM

I have to agree with MG and Michael; the notion that Bush should have expanded military (similar to Reagan in the 80's) is foolish. The military has to be far more agile than it did in the Cold War. We are not facing large standing armies fighting at Brigade strength, and when we have (such as Iraqi Republican Guards), it really hasn't been much of a contest.

Information gathering and dissimination is much more important. Land is not captured and held by soldiers as much as managed by and policed by remote sensing and targeting systems. These systems act much the same as a mine field in securing territory without the long term negative effects on the civilian population.

I give lots of credit to arguments like Karl's about MP units. Certianly that's a good idea if we want the US military to act as police force for foreign governments. Unfortunately, that is exactly how we have used the military in Somalia, Bosnia, and now Iraq. I say unfortunately, because this is really not a good idea either in precendent or operations. We don't need to apply US laws on foreign territories; it just pisses people off. Operationally, it is just a large requirement for limited resources. The full US military would be hard pressed to provide martial law in the US, so is it realistic they should do it for another nation?

As for Bush, I could have told you in 1999 that he delegated authority. Few Texas Republicans could point to specific actions he did as Governor of Texas. He was simply better than Gore. If not for 9/11, his Presidency would probably be uneventful as well. How many people remember his first crisis in dealing with China and EP-3C emergency landing? If you recall, we got the crew back and eventually the plane in pieces, but do you recall Bush really placing himself at the forefront of resolving that crisis?

Finally, is it possible to take a commenter seriously when he uses terms like "incurious"?

Posted by leland at October 24, 2006 07:21 PM

Leland writes:

As for Bush, I could have told you in 1999 that he delegated authority.

Heh!

Looks like finding Osama bin Laden has been "delegated" to Pakistan. From the September 2006 joint press conference with Musharraf:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I appreciate the briefing on the tribal deal. When the President looks me in the eye and says, the tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanization of the people, and that there won't be a Taliban and won't be al Qaeda, I believe him, you know? This is a person with whom I've now had close working relationships for five-and-a-half years. And when he says, if we find -- when we find Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice, I believe him. And we'll let the tactics speak for themselves after it happens.

Bush believes Musharraf will find bin Laden for us? Also, this last sentence is interesting: "And we'll let the tactics speak for themselves after it happens."

After Taliban truce, attacks up 300%:

U.S. military officials tell ABC News cross-border attacks by the Taliban are up "300 percent" since President Musharraf declared a "truce" with tribal leaders in the troubled Northern Waziristan region that borders Afghanistan.
"Politically, it is very sensitive for us to raise this issue with Pakistan," said a senior NATO officer in Kabul. "But the facts are the facts."

Posted by Bill White at October 24, 2006 07:44 PM

"How would they prevent Pyongyang from devastating Seoul with artillery?"

Ooo! I like playing armchair general. While I think that extra divisions and carriers are not needed I do think our ability to protect Seoul from artillery would be more then adequate with existing technology and manpower. The AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder Radar is capable of plotting the originating position of enemy artillery while the artillery shell is still in mid-flight. Then, we would use MLRS rockets, to saturate the enemy artillery positions with "steel rain" to supress their fire. This was a tactic we employeed with great success during the ground attack phase of Desert Storm. For fear of deadly biological or chemical WMD artillery we could engage the artillery shells mid flight with patriot missle batteries. This would be a situation where the use of a $2 million missle against a $1500 artillery round would be warranted.

Posted by Josh Reiter at October 24, 2006 09:08 PM

For fear of deadly biological or chemical WMD artillery we could engage the artillery shells mid flight with patriot missle batteries. This would be a situation where the use of a $2 million missle against a $1500 artillery round would be warranted.

Unless they were sporting and fired a token number of artillery shells, I doubt that all the patriot missiles in the world could dent what was incoming. If there happened to be biological, nuclear, or chemical weapons in that mix, then one or more nuclear warheads would be warranted.

That's one of the nice things about the THEL system (laser system mentioned earlier in this thread) in Korea. It puts the economics of warfare back in your favor. If you can reliably destroy a $1500 artillery shell with virtually zero marginal cost (and have an effective system even when thousands of rounds are incoming), then that destroys much of North Korea's deterence capability.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at October 24, 2006 11:22 PM

Josh, do you have any concept of the artillery arrayed north of the DMZ?

Karl, while the verdict is still officially out, the word is that THEL is a POS. The problem is that it's a huge, clunky, somewhat dangerous chemical laser. The marginal cost for shoot-downs is actually pretty high. If it were solid-state, it would likely be a completely different story, but solid state lasers with the necessary power (about 100 kW) aren't ready for prime-time yet.

Posted by AdS at October 25, 2006 12:52 AM

I bet you half those North korean artillery batteries have their barrels rusted shut from lack of maintenence, half of the remainder just fail due to being leftover 19th century Russian POSs, and the remainder get wiped out after the first volley by counter-battery fire.

It doesn't matter how hardened a postion you're in if all the entrances are collapsed by having the crap shelled out of them by modern artillery returning from the south.

The initial moves may do quite a bit of damage to Seoul though.

Posted by Aaron at October 25, 2006 06:33 AM

PS, that's not even counting the defection factor. The NK soldiers literally have nothing to fight for, and everything to gain by just folding like a wet blanket. I'm willing to bet that when the going gets tough, they'll just charge South Korea (leaving their weapons and uniforms behind them).

Posted by Aaron at October 25, 2006 06:39 AM

US and ROK forces do not have the means with which to "shell the crap out of" DANK artillery positions BEFORE said artillery has inflicted tens of thousands (or even a hundred thousand or more) of South Korean causalities. That in short is the problem, US/ROK forces would prevail in any conflict with NK but at a tremendous cost.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 25, 2006 08:01 AM

"This new war (let's call it World War IV) will be fought with smaller, faster land units that can deliver small quanities of firepower cleanly and precisely, backed up by a Navy operating close to shore while the Air Force provides close-air support, mobility, and ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance)."

Except that we're fighting this "new war" right now, and it's called "occupation," and it doesn't "require small, fast land units delivering small quantitied of firepower..." It requires troops, on the ground, fighting insurgents and providing security.

Posted by Kevin Randall at October 25, 2006 09:10 AM

Jeez, I wish he could have had a little more deference to his generals at the start of his term.

Posted by Chris Mann at October 25, 2006 11:29 AM

"Josh, do you have any concept of the artillery arrayed north of the DMZ?"

We can either be ugly and contemptuous in our behavior, which will turn people off, or else we can carry ourselves with dignity and pride.
--Hazel Scott

Posted by Josh Reiter at October 29, 2006 11:10 PM

Post a comment