Transformation - Part Deux
This post is a continuation of the previous military transformation post. The ideas advocated in this post, are based in the new Service Component construct: Land, Air, Naval, and Special Operations. Force restructuring descriptions defined in one Component is applicable across all Components.
Since the military is an all-volunteer force, Americans have lost sight of the sacrifices these men and women make on a daily basis. And let's be frank - a majority of Americans view the military as a necessary evil to be kept in the background until, begrudgingly, it is needed. Unless the military is re-entrenched in American society, it will end up like the Roman legions - isolated and mercurial - without the sense of being a part of the American fabric.
Two ideas spring to mind to weave the military back into society. First is, re-introduction of the draft. This is a topic I have gone into detail before, see previous post. But when all segments of society have "skin in the game," decisions to engage in warfare becomes more democratic and critical analysis is applied before deploying American citizens.
The second is to re-structure how units are aligned across Active Duty, Reserve Duty, and National Guard forces. Units should be aligned to capabilities and the primary mission of each. In the Land Component, the Active Duty is the expeditionary ground forces that is deter enemy aggression, take and hold territory, and defeat the Nation's enemies. Because of the role of the Active Duty, the force structure should be primarily combat arms, with organic support capabilities that allow the Active Duty to be fully self-sustained for 30-60 days. Combat units currently assigned to the Reserve Component and National Guard would be re-assigned to Active Duty to further bolster combat capabilities.
In developing this new force structure, I must admit that I had a hard time reconciling the Reserve Duty as a force provider. In the end, I see the Reserves as the repository of combat arms units not suitable for a smaller, modular, and expeditionary force (such as armor, field artillery, and air defense artillery), as well as a mix of combat support, and combat service support units. The Reserves would integral to longer term military operations and to meet the need for a "heavier" force package. Due to the civilian application of many of the combat support and combat service support capabilities, an equal number of units would be aligned in the National Guard.
Let's remember the National Guard is where American society and the military meet and mingle. Each States' National Guard is normally under the command and control of the Governor, unless called onto active duty by the President. The National Guard is the primary domestic military response force for man-made and natural disasters. There are very specific needs that the National Guard needs to have in its inventory. Combat support units (such as military police and chemical/CBRNE assets) along with combat service support units would predominantly be aligned in the National Guard.
At this point it is time to slightly divert a bit and talk helicopters as an example how this new force structure works. Let's be blunt, the current force alignment for helicopters is misguided. Attack helicopters should be assigned to Active Duty units, and utility helicopters should be in the National Guard. The current debate about helicopters is short sighted and parochial. Like any other military asset, helicopters should be aligned with the mission and capability requirements. The National Guard needs a robust utility helicopter fleet to meet its domestic operations mission and is less inclined to need attack helicopters. So the resources should be re-aligned. If the Active Duty needs utility helicopters, it should integrate the National Guard into mission planning and execution. This re-alignment requires that the National Guard is a significant force provider in any overseas operation.
This realignment of force structure has two other benefits. First, as alluded in the previous paragraph, is that it requires greater integration across the Active Duty forces, Reserve forces, and National Guard throughout all phases on the continuum of military operations. No singular force is fully capability nor has the capacity to engage in major combat operations (and operations other than war) by themselves. To fully function that military would operate under a "one force" mantle, each piece supporting the others. No longer would the Nation only be represented by a piece of the full force.
The other big benefit, is that with the Reserves and National Guard, civilian skills would augment military capability. This benefits U.S. National Security Strategy, since civilian skills help to shape the non-combat environment (particularly through security cooperation and security assistance activities) and as an enhanced capability in combat operations. The greatest strength of the Reserves and National Guard is that these citizen-soldiers and airmen bring significant civilian skills and experiences to their military job and provides a force multiplier to the military overall.
So can the powers to be, and those with a vested interest, look beyond their limited sight picture and look long term at how to best align forces with missions and capabilities? I will not hold my breath.
The U.S. Military is us. There is no truer representation of a country than the people that it sends into the field to fight for it. The people who wear our uniform and carry our rifles into combat are our kids, and our job is to support them, because they're protecting us.
Since the military is an all-volunteer force, Americans have lost sight of the sacrifices these men and women make on a daily basis. And let's be frank - a majority of Americans view the military as a necessary evil to be kept in the background until, begrudgingly, it is needed. Unless the military is re-entrenched in American society, it will end up like the Roman legions - isolated and mercurial - without the sense of being a part of the American fabric.
Two ideas spring to mind to weave the military back into society. First is, re-introduction of the draft. This is a topic I have gone into detail before, see previous post. But when all segments of society have "skin in the game," decisions to engage in warfare becomes more democratic and critical analysis is applied before deploying American citizens.
The second is to re-structure how units are aligned across Active Duty, Reserve Duty, and National Guard forces. Units should be aligned to capabilities and the primary mission of each. In the Land Component, the Active Duty is the expeditionary ground forces that is deter enemy aggression, take and hold territory, and defeat the Nation's enemies. Because of the role of the Active Duty, the force structure should be primarily combat arms, with organic support capabilities that allow the Active Duty to be fully self-sustained for 30-60 days. Combat units currently assigned to the Reserve Component and National Guard would be re-assigned to Active Duty to further bolster combat capabilities.
In developing this new force structure, I must admit that I had a hard time reconciling the Reserve Duty as a force provider. In the end, I see the Reserves as the repository of combat arms units not suitable for a smaller, modular, and expeditionary force (such as armor, field artillery, and air defense artillery), as well as a mix of combat support, and combat service support units. The Reserves would integral to longer term military operations and to meet the need for a "heavier" force package. Due to the civilian application of many of the combat support and combat service support capabilities, an equal number of units would be aligned in the National Guard.
Let's remember the National Guard is where American society and the military meet and mingle. Each States' National Guard is normally under the command and control of the Governor, unless called onto active duty by the President. The National Guard is the primary domestic military response force for man-made and natural disasters. There are very specific needs that the National Guard needs to have in its inventory. Combat support units (such as military police and chemical/CBRNE assets) along with combat service support units would predominantly be aligned in the National Guard.
At this point it is time to slightly divert a bit and talk helicopters as an example how this new force structure works. Let's be blunt, the current force alignment for helicopters is misguided. Attack helicopters should be assigned to Active Duty units, and utility helicopters should be in the National Guard. The current debate about helicopters is short sighted and parochial. Like any other military asset, helicopters should be aligned with the mission and capability requirements. The National Guard needs a robust utility helicopter fleet to meet its domestic operations mission and is less inclined to need attack helicopters. So the resources should be re-aligned. If the Active Duty needs utility helicopters, it should integrate the National Guard into mission planning and execution. This re-alignment requires that the National Guard is a significant force provider in any overseas operation.
This realignment of force structure has two other benefits. First, as alluded in the previous paragraph, is that it requires greater integration across the Active Duty forces, Reserve forces, and National Guard throughout all phases on the continuum of military operations. No singular force is fully capability nor has the capacity to engage in major combat operations (and operations other than war) by themselves. To fully function that military would operate under a "one force" mantle, each piece supporting the others. No longer would the Nation only be represented by a piece of the full force.
The other big benefit, is that with the Reserves and National Guard, civilian skills would augment military capability. This benefits U.S. National Security Strategy, since civilian skills help to shape the non-combat environment (particularly through security cooperation and security assistance activities) and as an enhanced capability in combat operations. The greatest strength of the Reserves and National Guard is that these citizen-soldiers and airmen bring significant civilian skills and experiences to their military job and provides a force multiplier to the military overall.
So can the powers to be, and those with a vested interest, look beyond their limited sight picture and look long term at how to best align forces with missions and capabilities? I will not hold my breath.
I would like to comment on your statement, "Since the military is an all-volunteer force, Americans have lost sight of the sacrifices these men and women make on a daily basis." While I agree this general statement is true, I believe the sentiment is locality based.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to knowing someone who is serving or has served in the military, where someone lives shapes how they view the military as well. This week we celebrated Veteran's Day, or for some of the old-timers, Armistice Day. For those people who know a veteran, or are a veteran themselves, they have not lost sight of the sacrifices our military men and women make every day. But, I think for those people who do not know a veteran, where they live is a better indicator of support for veterans and the military in general.
I'm from Northern Virginia. And even though the area has a large military presence (Quantico MCB, Bolling AFB, Fort Myer, and of course the Pentagon), those people with no affiliation to the military it's easy to forget, because it's not part of their daily lives, and therefore, they have lost sight of the daily contributions of the armed forces. I'll make a generalization here; I believe this is true for most large cities, whether there is a military base nearby or not.
Back to this week, and Veteran's Day. I'm visiting Central Oregon, and the city of Bend (the largest city in the area with a population of about 80,000) hosted the largest Veteran's Day parade in the state of Oregon. Note, Oregon is one of a handful of states with no active duty military bases. In addition, several local high schools held Veteran's celebration events this week as well. I attended one high school event where the entire high school student body attended. When the high school principle asked the students to raise their hands to acknowledge, "who has a family member who served or is currently serving in the military", an overwhelming majority of the students, my quick glance around noticed about 90 percent, raised their hands. I was, and am, impressed. My guess is the people in this rural community have not lost touch or lack understanding of the sacrifices of our Veterans, and what all men and women who have served have given our great nation.