 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
 Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject: Rumsfeld and the Generals |
 |
|
I found this article very informative. Not having any expertise on the military myself, I have been puzzled by these General's carping against Rummy and joining the parade who want to see American failure in Iraq.
AHA, the light goes on in my dull brain. A smaller, SWIFTER, more specialized army means LESS GENERALS. A defeat in Iraq would justify the Powell Doctrine and return us to massive forces and LOTS OF GENERALS.
The American Spectator
| Quote: | Rumsfeld and the Generals
By Lawrence Henry
Published 5/5/2006 12:08:26 AM
The World War II generation would have understood the revolt of the six generals right off. Coming through a five-year conflict that involved the whole of American society, that generation found military behavior, organization, and language second nature. "KP." "Double-time." Most important, terms like "battalion" and "regiment."
Military organization, known as "force structure," traces its roots back to the Roman Empire, and perhaps even to Moses. (See Exodus 18: 21-22: "...You must yourself search for capable, God-fearing men among all the people, honest and incorruptible men, and appoint them over the people as officers over units of a thousand, of a hundred, of fifty or of ten.") In the infantry, the basic unit is a Troop, one soldier.
Troops are organized into Fire Teams, usually of four Troops. Two or three Fire Teams make up a Squad. Three Squads compose a Platoon, and Platoons are grouped into Companies (100-120 Troops). Battalions comprise four or more Companies, plus support and headquarters Companies, plus "S-Shops" (supply, medical, intelligence, chaplain).
At the battalion level and above, says my source for this information, a self-described grunt, "everything gets political." Battalions, usually three or four, are combined into brigades, and three brigades combine to form a Division -- ideally, about 10,000 Troops. Normally, three divisions make up a Corps.
At every level, an officer gets a job. Lieutenants head up platoons, captains, companies. Between battalion and the division level, the scratch for command jobs gets mean and nasty. Lots of fairly long-term soldiers get to the rank of captain, take a look around, and realize there's not going to be anywhere to go. There are lots of retirements at the captain rank. The next rank up is major, a kind of nowhere state in between captain and colonel. Officers often retire at major, too.
Colonels actually run battalions, and, as they acquire experience, especially hard-to-get combat experience or plum assignments in advanced weaponry or assignment to the various finishing schools in the services, it is from their ranks that generals get picked. The politics -- and the bureaucratic infighting -- are easy to understand. At every level, there are fewer commands and fewer jobs. At the rarified top of the command ziggurat, at the various general officer ranks, the rivalries get sharp, indeed.
THE WORLD WAR II MODEL AND THE COLD WAR MODEL of the Army was organized around the division. At the height of the Cold War, there were a lot of them. The Soviets had 150. Indeed, division-level organization, training, and thinking prevailed through the first Gulf War -- that and the goodies available at that level for generals who played the game right.
Now scroll back to the early 1970s, to the humiliating end of the Vietnam war. For the generals, it was a "never again" moment on several levels. A conscript Army sent to fight a war seen from ground level as futile, with its mission undermined by the media and even, in later days, by Congress, became infested with drugs and rebellion. It got so bad there were places line officers simply did not go. Fragging wasn't just a figment of the fevered imagination. Senior leadership suffered under public scorn, and not much better from the post-Watergate Bolshevik Congress.
To its credit, the Army dug in and did the dirty, hard job of purging drugs from its midst. Not so creditably, the generals devised a way to cover their butts, mainly by keeping the politicians off them. It found its most famous expression in the "Powell Doctrine," with its insistence on overwhelming force and an "exit strategy." (How to get the Army out with its getting hurt or embarrassed, never mind that quaint concept, "winning.") And the generals eagerly took refuge in the doctrine of "two major wars and a brushfire" capability for the armed forces as a whole. It assured lots of spending, made the military largely inert, and got the generals (and admirals) lots of big, expensive weapons systems around which to scuffle for stars.
They also took advantage of a civilian leadership increasingly remote from, even hostile to, matters military -- and, most important, ignorant of how the services really worked. The generals drank Bill Clinton's kool-aid on gender-norming, no smoking, and don't ask don't tell. In return, Clinton played his part, using military force only from great distances (cruise missiles) or 35,000 feet (Kosovo).
It ended in a joke, quoted by Mackubin Thomas Owens April 3 in the Weekly Standard, in "Did the Military Really Have a Better Understanding of Iraq?"
If the Army didn't want to do something--as in the Balkans in the 1990s--it would simply overstate the force requirements: "The answer is 350,000 soldiers. What's the question?"
NOW ENTER A NEW PRESIDENT, a new party, and suddenly 9/11. This President Bush was not content to consult the biggest Rolodex in foreign policy (his Dad's). He wanted to get something done fast, and he did it. Within a month, two dozen or so Special Forces ops, dropped into Northern Afghanistan, had rounded up tribal help and set the Taliban on the run. The fall of Kandahar followed within about a month. When the big battalions showed up under Gen. Tommy Franks, GIs began to die -- not before. And it was big Army thinking that let bin Laden escape -- if indeed that's what happened.
The early stunning triumph in the north, still unappreciated by the public, didn't escape the generals for significance. Of those two dozen Special Forces operators, most were sergeants, with a captain or two and a few warrant officers sprinkled in. They exploited "joint" capabilities to the max, calling in laser-targeted bombs delivered by the nearest available fast-mover, never mind the branch of service. The whole operation stood as a rebuke to division-level thinking -- and, in fact, to the Powell Doctrine.
What was worse, from the generals' point of view, the President and the SecDef liked this quick, slashing approach to war and wanted to do more of it -- wanted, in fact, to reorganize the entire military along such lines. The Cold War had seen the Air Force predominate in the Pentagon turf wars, with the fanciest weapons systems and ultimate defense against -- and delivery of -- nuclear weapons. (Can't leave out the Trident sub; the Navy had its hooks in, too.) Now, everything would be turned topsy-turvy, with those hard-to-control Spec Ops types and the Marine Corps, with its self-contained Expeditionary Units, at the center of the show. The President even brought back a retired Spec Ops general, Peter Schoomaker, to replace the looks-like-America Eric Shinseki as U.S. Army Chief of Staff. Secretary Rumsfeld cancelled the appropriation for the humongous Crusader artillery system.
The World War II generation would have understood the pique, as I say. The generals got their rice bowls broken. That rattling noise, under all the whining, was the jingle of hundreds of generals' prospective shoulderboard stars washing out the Pentagon sewers and down the Potomac.
So never mind the apparent policy differences or the complaints that Secretary Rumsfeld is "arrogant" and "doesn't listen." Those are just pretexts for making a political move, hardly unexpected from the politicized Army that survived the Clinton administration.
What strikes me are the paradoxes. Disaffected general officers fall in with the civilian critics who want to re-cast Iraq as another Vietnam. [b]They offer their help in the very process of demoralization that led to America's Vietnam defeat, to the very people they wanted to protect the Army against. Meantime, the all-call-quagmire types have joined forces with the oldest-line representatives of the military industrial complex.
Lawrence Henry writes every week from North Andover, Massachusetts. |
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shawa, I think you've definitely got it.  Not only would there be fewer generals, but perhaps just as importantly, there would be fewer retired generals who would know what the heck they were talking about with this new kind of warfare. Think about all the military consulting jobs that would go unfilled, books that would never get written, etc., etc., etc.
The doctrine of "overwhelming force" (which Powell is unabasedly a proponent of) was taught at West Point and ROTC for years and years. Every one of the current and recently retired generals were thoroughly indoctrinated with this concept. And it made a whole lot of sense - when the opposing sides were well identified, disciplined, and on a man-to-man basis, equally armed. There are even mathematical models that support such a theory. But all assumptions and previous conclusions are off the table when one is dealing with an unconventional enemy (that's one of the lessons that really should have been learned in Vietnam - and it was by a few, but not by enough). This doctrine of overwhelming force is another, perhaps rationalized, reason for the old dogs to oppose the changes, so I'll be generous and give a few of them credit for falling into this trap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Even in our Revolutionary War unconventional, assymetric tactics were used. The desire, of course, was to match the Brits with ranks of soldiers marching toward each other until one man stood on one side. But the Colonies never had enough troops to do that very often.
Then it occurred to more and more officers that, "Hey, why don't we just have the guys hide behind trees and pick the redcoats off in their nice even ranks. They won't know what to do with it." And they didn't.
Rumsfeld's restructuring was even more basic. No future enemy is ever going to battle us using configurations and tactics from past 'conventional' wars. The old generals, from Powell on down, just don't get it. Rummy gets it and is in the right place at the right time. Long may he wave.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WEST POINT GRADUATES AGAINST THE WAR
Did any one catch the representative of this group on Fox & Friends this morning?
It was truly embarrassing, even for the hosts. Kiran was asking the Westpointer questions about Saddam, then asked him what he would have done… ie would he have gone to war…he replied some vague non-answer about not commenting in regards to politcal policy. They talked about the controversy re using West Point in their website domain, the she segued back to the Iraq, saying well, we are there now, what would you have us do…and he gave the very same non answer about not making political policy. He said nothing else about the war! They were very polite to him, but the looks on their faces were astounded - here is this military man, spokesman for this military group against –the –war,, and he has absolutely NO comment about the war or alternatives – they’re just against it.
Truly someone’s pawn . It was so painful to watch this guy (missed his name)
As with the group of a dozen or so retired Generals speaking out ( from among how many hundreds? or thousands?)
There are what.. about a thousand West Point graduates a year for the last 30 years, and they have 50 members in this anti group so far. He said they are going to try to get grads from some of the other military academies to join them.
( sorry for the paraphrasing—that’s the gist of what I saw, tho it was already started when I caught it)
link purposely not provided -- google will get you there
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Truly depressing Kate, not so much that they are opposed to this war but that they would so callously politicize the name of that noble institution. There is nothing that gives the leftists of this country more glee than to trot out their token support from the "military". Was "useful idiot" not a concept studied during their Academy years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm taken back again to MacArthur's remarks on receiving the Thayer medal at West Point in 1962, one paragraph of which says it all to the 'West Point Graduates Against The War'. This advice should follow them even if not on active duty since their words are heard by the current Corps.
| Quote: | | "Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government; whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing, indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as thorough and complete as they should be. These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a ten-fold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country." |
MacArthur's full remarks
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I caught Fox and Friends this morning too and was surprised at the representative of West Point Grads Against the War. I especially noted he did not answer any questions directly.
I went to their website and browsed a bit and saw that of the 3 founders, only one claims 10 years service. Curiously missing was any length of service of Joe Wojcik, their spokesman this morning. Browsing further I saw their rhetoric is the same old stuff we have been seeing ever since this started.
Personally, it pleases me that West Point is objecting to the use of their name in their title.
Addressing this on my personal blog, I added a couple quotes they seemed to have missed;
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation."-- General Douglas MacArthur
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, First Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1953
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."-- Theodore Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | | Personally, it pleases me that West Point is objecting to the use of their name in their title. |
That was good to hear Lew...
| Quote: | West Point warns anti-war alums to stop using name
By The Associated Press - 05/07/06
SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) — The Army warned an anti-war group of former U.S. Military Academy cadets to stop using the words ‘‘West Point’’ in its name, saying they are trademarked.
<snip>
West Point spokesman Lt. Col. Kent Cassella said the academy sent the April 12 warning letter because the group failed to go through a licensing process to get permission to use the term ‘‘West Point.’’ The group’s anti-war stance is irrelevant, he said.
<snip>
An attorney hired by Cross and his colleagues said the warning raises questions of First Amendment speech protection and selective enforcement. Joseph Heath said he noted the concerns in a response sent to the Army on Monday; he has not yet received a reply, he said.
Independent Record - con't |
Undoubtedly a lawsuit against the institution is in the offing, most probably fully supported by the ACLU. Should that be the case, I'd recommend they defer attendance at their next class reunion...it might be a bit chilly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
