The Tragedy of the American Military - Great Article

[Chad]

Really well written article on the current state of the military, the relationship between the military and civilians, and the relationship between the military and the military industrial complex. Probably, the best article I have read on anything in quite some time.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ry/383516/

[Kriegsspiel]

I agree, the article is pretty accurate. I would disagree with the author when he says that the "military has been defeated by less-modern, worse equipped, barely-funded foes." We fucking rock at killing people and destroying their shit. We're not so good at doing the State Department's job, and I'm not really familiar with an army that was ever good at that.

Now, that said, I think the next point is also valid:

“We are vulnerable,” the author William Greider wrote during the debate last summer on how to fight ISIS, “because our presumption of unconquerable superiority leads us deeper and deeper into unwinnable military conflicts.”

But the situations that I think he's referring to are "unwinnable" because you can't kill your way out of them, there is statecraft and political strategy involved, and that's where we fail. They're using the wrong tool. Maybe the author is saying that this is how politicians should be thinking about wars...

Overall it was a smart article IMO.

[theanimal]

We fucking rock at killing people and destroying their shit. We're not so good at doing the State Department's job, and I'm not really familiar with an army that was ever good at that.

Ah, but I think that's part of what the article is trying to argue. Americans like to think that's the case but when it's actually not. It may be true to an extent, but as the author said the US has really struggled in wars since Vietnam with the exception of the Gulf War. I'd also say that's definitely the attitude the government wants citizens to have. If we think our military is so superior, we can just go off and fight whenever because 1. We are amazing and 2. Most of us don't have any skin in the game so to speak.

Thanks for sharing, Chad.

[Chad]

From my vantage point you are both making valid points. The US, even with all the negatives in the article, still has the most powerful military on the planet, which is really good at killing people. However, as both of you seem to be suggesting, this is one of those wars where we win all the battles, but end up losing because we aren't fighting all the battles with the appropriate response.

I'm part of the way through the book @War. The stories about electronic warfare in Iraq are quite interesting and paint the US as a frightening battlefield opponent, even in the modern urban guerrilla/terrorist war. Unfortunately, this is not the only battlefield in these types of wars.

I post this stuff just because I find it interesting. If others do to that's great, but if not they can easily skip over it.

[jacob]

"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." --- the first one ever to write about systems-theory

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." --- same guy and this applies to strategies too.

That is all.

[SimpleLife]

Sun Tzu.

[jennypenny]

There is no doubt that the US standing military is best equipped to fight only certain types of conflicts. I would argue that it is prepared to fight the most egregious threats to the citizenry, which is why the public is so confident in its abilities. No one is going to invade the US on a scale that would threaten our sovereignty. Even if someone tries to nuke the US, the public assumes we will nuke them right back. Terrorism is the current bogeyman, but I think the public gives the military a pass on terrorism because most people feel it's at the mercy of terrorists, too. (Beirut, USS Cole, etc.)

The public issue that is hampering the military is the public’s opinion on how our military should fight. As a nation, we prefer straight-up fights replete with heroes, flag-waving, and photo-ops. Americans have no taste for black ops or fighting “terrorism” using the same tactics as the terrorists. We might laud Seal Team Six, but only because they are the exception and not the rule, and only used in extreme circumstances (not necessarily true, but what the public believes).

To theanimal’s point, I think the US military has struggled since Vietnam because, beginning with that war, the goals have been ill-defined at best. That’s why the Gulf War is the exception. The goals and motivations were clear—Iraq invades Kuwait, so we fight to drive out Iraqis with the blessing of the Kuwaiti people. When the conflicts are within borders like with Syria and the current situation in Iraq, it’s much harder to define goals and draw clear sides in a conflict. Add in the current PC climate where the US can’t define an adversary by its race or religion (even though that’s still the source of conflict in many parts of the world), and it becomes almost impossible to define “us” and “them” without offending segments of the US’s current population.

I also think the change since Vietnam has to do with the perpetually-swinging political pendulum within each administration. If modern military goals are fraught with political, religious, and societal entanglements, they will undoubtedly take longer to achieve; but if the political will of an administration changes too frequently, the goals will also be redefined frequently, preventing cohesive strategies and successful missions. I’ve always wondered how differently WWII would have played out if FDR had been limited to two terms.

The article is good, but I take issue with the author on a couple of points, including using the word “Tragedy" in the title. I wholeheartedly agree that the military could use better guidance, better black ops capability, and a greatly-enhanced cyber-warfare division. It also needs a little breathing room. Reforms after the infamous $6K toilet seats have led to sometimes-stifling procedures that slow down or disincentivize changes (e.g. the Army has a set of official procedures for changing official procedures ). That said, the US is one of the safest nations on earth, and Americans are safe almost anywhere they travel (or help is not far away), and that’s because of our military and State Department. Changes might be needed, but there’s nothing “tragic” about them.


edit: Sorry that got long. My opinion is admittedly biased.

[jacob]

@jp - How do you define "safe" in this context? How does that compare to e.g. Switzerland, Japan, Sweden, or Russia, for example?

[jennypenny]

Safe from invasions and threats to sovereignty.

China and Russia are similarly equipped to defend themselves.

[Dragline]

We haven't been legitimately threatened with that in our lifetimes.

Honestly, I'd feel safer travelling in most places these days if I did not have a US passport. Having one from a small country in the European Union is probably optimal and certainly more convenient, because everywhere that the US has clamped down on with more visa requirements has reciprocated by imposing like requirements on US passport holders.

I think ultimately the way we view/treat the military is merely a reflection of whether we (in the US) are behaving as a Republic or an Empire. Most people outside the US have believed the latter for at least 20 years. Most people inside the US -- well aided by our media -- still believe the former or at least go along with that meme as being socially or politically advantageous. In my view, the end of the draft was the harbinger of an Empire-supporting military.

We certainly spend on it like an empire. Only an empire would spend billions of its citizen's money trying to both destroy and "build nations", whatever that really means. Like all empires, our military will eventually bankrupt us, although I expect I will be long dead by then. In the end, bloated government spending is just bloated government spending, no matter how patriotic and dramatic it might be. Heck, I'm not even getting any local infrastructure out of it like some of these places. I sometimes wonder how people would feel about it if we reclassified it as "foreign aid", which is what a large part of it is.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I sometimes wonder how people would feel about it if we reclassified it as "foreign aid", which is what a large part of it is.

"Compulsory Foreign Aid" does have a nice and appropriately Orwellian ring to it.

[jennypenny]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for supporting an Empire or a bloated military. My point is that the military is very good at doing what it was designed to do--provide a common defense--and the public's support of the military in that regard shouldn't come as a surprise to the author.

The problem, as I see it, is that our increasingly lazy political leadership (both parties) uses the military for other purposes too often--usually in place of diplomacy--and thrusts the military into situations for which it is ill-advised and ill-prepared just to satisfy their own political whims. An "Empire supporting-military" is a political problem, not a problem stemming from the military, and won't be solved by making changes within the military.


And shame on the public and media for falling for any spin resembling "A good offense is the best defense."

[jacob]

@Dragline - That is a very rare perspective for an American to hold, but the empire model explains the situation far more accurately and it is the perspective that most non-Americans now hold.

Some ten years ago, I would be writing pages on this subject in various newsgroups and forums, but I found it impossible to penetrate the "we're the best of the best because we're the best" ideology(*), so I largely gave up. Even a string of successive "I told you so" affirmations when my predictions eventually turned out right didn't sway anyone, so I largely gave up on the subject entirely. (PS: @jp, this is on my list on subjects of human futility that I stopped talking about, but I'll make an exception here ).

(*) Google "fox news awesome torture" for a youtube clip showing an extreme example of the kind of cognitive dissonance and barriers that this ideology creates.

I'll add a few points that might further clarify what's going on.

(BTW I basically have no interest in debating this or changing my position on this. This is the model I use. It's been correct and predictive for about 15 years now.)

1) The empire model is the most useful way to describe the situation. The US military previously had little experience in running an empire. Now it has more (black ops and drones, all tools of the empire trade). All the bigger Euro nations have at some point in their distant past had decades or centuries of this experience. It's in their culture. It's not in the American culture yet. (Why most Americans still believe they're the bright light of a Republic of freedom rather than a colonial empire. Why most Americans are shocked at colonial blowback [why do they hate us?!] whereas most Europeans see it as the cost of doing business [good thing we're not the ones doing that anymore].)

1a) The US military was built to fight invasions or to invade territory and kill people. It is very good at it. No wonder though, just look at the defense budget of various countries in the world. The US might spend twice as much on health care as the second most expensive country, but it spends 5+ times as much on defense.

1b) Occupying territory as an empire is entirely different. The strategic scenario for an empire vs colony is different than that of nation vs nation. The latter is military vs military with rules. The former is military vs idea. Terrorism is an idea, a concept. You can't fight this with weapons. Depending on cultures (Russia for example) you can't even fight it with words. Only deeds matter.

2) The US is unique in the sense of how intertwined business and state is. In most other countries, the state runs the military (and a lot of other public services). In the US, this is very often outsourced to private industry and then regulated by the state. Health care is one example. This military is another example. The JSF is a good example. Look at how many different geographic sources of parts it requires. This is a supreme strategic liability. However, if you think of the JSF as the means for industry to profit (global outsourcing) and develop a business, it makes perfect sense. Conversely, if the goal was to get a tool to fight the battles the military is currently engaged in, it would make a lot more sense to keep the A10. Even better, to replace it with a beefed up version of the P51 (yes, the world war two fighter) all parts from which could probably be made within the city limits of Detroit, MI. On the whole though, because of what essentially amounts to unlimited money, the US military is pursuing a lot of white elephants. For example, it has 7 carrier groups. Hugely impressive and expensive. Also, I understand that all it takes to destroy such a group is a single ballistic nuke from which there's no defense (I might be wrong here but I doubt it).

2a) So don't see this as "foreign aid". Rather see it as a job program for US industry interests. Politicians get voted in because their home state got a contract to manufacture some component of some weapon. These weapons must be used to justify them but of course this would be too crude. It's not like anyone is callous to directly make up conflicts to use weapons. Rather, we just happen to have weapons that can be used... and the general rule of technology is that if it already exists, it's much more likely to be used.

This creates a positive loop that feeds on itself. There are many people who vote in politicians if they are known for supporting military or defense jobs simply for that reason.

2b) In that regard, endless wars are perfect because they are very profitable. The "war" (it's not really a war, see 1b) becomes a recurring cash flow which is the goal of any business interest.

3) Any strategic action taken by an empire is the pursuit of the _control_ of a primary resource. In Iraq it was oil. In the Ukraine it's natural gas, but the idea is the same. Make allies with whoever is expedient/willing to make a deal for that control. Being business oriented, this is not done with the long-term in mind nor is it done with the ideals of the republic in mind nor is it done with any kind of democratic ideal and nor is it done for the local people. That's not to say that those things wouldn't be nice to have, but they're not nearly as important as making that deal.

This perspective also seems somewhat uniquely American. It's not that other nations don't colonize other countries to control their resources. They've definitely done that. Rather, it's the willingness to make deals that's rather strong.

3a) This kind of realpolitik (or realbusiness) very often conflicts with the public ideals causing cognitive dissonance but actually more a kind of Orwellian double think in which the public and the political side refuses acknowledge or even learn about the details. "It's in the past. We put it behind us." This deliberate avoidance then guarantees a repeat at some point in the future.

4) Most people living in small nations are very much in tune with what goes on in the rest of the world. Most people living in large nations, not so much. So whereas every armchair general in small nations (and particularly the local ones in the colonies) are familiar with the ethnic relations, the people in (3) making deals really aren't. "African nation" anyone. This is why armchair generals and tribal locals have so much success in making the correct predictions compared to the supposed experts.

There's one particular American blindness here in the Americans are used to thinking of themselves as Americans first (then Hoosiers or Christians or professors). America is an idea AND a country. This is what I like so much about the US. (BTW Russia is an idea too, ponder this fact wrt to the Ukranian situation). Conversely, a lot colonies are just lines on a map. The US military can change the lines on the map but it can't fight the ideas. I still haven't met very many Americans who can explain the difference between Sunnis and Shias (as well as other primary identities like Kurds, Alawis, ...) and draw a map of where they live. Bonus points if you can also draw the pattern of the oil fields. (You now know everything.) In other words, the world is much more complicated than Americans tend to see it as Americans benefit from the country=identity equations whereas most places of conflict do not.

4a) I'm sure the US military does understand this at some levels (probably not at the very top or the very bottom) but the problem is that they're brought in to fix the problems after the problems have been created by people who do not understand it. This relates to the Sun Tzu quote above ... about looking for some kind of "victory" after the battle is done. As mentioned above though, the US military is good at winning territory (it usually takes less than 72 hours or as fast as an M1 Abrams can drive across the country in question), but that's not the problem to be solved.

Exercise for the reader: Now use this to predict the end result of the Ukranian "problem" (the deal here was to control natural gas): one revolution, two ethnic groups in the same country (one group is an idea), one part industrialized, the other part poor, petrodollar is relevant, three major states (think of EU as a state), two are based on ideas, one is close, one is far away, the third one is irrelevant.

In conclusion: No nation has ever managed to successfully run an empire in any kind of stable fashion. An empire is essentially a kind of a bubble both in the sense that it's temporary and also in the sense that the people in it are either unaware of it or simply unable to do anything about it. I can't think of any way to make this work. I also note that it seems to be a planetary rule that some nation inevitable HAS to be the empire. So yeah ... I dunno ... but at least I think I understand the form of the current one.

[Chad]

@JP - I think we read the article differently, as "Tragedy" seems to be very apt. I didn't read it as the military itself was causing most of the tragedy, but that the civilians/voters and politicians were the main part of the tragedy. The over reverance, lack of connection, lack of understanding, use as a jobs programs, etc.


Just some added info for the discussion. Not super relevant, but I never get to use this knowledge:

The souped-up "P-51" was the A-1 Skyraider from the Vietnam War. Really more of a souped-up P-47 Thunderbolt, but essentially the same thing. Cheap and effective. Decidely, what the JSF is not. Especially, considering a large percentage of the plans/tech has already been stolen by the Chinese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

The current US Navy list of carriers:
- Gerald R. Ford: Currently under construction and new class of carrier...even bigger and more complex.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
- Theodrore Roosevelt
- Abraham Lincoln
- Harry S. Truman
- G.H.W. Bush
- Nimitz
- Carl Vinson
- George Washington
- John C. Stennis
- Ronald Reagan
- Enterprise: Currently being decommissioned, but this takes a while.
- Also, there are a few non-nuclear carriers in mothballs that could be activated given time.
- 10 Amphibious assault ships: Essentially, mini-carriers that only operate VTOL aircraft such as helicopters, Harriers, and the marine version of the JSF.

Other than the Enterprise, all the ones with names are all classed as super carriers (85-90 fixed wing and helicopters) with the Ford carring roughly the same number of planes/helicpters, but with roughly 900 less crew. The cost of the Ford is anywhere from $11-17B...depending on the source and what you include (does not include the cruisers, destroyers, subs, support ships, etc. in the carrier battle group). Note: Not all of those carriers are fully operational at any given time.

The country with the next most carriers has 2 and there are only a couple of those countries. Those carriers are not the equivalent to any of the carriers with names listed above and most of the carriers in the world are barely more capable than the amphibious assault ships. Plus, most of those navies aren't deep blue navies.

This is one instance where we appear to be fighting the last war. Midway being the decisive naval battle of WWII, was won by carriers along with a good portion of the war in the Pacific. Unfortunately, these are highly vulnerable today and not just to nukes. We or anyone else can't crank these out like we did the old ones in WWII. These take years to build and almost unimaginable amounts of money. This means we, and everyone else, will probably use them like the dreadnaughts in WWI. They will maneuver, but rarely go directly against anything that has a decent chance of killing them, such as comparatively cheap cruise missile from a land based plane, small patrol boat, or ultra quiet diesel sub.

[Kriegsspiel]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for supporting an Empire or a bloated military. My point is that the military is very good at doing what it was designed to do--provide a common defense--and the public's support of the military in that regard shouldn't come as a surprise to the author.

The problem, as I see it, is that our increasingly lazy political leadership (both parties) uses the military for other purposes too often--usually in place of diplomacy--and thrusts the military into situations for which it is ill-advised and ill-prepared just to satisfy their own political whims. An "Empire supporting-military" is a political problem, not a problem stemming from the military, and won't be solved by making changes within the military.


And shame on the public and media for falling for any spin resembling "A good offense is the best defense."

Yes, this is what I meant. To expand on this, if the US military were to deploy again to Iraq/Syria, we would destrominate ISIS and reconquer the territory they are holding. The military portion would be certain. But we'd "lose" because after the destruction, we wouldn't know what to do (again). The politicians would probably give the military a nation-building/COIN/make-a-functioning-government-appear-there! task, which would most likely end in failure. Or a non-military organization from the west would try, and fail. Even if we tried letting the natives decide their own fate, the result most likely would not be "acceptable," in that it might just be theocratic fascism or something similarly intolerable.

[Kriegsspiel]

We fucking rock at killing people and destroying their shit. We're not so good at doing the State Department's job, and I'm not really familiar with an army that was ever good at that.

Ah, but I think that's part of what the article is trying to argue. Americans like to think that's the case but when it's actually not. It may be true to an extent, but as the author said the US has really struggled in wars since Vietnam with the exception of the Gulf War.

I just don't think that's correct. Well, not correct if you say the US military has struggled in the wars since Vietnam.

- Grenada
- Panama
- Iraq I
- Bosnian peacekeeping mission

Were all complete wins for the military.

- Gothic Serpent (Somalia) might one what you are referring to as a failure. From what I understand, militarily the operation was a success, however with heavy casualties. According to to wiki entry, the task force was comprised of 160 soldiers. If the wiki entry casualty data is accurate, the task force had 103 casualties, the opfor suffered 4,000. Politically it was a failure, and the troops were pulled out shortly afterwards.
- Afghanistan
- Iraq II

Militarily, all of these wars are extremely 1-sided. Afghanistan and Iraq were conquered very quickly with fairly low casualties. Aftewards, during the COIN and nation building, the military was not defeated either. Iraq was probably a political defeat (we were still causing a lot more casualties among the insurgents than they were causing), and we just kinda gave up in Afghanistan.

I'd also say that's definitely the attitude the government wants citizens to have. If we think our military is so superior, we can just go off and fight whenever because 1. We are amazing and 2. Most of us don't have any skin in the game so to speak.

Thanks for sharing, Chad.

I agree that it makes it easier for the pols, and that this is a bad thing.

[jennypenny]

@JP - I think we read the article differently, as "Tragedy" seems to be very apt. I didn't read it as the military itself was causing most of the tragedy, but that the civilians/voters and politicians were the main part of the tragedy. The over reverance, lack of connection, lack of understanding, use as a jobs programs, etc.

I finally had a chance to reread the article. I still think the perspective of the author and his corresponding use of the word "tragedy" is incorrect. From the article ...

If any of my fellow travelers at O’Hare were still listening to the speech, none of them showed any reaction to it. And why would they? This has become the way we assume the American military will be discussed by politicians and in the press: Overblown, limitless praise, absent the caveats or public skepticism we would apply to other American institutions, especially ones that run on taxpayer money. A somber moment to reflect on sacrifice. Then everyone except the few people in uniform getting on with their workaday concerns.

To me, that statement implies that politicians and the public aren't being skeptical enough about the military. Fallows might mean that people should be more skeptical of the use of the military, but I don't think he makes that distinction and I doubt that's accidental.

This reverent but disengaged attitude toward the military—we love the troops, but we’d rather not think about them—has become so familiar that we assume it is the American norm. ... Now the American military is exotic territory to most of the American public. As a comparison: A handful of Americans live on farms, but there are many more of them than serve in all branches of the military. (Well over 4 million people live on the country’s 2.1 million farms. The U.S. military has about 1.4 million people on active duty and another 850,000 in the reserves.) The other 310 million–plus Americans “honor” their stalwart farmers, but generally don’t know them. So too with the military. Many more young Americans will study abroad this year than will enlist in the military—nearly 300,000 students overseas, versus well under 200,000 new recruits. As a country, America has been at war nonstop for the past 13 years. As a public, it has not. A total of about 2.5 million Americans, roughly three-quarters of 1 percent, served in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point in the post-9/11 years, many of them more than once.

That attitude might be true of the upper and upper-middle classes living in the megalopolis and other urban centers, but it's not true of the bulk of the country. The military is not "exotic territory" to most Americans. That assumption that Fallows is making is symptomatic of the increasing disconnect between the elite political class in the US and 'regular' Americans.


As Kriegsspiel and others have pointed out, we should be skeptical of politicians and how they use the military, not the military itself. They put the military into situations that it can't win. Military spending is a standard pork item in Congress, but then the military gets blamed for having a bloated budget. Multi-year projects get shelved when political winds change direction. The military certainly needs improvement, but IMO it's a problem with a disconnect between the leadership class and the military, not the general public and the military, and not the military itself.

Like I said, though, DoD pays DH's salary, so I'm admittedly biased. Most people I know in leadership positions in the military are more than capable and underutilized.

[GandK]

As Kriegsspiel and others have pointed out, we should be skeptical of politicians and how they use the military, not the military itself. They put the military into situations that it can't win. Military spending is a standard pork item in Congress, but then the military gets blamed for having a bloated budget. Multi-year projects get shelved when political winds change direction. The military certainly needs improvement, but IMO it's a problem with a disconnect between the leadership class and the military, not the general public and the military, and not the military itself.

+1. This was my experience when I was in, also. There's a lot that's broken about the way the military functions, but the most broken thing here is the perception gap. At bottom, the US military is a tool to be wielded by the government of the Unites States on behalf of its people. You can't blame a tool when it is used incorrectly, or for purposes it was never designed to be used for. You must blame the entity that wields it.

[jacob]

Can you blame the tool for being the wrong tool or should the tool owner be blamed for that? IOW who has the responsibility to defining the form of the military?

Currently, the US military is a tool intended to (as far as I know) fight two major wars on two different fronts. That sounds an awfully lot like preparing for a repeat of WWII. Wouldn't it make more sense to:

1) Since the US is a continent, it's geographically almost impossible to invade and hold. Forming a militia much like the Swiss where almost everybody gets conscripted and carry their guns at home or at least at the nearest depot would accomplish several objectives. a) It would strongly connect the public to the defense. b) The Swiss (population 8M can mobilize 1M in 24 hours!). The US should be able to mobilize some 40M in 24 hours.

2) Focus the professional military almost exclusively on special forces and nuclear weapons. The former does the job that militias can't do. The latter deters attacks which is why everybody wants one.

Admittedly that would make it almost impossible to go invade other countries willy-nilly whenever their current leaders don't want to make deals, but maybe that's a good thing? It would also be a whole lot less expensive.

[jennypenny]

Can you blame the tool for being the wrong tool or should the tool owner be blamed for that? IOW who has the responsibility to defining the form of the military?

I would think the NSC, which bring up the point whether a person sees them as part of the "military" or a separate entity. I see them as separate, but maybe others don't.


I like the Israeli model including universal conscription. Part of their official Doctrine (whether you believe they follow it or not) ...

The IDF mission is to "defend the existence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state of Israel. To protect the inhabitants of Israel and to combat all forms of terrorism which threaten the daily life."

Some principles from the main doctrine:
Defensive on the strategic level, no territorial ambitions
Desire to avoid war by political means and a credible deterrent posture
Preventing escalation
Determine the outcome of war quickly and decisively
Combating terrorism
Very low casualty ratio
A small standing army with an early warning capability, regular air force and navy
An efficient reserve mobilization and transportation system