A War the Pentagon Doesn’t Want - Washington Post Op-Ed by Major General Robert Scales (USA Ret.).
The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempsey was largely (and respectfully) silent.
Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war…
Comments
Of course rice bowls are never out of the picture, but if they're worried about it working they're on pretty safe ground. They also have to worry about it not working, especially if that points in the direction of yet another aimless and endless exercise in "nation building". It's easier to step into these messes than it is to step out.
Dayuhan,
Unfortunately I believe this opinion piece is as much about rice bowls as it is about the conflict itself. The Army really can't afford for this to work. I mean this is the most literal of terms. If this works - if the policy objectives can be achieved by the Navy using cruise missiles and the Air Force using bombers - then the Army starts to look like a poor place to invest in future development. Combine that with sequestration, the idea that the best form of COIN involves a light footprint of primarily advisers from the SOF community, the Pacific Pivot, and no large Army threatening U.S. interests, and you have the recipe for future troop reductions and to have the bulk of future funding going to the other services. I am a septic when it comes to any ideas about what is possible that comes out of the beltway.
Right on Crum. What does the Pentagon want...besides BCTs, Carriers, Air Wings, and SOF to do...shaping operations? We'll we are once bitten twice shy again. No one should be surprised now by that, even Dempsey. I can't blame Obama for much here. Not with the mess of wars he inherited from Bush. Scales should know better...Obama will be damned it he does and damned if he doesn't.
I didn't get the impression that he was advising that course, just pointing out that the only way to resolve the situation is to take steps nobody is prepared to take. That could be wrong, just the way I read it. In any event, defeating the Syrian army might indeed be a nice clean objective, but even the blindest advocate of boots on the ground would recognize that it would be only the first step in a very unpleasant journey.
Perhaps the question should be "What war does the Pentagon want?" ... or more correctly, "What war does the Army want?"
As the unnamed source put it "... if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army." Defeating the Syrian army is a nice, clean, "obtainable objective" that puts the Army in the lead, not relegated to a back seat while the Navy and the Air Force do the heavy lifting.
The Army was used to being out in front. The future being created as we speak may not include the Army (or the Marines) as key players since the American people don't want boots on the ground. That future is written in the shifts in troop strength as the Army and Marines lose big-time while the Air Force has a minor adjustment and the Navy gains Sailors. No looming large ground force to threaten us and the American public's aversion to placing Solders in harms way means that the Army will be less the service of choice in the future. Something the Army does not want.