How Badly Things Are Broken With Our Defense by Robert Bateman, Esquire.
… The political level of war, like all things political, is the most complex, and the most important. In part this is because politics inevitably works its way at least two, and sometimes three, levels down as well. But because they [sic] are politicians involved, they believe that anything they direct their attention to is the most important. (It has to be, see, because they are involved.) But this is the level where the decisions have to be made: Do we go to war? Where do we go to war? What do we use to go to war? Optimally you make firm and clear decisions, give concrete directions, and then enforce your will…
Comments
Bob; I believe you to be a LTC in the Army but Esquire listed you as a Lt. Col. and thought perhaps they had your service confused.
First of all, great article. Understand that your intent was to bring some folks up to speed on the differences between tactical/operational/strategic/political spheres. Good on you, because it is possible to either some do not either 1) not know what those are, or 2) are aware of them but perhaps lost sight of their delineations. As a fellow Historian I appreciate a number of your nuances that might not be considered.
I would submit that there a number of broad generalizations (no pun intended I will address that adjective-turned-verb later) that should be discussed. In the discussion of health care, I have yet to see a CBO or any other entity define, via a real spreadsheet, how much the actual and projected costs are for the care of military personnel and their families. On top of that, the constant bell of medical benefits for retirees is rung, however having been posted in major CONUS Army bases, I know from experience that retirees are getting drug benefits but having to pay for their exams/doctor visits.
Worse, is the notion that because all of us "johnny come lately' type guys with body armor are surviving are costing the country more...well, factually yes; if we really want to cut costs I guess the alternative is to put us back into OD cotton uniforms. Certainly this will generate a lot of talk from folks on the medical side as well as the tactical side of the coin. However, it doesn't 'brief well' on the national news when guys are getting blown up so we, as a nation/military industrial complex came up with lots of new kit to make us impervious.
Sorry, I digress. Back to your thesis; you bring up a number of good points, but you missed the larger one - the very size of General and Flag level officers along with the requisite staff that follows them. Worse, we have to consider all the 'requisite platforms' from the super high speed cool guy S**T that is going to 'make war easier and kill less people...(quote from AUSA conference)...'
Despite continued efforts, we, I point my finger as a neophyte historian but more so at the military community in general, CONTINUE to fail to regard most things and dovetail them into our psyche so we, ahem, don't make the same mistakes again.
One of the articles reflected on being at the Pentagon (come on just say the Puzzle Palace) and interactions with the White House. This writer was naive in his/her revelation that services (at any level) play the stupidest game in the world.
Lets talk about the combat operations, major ones I mean - Iraq/Afghanistan, and their costs. The number continues to be floated around by the CBO of $2M per deployed person (soldier/etc). Please God, let me see how this is true...
I suspect, and have decried the uber level of support/security given to US forces everywhere, that a ton of this money comes from enabling a life style in a 'combat zone' wherein if you got rid of pizza, ice cream, and "Latin Dancing Night", you would save BILLIONS. STOP SENDING AMERICA OVERSEAS IF YOU WANT US TO FIGHT!!
We are the military, we are uhhh, designed to do a number of things. However, a quick look at the why we exist mantra would demonstrate that we kill people, attack areas, establish new holdings, and stabilize things till the NGOs show up.
AT the end of the day, I still think you had a good piece. I would submit that you failed to bring to the carpet the toes of all the Flag and General officers that we have. If you consider their number, along with the staff they bring, the number has been, and is, absurd.
New toys will always come along. Every military leader in every branch has argued that they will alone be relevant. In the absence of a cadre of good men (and women) that are being asked to protect the country in the meantime while congress et al works things out, no one is going to be around to address those threats.
I have always been a fan of "Equip the man, not man the equipment."
Sorry, have rambled on for too long.
Thanks for the posting.
g