A Radical Plan for Cutting the Defense Budget and Reconfiguring the U.S. Military by Douglas Macgregor, Foreign Policy. BLUF: "In the spirit of spending wisely, here is my plan to reconfigure the military for the demands and threats of the 21st-century world and, in doing so, dramatically cut the Pentagon budget."
Comments
I'm sure I'll be one of the few voices to speak like this, but I'll go ahead and say it: I think this urgent desire to cut the DoD budget is going to end up as a huge mistake.
Cuts for the sake of fiscal merit will be poorly thought out because the determining factor will be dollars spent, not strategic worth.
Thinking the US is not going to be roped into a "co-belligerent" role, simply by reducing the OCONUS footprint is wishful thinking. The author speaks of dominating the oceans with our masterful technology and long range. Does he not think that long range will be co-opted into co-belligerent status?
Speaking of dominating the oceans...perhaps the author should re-examine the inability of the US to dominate the piracy off the coast of Somalia. Yet, he proclaims we can dominate the oceans rather easily, even with a reduced international presence. If we can't dominate rickety boats and pirates, what makes anyone think we can protect the world's sea lanes?
A light, less intrusive footprint....sounds a lot like what Rumsfeld was pushing. I don't recall that being touted as a great success, now that we begin looking back on OIF.
I do agree with increasing the tooth to tail ratio: that will benefit us greatly, in all areas.
Certainly I have no evidence leading to a definitive conclusion about this, but what if these estimates of China's military increases are wrong? What if China's aircraft carrier deal progresses faster than expected, what if they become a blue water navy much faster than expected, what if their land forces and capabilities develop much faster than expected? If we find ourselves behind the 8-ball in ten years, how much value will these dollar savings appear then, as we scramble to catch up?
Getting rid of USMC fixed wing? Ok, good luck with that.
The JSF and many of the FCS programs/capabilities are deserving of extreme scrutiny. Many of those items need to be cut. It's definitely a smart way to cut costs.
If the author believes unmanned aircraft will mitigate reductions in manned aircraft, I'd say he's mistaken. Unmanned aircraft do not always fly the same way as a manned aircraft. Their ability to respond, to turn, to maintain surveillance etc etc, are not always the same as with manned aircraft. This is mostly a personal bias on my part, but I'm not yet sold on the wholesale replacement of manned aircraft.
Getting rid of large, unified commands makes sense. It may bottle neck some promotions but I think that impact will be negligible. So long as they adjust promotion timelines, I don't think it'll result in forced-outs. But, it will prompt some to consider how long they want to stay in the military - that's probably a good thing.
Collapsing the DHS makes sense, so long as they don't look to turn the troops into border patrol agents or policemen.
I agree that intelligence agencies/services are in need of reform. But they should be one of the last things to be changed. They'll need to be reformed in accordance with any new force structure. Restructuring them concomitantly is a recipe for failure.
Seriously....making the Guard a constabulary? Seriously? But having them mobilized for a formal declaration of war. So I guess he's saying that our Guard forces will be turned into a combat ineffective force and upon the next declaration of war they'll be useless.
While I like the intent behind accountability and consolidating war colleges, it will not be productive. It will lead to ironing ACUs, finding ways to polish rough-out boots, assigning a point scale to the brand new go/no-go APRT, and similar things that can be measured but have little or nothing to do with leadership.
Cuts are coming, we all know that. But any rash or revolutionary approach is foolish thinking. We're not talking about changing tactics, revolutionizing strategic thinking, or increasing capabilities. We're talking about dollars. Capabilities, tactics, and strategy will win wars, not dollars. Making dollars the primary focus will set us up for failure.
Much to like in both articles. Cutting the massive overseas effort and refusing to fight others on their terms in drawn out occupation and similar efforts is imperative.
Two minor suggestions. Leave the F-35B and Marine fixed wing aviation alone and to compensate for that pursue instead a two thirds reduction in DoD political appointees with a concomitant reduction in overall staff and overhead personnel spaces department wide. Hopefully that and the other recommended fixes would eventually lead to a 'strategy' that entails a very capable and much better trained but small professional force capable of sharp, hard strategic raids followed by a rapid and orderly withdrawal when required. We have failed at 'fixing broken states.' We need to acknowledge that and try Plan B.
Secondly, the recommendation for a single War College with examinations required for entry is superb. The Services need to retain their Staff Colleges -- but requiring an examination for entry would be beneficial. Having simplified peer and subordinate reviews while instituting examinations for promotion would be even more beneficial. Even better would be competition for entry into this more competent force...
We can no longer afford the "Missions=Money" and mass army personnel system that has bred and fosters a career oriented bureaucratic mindset. We have had that for over a century and the processes have done us no favors -- it's past time for change. The Phalanx has been broken, it's time to bring the Legions back from the far reaches of Empire and get smart.