Posted on Mar 1, 2015
Are we "rotting from the inside" as a military force?
5.66K
55
23
3
3
0
The title of this opinion piece caught my attention. I think the author makes some excellent points. I believe we are unrivaled technologically, so he's got that right. And it's hard to argue with his point about PowerPoint, eh? His historical examples are good as well.
I would say we may be vulnerable as a military. What do you think?
http://theweek.com/articles/541143/terrifying-vulnerability-military
I would say we may be vulnerable as a military. What do you think?
http://theweek.com/articles/541143/terrifying-vulnerability-military
Posted in these groups: 
Military Industry
Military Industry
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
"Power point" Really? I'm sorry, but was the author just trying to pad his word count? I understand that excessive briefings and meetings are an issue, but the specific tool (delivery method) is not the problem, it's the time lost from briefings & meetings.
Red-tape, which is designed to slow down efficiency, can be a problem, however it is also a necessary evil. You have to build a certain amount of red tape in, otherwise there are no brakes in the spending process and no oversight.
You want a streamlined process, but you don't want one so streamlined that a PFC can order a tank. Unfortunately you don't want it so convoluted that it's not worth using either. When that happens, people just bypass it.
Red-tape, which is designed to slow down efficiency, can be a problem, however it is also a necessary evil. You have to build a certain amount of red tape in, otherwise there are no brakes in the spending process and no oversight.
You want a streamlined process, but you don't want one so streamlined that a PFC can order a tank. Unfortunately you don't want it so convoluted that it's not worth using either. When that happens, people just bypass it.
(4)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
But Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, PowerPoint is everyone's' favorite punching bag! You're right of course, its the culture not the tool generally that's the problem. But the tool breeds a culture of complacent expectation of everything being simultaneously whiz-bang and digest-able in PowerPoint slide. I think we need more orders pasted on plywood walls with maps and map pens.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Capt Richard I P. oh do we long for the days of mimeograph machines, acetate, and banyan vines! Things were so much better then!!!
Back when we had shirts that would stay lit when they were on fire, boots we had to shine, and cammies we had to starch, even though they said no starch!
The issue with power point is that we no longer have to print out (expensive) slides which can't reasonably be changed in a matter of seconds. But Power Point has gotten out of control. I hear the army now has a 3 phase course in it over 14 weeks which grants promotion points, and grants a tab now.
Back when we had shirts that would stay lit when they were on fire, boots we had to shine, and cammies we had to starch, even though they said no starch!
The issue with power point is that we no longer have to print out (expensive) slides which can't reasonably be changed in a matter of seconds. But Power Point has gotten out of control. I hear the army now has a 3 phase course in it over 14 weeks which grants promotion points, and grants a tab now.
(2)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
I agree on the PowerPoint, Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS. When I first read that, I scratched my head and wondered, "What the ...?" But Capt Richard I P. explained that well (IMHO). The author is making a point and using PowerPoint to illustrate the point. Thanks to both of you for your feedback.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
I disagree that the "US has no power rivals". China and Russia BOTH have potential threats. China is more of an economic rival than a military rival (except in terms of numbers), but Russia is vastly amassing heavy military strength that is capable of matching us on the battlefield.
The biggest problems facing our current military are the reliance on technology and the continued desire for "fancier gizmos" instead of more effective. Military technology like the F-15, F-16, and A-10 are tremendous aircraft. Even improvements on the F-18 to the Super Hornet are great. The technology that the F-22 has to offer is great, but we haven't even started to get the bugs out before we invest billions into the F-35. More moving parts means greater chances for malfunctions. Greater integration of technology leads to the risks for hacking of encrypted networks and other problems.
We really need to get back to basics more than anything.
v/r,
CPT Butler
The biggest problems facing our current military are the reliance on technology and the continued desire for "fancier gizmos" instead of more effective. Military technology like the F-15, F-16, and A-10 are tremendous aircraft. Even improvements on the F-18 to the Super Hornet are great. The technology that the F-22 has to offer is great, but we haven't even started to get the bugs out before we invest billions into the F-35. More moving parts means greater chances for malfunctions. Greater integration of technology leads to the risks for hacking of encrypted networks and other problems.
We really need to get back to basics more than anything.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Cpl Michael Strickler - I agree to a degree. While I respect the needs to prevent actions like the My Lai Massacre, there are too many factors that civilians do not consider. Intuition on a battlefield is a necessity, and is often the difference between a good Soldier and a dead Soldier.
I worry about the lack of adaptability. As mentioned, the French felt that they were an unmatched force. However, the downfall of the French military in WW2 was the overall failure to consider new technologies and strategies involving existing technologies. In the United States, I feel that we have the opposite problem. Instead, we are so focused on the new technologies, that we forget that strategy of warfare has more DEVOLVED than evolved. We have focused on technologies.
However, warfare has changed from a semi-linear combat in WW2 and Korea to guerilla warfare with a semi-linear component in Vietnam and then full regression to the insurgency with no linear component. Is it worth using a $1,000,000 tomahawk cruise missile to destroy 3 insurgents when the tactical organization of the military is so diffuse? In cases, yes....but in my opinion this is vastly overrated. Likewise, use of hundreds of sorties against an enemy without defining a clear strategic as well as tactical objective is wasteful.
We need the innovative minds and the understanding that we can only afford to extend the Geneva Convention for uniformed combatants....not to insurgents. There are no rules to protect them.
v/r,
CPT Butler
v/r,
CPT Butler
I worry about the lack of adaptability. As mentioned, the French felt that they were an unmatched force. However, the downfall of the French military in WW2 was the overall failure to consider new technologies and strategies involving existing technologies. In the United States, I feel that we have the opposite problem. Instead, we are so focused on the new technologies, that we forget that strategy of warfare has more DEVOLVED than evolved. We have focused on technologies.
However, warfare has changed from a semi-linear combat in WW2 and Korea to guerilla warfare with a semi-linear component in Vietnam and then full regression to the insurgency with no linear component. Is it worth using a $1,000,000 tomahawk cruise missile to destroy 3 insurgents when the tactical organization of the military is so diffuse? In cases, yes....but in my opinion this is vastly overrated. Likewise, use of hundreds of sorties against an enemy without defining a clear strategic as well as tactical objective is wasteful.
We need the innovative minds and the understanding that we can only afford to extend the Geneva Convention for uniformed combatants....not to insurgents. There are no rules to protect them.
v/r,
CPT Butler
v/r,
CPT Butler
(0)
(0)
Cpl Michael Strickler
CPT (Join to see), then again one of the main reason the US was even able to succeed in its revolution at all is because we operated similarly. When going up against a superior force you must always find a tactic that works. That is why we face non uniformed combatants and IEDs, because they know in a straight up fight they would lose.
In my opinion technology is the answer for the future, but not as we have been pursuing it today. We do not need better aircraft in the skies. You (and many others) are correct that what we have works and again in my opinion until we develop something that has the speed of a fighter and the maneuverability of a helo we should leave well enough alone. As I believe I understand it there are really no more dog fights (and sadly the aces with experience that come along with them to train new recruits)...
The tech we should be developing is on the ground or more accurately focused on the ground. I feel that we can still take the fight to the enemy on the ground, if we can find them.
UAVs or something that ceaselessly fly around and can somehow target, track, and mark individuals seen or suspected of hostile intentions would be the most valuable asset today. Imagine being able to mark the individual targeting friendly forces without them knowing and without friendly forces needing to expose themselves.
Now do not ask me how to do that, but there must be a way. Off the top of my head I forsee a dart the uav shoots that puts some marker (that is safe and disipates after say one week) into the suspects blood or an invisible laser (maybe gives them radiation of some sort) that has the same effect.
Once you take away the real benefit of guerrilla warfare, the enemy must find another strategy that works. Once they have been marked with a uniform that we can identify from the civilians the effect of those tactics lose their efficiency.
In my opinion technology is the answer for the future, but not as we have been pursuing it today. We do not need better aircraft in the skies. You (and many others) are correct that what we have works and again in my opinion until we develop something that has the speed of a fighter and the maneuverability of a helo we should leave well enough alone. As I believe I understand it there are really no more dog fights (and sadly the aces with experience that come along with them to train new recruits)...
The tech we should be developing is on the ground or more accurately focused on the ground. I feel that we can still take the fight to the enemy on the ground, if we can find them.
UAVs or something that ceaselessly fly around and can somehow target, track, and mark individuals seen or suspected of hostile intentions would be the most valuable asset today. Imagine being able to mark the individual targeting friendly forces without them knowing and without friendly forces needing to expose themselves.
Now do not ask me how to do that, but there must be a way. Off the top of my head I forsee a dart the uav shoots that puts some marker (that is safe and disipates after say one week) into the suspects blood or an invisible laser (maybe gives them radiation of some sort) that has the same effect.
Once you take away the real benefit of guerrilla warfare, the enemy must find another strategy that works. Once they have been marked with a uniform that we can identify from the civilians the effect of those tactics lose their efficiency.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Cpl Michael Strickler - To a degree, you are correct. I'm not suggesting pulling away from technology, but technology will not replace the bodies of red blooded men and women.
Honestly, I think that the future of warfare against us will be fought economically. Much the way that Russians and the Chinese fought the Vietnam War by providing limiting "augmenting capabilities" to smaller nations to help with some regional conflicts that threaten regional interests. A complete war is (as we all know) expensive, and can topple a major nation if too heavily vested. This is where it is going to be important for the United States to balance, and determine when to intervene. Russia will continue to supply Arab nations and the United States will offer limited assistance to Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. As that hot-zone cools off (or backs away from the "tipping point", I can see the shifting point focusing more towards a new generation of Cold War between Korean factions.
v/r,
CPT Butler
Honestly, I think that the future of warfare against us will be fought economically. Much the way that Russians and the Chinese fought the Vietnam War by providing limiting "augmenting capabilities" to smaller nations to help with some regional conflicts that threaten regional interests. A complete war is (as we all know) expensive, and can topple a major nation if too heavily vested. This is where it is going to be important for the United States to balance, and determine when to intervene. Russia will continue to supply Arab nations and the United States will offer limited assistance to Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. As that hot-zone cools off (or backs away from the "tipping point", I can see the shifting point focusing more towards a new generation of Cold War between Korean factions.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(0)
(0)
Cpl Michael Strickler
CPT (Join to see), absolutely. I understood, I was just redirecting that Air Force budget where it counts! I think we all know that they will never give up the $$
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
CW5 (Join to see) Great article, which aptly articulates a great threat to our capability: our own complacency.
This quote "Enemy contacts in Afghanistan and Iraq would go unreported because they required a PowerPoint description after the fact." struck home...I may have some personal knowledge of some unreported enemy contacts for just that reason.
This quote "Enemy contacts in Afghanistan and Iraq would go unreported because they required a PowerPoint description after the fact." struck home...I may have some personal knowledge of some unreported enemy contacts for just that reason.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google