Can the U.S. Military say "We don't do windows"?

Very interesting article and good post.

I would tend to agree that anything within the bounds of the law that is a lawful order could be in our lines. I think that may have not been the intent to start with, but we have evolved as a nation and as a military.

As I have a full load of classes this semester, I am going to by pass on the Video as I just don't have that amount of time. I do believe though, that we should be involved with-in the bounds of Law on almost everything. For one, we are the largest organized entity in the U.S.A. with central leadership. No one in the U.S. or even on this Earth has our capabilities to move humans and material, as fast and as effective as we do. We also can adapt to situations beyond the scope of any organization. We have entered a new era in world civilization. When the Military is no longer just a fighting force, but a organization that helps improve civilization as a whole. With Disaster relief, search and rescue, weather analysis, space exploration, humanitarian missions, and so on. We are no longer just a combat arm of the government, we are a truly diplomatic arm. With that being said, our main mission is the art of War. And No one on this Earth, can disagree that as a whole, the U.S. Military is the best there is.

I believe that there is a reason why we had to send active duty troops to Katrina. I also believe that since we have had the time to do AARs on it, FEMA and the NG should be able to handle it now.
That said, the State Department and Diplomats should be prepared to do their job the next time we oust a baddie in a foreign country.
We have to do these things because the proper departments and agencies we not prepared to do them on their own, Now that we realize the size and scope of the actual job, they should prepare to do them within the scope of their own funding. The effort expended to train us in some of this stuff cost us dearly in manpower and money.

Although there should be a line in the sand "we don't do windows," that line should be the edge of the beach so to speak. As long as the military is generally being used in a manner which supports the Constitution, US Interests, and doesn't violate our Oaths, I see no conflicts with any particular mission or task.

We have "evolved past" our sole mission being one of National Defense. We don't just dog walk. Our current mission is Global Stability, which means that if we need to go into Africa and fight Ebola. We send Marines to Africa.. and fight Ebola. If we need a Carrier Group docked off Japan providing Nuclear power because a tsunami hit.. we do that. If we have to drop an evil dictator with a bad haircut and a god complex. Well, we have lots of practice at that too.

And when something new comes up, that we haven't done before... We're pretty good at improv. And we have the LCpl Underground & the E4 Mafia... and "They Do, Do Windows."

After reading "Out of the Mountains: The Coming Age of the Urban Guerrilla" by David Kilcullen, I would have to agree with this outlook. Building an infrastructure within a war-torn region, establishing a set of "norms" that are beneficial to a nation or sub-national group pays greater dividends. The first purpose of our military is to prevent war. Performing such tasks falls squarely into the realm and understanding of 4th Generation Warfare.

Feb 2004, Iraq....Sir with all do respect, we are not here for a power point presentation. We brought an armored brigade here, where is the enemy. We have other people here to do all that other stuff (building schools, etc).

You had to be there, classic deer in the headlights look.

The military adapts to it's environment and the mission given to them. That being said, we need to integrate some aspects of pretty much everything else thatthe military can and will in the future be tasked with, without giving up it's core strengths to bring everything in the arsenal to the fight. I think that would reflect a better role in the world.

The US Military is the best trained and equipped fighting force in the world, period! As stated elsewhere we can more ably move equipment and troops in a most expeditious fashion across the globe whether its to/from a war zone or humanitarian mission.

Each uniformed service has its attributes and because of todays environment it has evolved into inter-service relationships that did not exist to the extent they do today. This nation is greatly represented by their ambassadors (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, PHS, NOAA, Coast Guard) they send around the world with the amazing work they do. You will find these 7 branches of service involved in numerous missions across the globe every day with unheralded success and little fanfare.

Only if you are in submarines!

The military can, and does, adapt to the requirements of the situation. We cannot say "we don't do windows"...by our oaths, we are required to follow any and all lawful orders coming down the chain.

That being said, I do not think it is a good idea to use the military for any and all situations, since it can hinder success both for the mission and for the military.

Mission: A military presence carries with it a message of force. No matter how lightly we tread, the very presence of a group of "trained killers" cannot help but influence the environment. That can be counterproductive in situations where the requirement is for a more delicate touch.

Military: While we are training and putting into practice diplomatic methods of interaction, we are not practicing our core strengths of winning battles and wars. It's nice to talk about adding skills to deal with any possible situation without losing our core competencies, but the simple fact is that someone trying to be a jack of all trades will be master of none. While some non-combat missions can be taken that help us to hone our core skills (disaster relief is a good example, since that practices our skills of quickly deploying large quantities of troops and supplies), others are a pure distraction from those core skills.

Please do not take this to mean I believe that armed force should be the primary focus of our nation's foreign relations. I am firmly of the opinion that armed conflict should be a measure of last resort, after diplomatic channels have been exhausted. That being said, however, it does not make sense to give the State Department's job to the DoD. The two departments are separate for a reason, and receive different training. Asking the military to do the diplomat's job usually means it won't be done as well, and if/when an armed response is called for, we won't be as ready to respond.

I always have to laugh at the folks who declare that the "US military doesn't ...." They clearly don't know their own history. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps have both spent extensive time in stability and peace keeping operations: Indian Wars, Reconstruction, WWII (throughout), post WWII (occupation forces in Europe and Asia), as well as phase zero/phase one activities in Korea, Vietnam, etc.

Clausewitz wrote that the military is an extension of public policy. Sun Tzu declares that the best fight fought is the one where you convince your enemy that he has lost without even beginning.

These are the things we are about. When we conduct combat operations, it usually indicates that we weren't paying attention or we weren't successful in steering the circumstances toward our favor.