General Dunford: Potent infantry essential to 'balanced' military portfolio. Do you agree/disagree? Why?

2015-07-11T18:08:01-04:00

The U.S. military's technological modernization cannot come at the expense of its ground combat forces, incoming Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford told Senate lawmakers earlier this week.

Rather, the general said during his confirmation hearing Thursday on Capitol Hill, planning for future threats requires a "balanced inventory of capabilities."

Dunford addressed the issue in response to a question from Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican and Army veteran who served as an infantry officer in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dunford, who if confirmed will become only the second Marine to hold the military's top post, also is an infantry officer by training.

After a briefly awkward exchange in which Cotton appeared to prod Dunford about the origin of his nickname, "Fighting Joe," the senator asked the general whether he worries tomorrow's infantry forces — namely soldiers and Marines — will go under resourced as the country pumps billions of dollars into the development of next-generation weapons systems such as the long-range strike bomber, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and a new ballistic missile submarine.

"I am concerned," Dunford responded, noting also that he doesn't self apply his nickname. "And I think it's broader than just the infantry piece. Experience tells us we need a balanced inventory of capabilities and capacities in joint force to be successful. ... What concerns me are people who actually think they know what the future is going to look like because, our experience tells us, we don't. So having a full range of capabilities that includes having effective Marines and soldiers, from my perspective, is the prudent thing to do."

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/07/11/video-joseph-dunford-says-infantry-essential-to-united-states-military-portfolio/30013701/

Dunford: Potent infantry essential to 'balanced' military portfolio

The incoming Joint Chiefs chairman says he's worried Following a briefly awkward exchange in which Cotton appeared to prod Dunford about the origin

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 11 at 2015 6:17 PM

2015-07-11T18:17:33-04:00

Infantry has a time and place for a war, but for me personally, I am more concerned about the generals who design the war campaign.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 6:43 PM

2015-07-11T18:43:11-04:00

The infantry will be the ones that toe the line with diplomacy fails. I am not a fan of losing troops but we need to choose wisely. Infantry should be the last resort. We need to maintain a potent and lethal ground force. Soldiers say that they did the same job as infantry when they deployed. That maybe true but it wasn't for their skills they were sent to perform those missions. It was for the lack of infantrymen. I am glad the Army is adding a third maneuver battalion to each of the BCTs. I didn't think the BCTs were composed of enough fighting soldiers. We need to be prepared for just about anything. As we have seen we didn't see ISIS coming. We didn't know how a lot of these situations would be playing out. We should be building an Army for what could possible happen and not an Army for what we think will happen.

It blows my mind how much money we dump in the F-35. We could sell two of them and add a Division in the Army for the cost. The Army is taking a beating in this budget war.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Jul 11 at 2015 6:57 PM

2015-07-11T18:57:59-04:00

I totally agree, GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad. Smarter men than me have made such an assessment as well. Here are GEN George S. Patton's thoughts on the subject:
"It’s the unconquerable soul of man, not the nature of the weapon he uses, that insures victory."
"The soldier is the army."
"Wars might be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who leads that gains the victory."
"...many, who should know better, think that wars can be decided by soulless machines, rather than by the blood and anguish of brave men."

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 7:27 PM

2015-07-11T19:27:13-04:00

Concur. Technology fails.....we need to keep "low" tech abilities in case that happens.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jul 11 at 2015 7:33 PM

2015-07-11T19:33:37-04:00

Yes GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad , potent infantry which is led from the front with more than competent flanking forces composed of whatever is useful to bring the fight to the enemy, supported by direct and indirect fires above and if necessary below ground is crucial to winning battles, campaigns and ultimately wars -especially this that are fought to the end. Infantry forces include, light, motorized, mechanized, airborne, air-mobile, special forces, marine infantry, and naval direct fire forces.
If necessary all soldiers and marines can fight as infantry either in direct fire assaulting forces or supporting forces on flanks, rear guards, lines of communications in non-linear warfare where are are no secure areas.
We do not need to draw down forces which strip our fighting forces to the point that a future Task Force Smith is called upon to hurriedly organize from a hodge-podge group of service members to fight a desperate rear guard delaying action until a proper response is organized after Congress approves the fight.
To fight effectively our infantry and other maneuver and support forces need to have well trained, disciplined and courageous leaders willing to stand up for the service members and units assigned and attached to their commands from LTC through GEN and if required 5-Star GEN. Leaders and their staffs need to be fully capable to work with units and capabilities brought by each Military Service and Special Operations when required to conduct operations.
In the past, I remember when Brigades had three maneuver combat arms battalions, with an indirect fire battalion and a cavalry capability. It will be good to see Brigades composed of three maneuver battalions again if they are equipped, manned and trained to fight together as teams. Non-linear fights require the capability to reorganize and reorient on the fly in quickly changing tactical and operational scenarios. Hopefully Brigade Combat Teams will be organized with required supporting forces to be reasonably self sufficient for at least 24 to 72 hours.
Critical to the success of all combat operations is a sufficient support capability which stretches from the current fight back to wherever depot-like sustainment is occurring and staging from. Sufficient, munitions, spares, fuel, medical and other essential support functions must be present in sufficient quantity and quality to support the world's best fighting force into the future. LTC Stephen C.

Response by Sgt Ken Prescott made Jul 11 at 2015 8:06 PM

2015-07-11T20:06:00-04:00

I agree that our infantry should be the best-trained and most capable in the world. What I don't agree with is the notion that infantry should be the primary weapon of the United States. We are a strategic aerospace and maritime power, and we need to rebuild our capabilities in those areas.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jul 11 at 2015 10:10 PM

2015-07-11T22:10:46-04:00

We also greatly need to make sure we can effectively fight with no satelite support. Electronic warfare and countermeasures are my concern.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jul 11 at 2015 10:20 PM

2015-07-11T22:20:43-04:00

The Infantry is the only constant throughout all of human military history. It is foolish to imagine that track record is ending soon.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 1:54 AM

2015-07-12T01:54:11-04:00

Absolutely

Response by CPT Chase Sanger made Jul 12 at 2015 9:28 AM

2015-07-12T09:28:47-04:00

I'm not Infantry, but I agree that a potent Infantry is absolutely necessary! Every other MOS in the operational Army (I'm talking conventional forces, not SF/PSYOPS/CA, etc) is supporting the trigger-pulling 11B on the ground. We can shoot artillery and mortars all day at the enemy, but we need those 11B guys to go in and mop up the enemy. As a Chemical guy, my job is to make sure that the infantry knows what type of CBRN-E hazards are out in front of them, how to prepare to operate in that environment, and clean themselves up afterwards (decon) so that they can continue mission and kill the bad guys. I have no problem supporting the infantry, because at the end of the day they are the ones securing objectives. All jobs in the Army are important, because we all work together to win the fight! Everyone job from the fuel supply specialist to the cook are necessary to ensure that the Army accomplishes its objectives.

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jul 12 at 2015 10:05 AM

2015-07-12T10:05:20-04:00

There have been boots on the ground in every conflict since the beginning of time, and there always will be.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 13 at 2015 9:15 AM

2015-07-13T09:15:26-04:00

Simply put, you have to plant the flag. You have to go door to door. You must be small and mobile. Nothing else can do that like an individual.

Other assets can accomplish other objectives, such as destruction, but to "take" specific types of terrain, Infantry is essential. Gen. Dunford is absolutely correct. It requires a balance of capabilities.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 13 at 2015 1:03 PM

2015-07-13T13:03:18-04:00

I agree completely GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad. While I believe wars without ground troops is a noble concept, from what I have seen, it is a pipe dream; at least today. I can't think of many situations where we did not need Infantry (Army and Marines) to close with and destroy the enemy, occupy and hold terrain, and to provide security while we transition to normal operations. The replacing troops with technology is a long running argument, and perhaps someday we will achieve it. But, today, in the current threat environment, we need potent (better manned, trained, equipped and supported) Infantry and Armor Forces to deal with any potential adversary; there are many. We have to be ready for whatever tomorrow holds.

You beat me to the post... I thought this was very worth post and discussion. Excellent Post!!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 3:01 PM

2015-07-13T15:01:16-04:00

Infantry on the ground do a lot more than just perform combat duties. Those troops also perform humanitarian efforts and work to quell the violence before it starts. I noticed this first hand when our BN Commander decentralized our BN to ensure we had continuous presence in some of the more remote areas of our AO. The reduction in firefights and indirect attacks to our FOB were noticeable almost instantly. In return for the reduced attacks, the province received schools, wells, generation equipment, school supplies, clothing, water purification equipment, among many other things. After our RIP, we heard the BN that replaced us took a harder stance and the violence towards them ramped up almost instantly.
So essentially what I'm getting at is that our infantry and ground troops don't just fight the war with violence; they also perform a duty that no automated machine can perform. They have the ability to show compassion and care for those who would otherwise wish to destroy us.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 13 at 2015 5:51 PM

2015-07-13T17:51:35-04:00

The infantry seizes ground and holds it. This quality makes them invaluable.

Response by Capt Lance Gallardo made Jul 14 at 2015 10:47 AM

2015-07-14T10:47:03-04:00

I can't believe that we are still having to fight this battle for resources for ground combat forces. While the air force blows billions and billions of our defense dollars on unproven weapons systems, often systems that the military leaders say we dont want or need, our conventional forces are being questioned and under resourced. Infantry takes and hold ground along with all of their supporting assets, arty armor, combat logistics, CAS. We will never get rid of ISIS on the ground without a significant commitment of ground war fighters. Dumb shits that talk about the end of the fighter pilot (and manned aircraft in general), and put their faith in drones and humanless weapons systems, apparently still don't get that any networked system is vulnerable to hacking and hostile interference. Dumb planes with smart war-fighters to operate them is the only proven technology.

Response by Capt Michael Halpin made Jul 16 at 2015 12:17 AM

2015-07-16T00:17:40-04:00

I agree. In the end you will always need boots on the ground to capture and occupy ground.

Response by CWO4 Bryan Simon made Jul 20 at 2015 8:28 PM

2015-07-20T20:28:31-04:00

Until there are "boots on the ground", nothing is held....nothing is gained. We can bomb, and strafe, and burn, and blast an area for days...weeks even. But until a man and a weapon is able to walk upright through that same area, we hold nothing. Infantry is the end all of battle, EVERYTHING ELSE is merely support for those gun fighters. Air power and sea power have delayed things from happening, but nothing is settled until the boots hit the ground.