Posted on Jul 11, 2015
General Dunford: Potent infantry essential to 'balanced' military portfolio. Do you agree/disagree? Why?
16.7K
102
37
18
18
0
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/
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/
Infantry
Marine Corps
Army
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
Suspended Profile
Concur. Technology fails.....we need to keep "low" tech abilities in case that happens.
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree. In the end you will always need boots on the ground to capture and occupy ground.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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!!
You beat me to the post... I thought this was very worth post and discussion. Excellent Post!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google