How would you make the Armed Services more flexible in responding to present and future security challenges ?

2015-07-07T16:59:08-04:00

Critics claim the military is still in some ways aligned against a Cold War set of missions/force structure. How would you respond to that criticism and if true, how would you change our military forces to have more relevance to present and future security challenges?

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Jul 7 at 2015 5:05 PM

2015-07-07T17:05:59-04:00

I think that the next level is to develop a new security system that is completely different then anything on the market....of course, as a nurse, I have NO CLUE how that would impact life as we know it.....but I suspect I would not be able to be on RallyPoint from my office.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 5:06 PM

2015-07-07T17:06:14-04:00

hmmm...Great question!!! I don't know that there is really any big change we could make. We are, by definition, a National force. The only real changes we could make in order to affect security is to form smaller regional teams that respond/preempt issues - such as border issues.

Given that it just came down that SecDef is wanting to cut the Army by another 40k, this would make that strategy a little less feasible.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jul 7 at 2015 5:10 PM

2015-07-07T17:10:34-04:00

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member, Sir, I think all the branches have already began to realign mission sets with smaller more agile deployable and home station missions while still keeping enough large mission capabilities to be able to still do large scale missions. The large scale may become an issue for long term supportability if the draw down in personnel continues.

Response by MSgt Dwyane Watson made Jul 8 at 2015 11:42 AM

2015-07-08T11:42:33-04:00

The military's issues are from poor leadership starting with Obama and all the acolytes he has appointed after he fired many true leaders. He has no plan for anything other than using drones and giving weapons to the Iraqi's which they drop and leave in the hand of ISIS. Why aren't we assisting the Kurds against ISIS? We need a no nonsense leader with military background, not a social justice communist.

Response by MSgt Jim Wolverton made Jul 8 at 2015 1:43 PM

2015-07-08T13:43:17-04:00

I don't think closing so many bases overseas is the way to do it. All that does is extend the time it takes to respond to threats around the world. Smaller, more contingency focused first response units that are basically back filled by larger, sustainment focused units seems to make sense to me.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 8 at 2015 1:58 PM

2015-07-08T13:58:54-04:00

I would tell our allies start spending more on their militaries. Europe and Asia are looking at us for diplomatic and military direction.

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made Jul 8 at 2015 5:21 PM

2015-07-08T17:21:19-04:00

You hit the nail on the head with this question. Of course, you also have to ask "Who's our Enemy?" along with it.

Back at the end of the Cold War we should have been recapitalizing and modernizing our forces along with drawing down from a force that was used for the Cold War. But that never happened because of Congresses infinite wisdom. What they saw was a a way to drastically cut our forces without allowing for it to modernize properly. We had programs that allowed those to get out early with a monetary reward given to them. This caused a problem in that we lost a lot of mid level NCO's, especially in the Air Force. The attitude of do more with less came about because of it. It seemed that ops tempo increased without the manning increasing to go along with it. Especially with some of the actions of the mid to late '90's that we were all involved with. A lot of the cuts to spending happened under the Clinton administration. Along with no real modernization effort to our armed forces. Granted the Air Force did get the F-22 approved, but not in the numbers required in the end. Even thou there were calls for it to be cancelled in Congress, because of the thinking, "We can beat anyone with what we got!" mentality. They also tried to say who are enemies were. Yes, some are a threat, like Iran, China, and North Korea. But what we should have been doing is saying we have to prepare for the Unknown enemy.

Now I need to mention a little history here. For we, the USA, have repeated history. Between the World Wars, our military was cut to basically a shell of what it was at the end of WWI. Oh the Navy did get to modernize several Battleships from coal to oil burning, but they could not build any new ones, until the mid 1930's. The Army Air Force, was flying WWI biplanes up until the mid to late 1920's when they transitioned to monoplanes with open cockpits, then in the 1930's they went to all metal and closed cockpits. But was it true modernization of our Navy and Air Force. Also, the Navy had only 3 Carriers as of the early to mid '30's with a fourth scheduled to be commissioned. The late '30's would see the commissioning of 3 more carriers and the 1st carrier to be converted to a seaplane tender. As you can see aviation modernization happened a lot faster between the World Wars than anything else. But the budget for the armed forces was not that big, so they tried to prioritize it as best they could. Of course the Army, was still behind in terms of modernization of its land forces. The M-1 Garand rifle would be introduced in the early '30's but some changes had to be made to it. Namely changing it to fire the .30-06 ammo that the Springfield Rifle used. But that was minor to what the Army went thru during the '30's. Like using broomsticks as training rifles and machine guns. Painting Tank on the side of trucks for training purposes. Of course the Tank units at Fort Knox were still using WWI tanks. So you can see that the Armed Forces between the World Wars suffered as well as we are today.

So what should have been done after the Cold War? The first thing was to recapitalize our forces to see what was excess and what needed replacing. The second was to see what was changing around the world so that we can better ascertain what assets to keep in a standby mode. Third is to modernize our forces with newer equipment, like new planes, ships, tanks, etc. All that can be done at the same time as we downsized. Also, we begin looking at new ways to do things, either combat wise or training to keep up with the way the world is changing. There were a few lessons that were forgotten after WWII and Vietnam that we should have been able recognize with the current situations. One of which was urban warfare, and the other was how the enemy blended in with the civilians. Both wars had the former, but the Vietnam was was the latter. Lessons learned but were forgotten. Also, knowing what weapons could be used where and would produce the best results. We should have used Napalm (I know that there is UN treaty banning the use of Napalm and the we did not sign it, but we took the high road instead to not use it) in Tora Bora in Afgahnistan. That would have saved us time and we may have gotten the entire Al Qeida leadership in one shot. Carpet bomb in mass areas where we know of enemy concentrations like in the mountains or areas with training camps. Use smart bombs in urban areas only. With the way our forces are right now, we are to slow in modernizing them. We should have been modernizing them from the end of the Cold War until today. Then we are better prepared for anything.

Response by SrA Christine Martinez made Jul 9 at 2015 3:35 AM

2015-07-09T03:35:10-04:00

Dear Lt. Col. Malone,
First, I believe we, Americans and warriors, need to stop giving a damn about what our 'critics' think of us. WE are the ones signing up and putting our lives on the line for our fellow Americans, our country, and our Allies.
Secondly, some things, like fighting Communism, should never change.
We should ALWAYS be committed to preserving freedom and liberty for ourselves and our children, against "ALL Enemies; foreign and domestic".
Third, before we can fight our enemies, we have to KNOW our enemies.
Aside from Communism, our enemies should be any who advocates or perpetrates oppression, violence, murder, and mayhem against society and nations.
Specifically, I am speaking about the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or 'ISIS' as it is simply known, but we should NOT relax our vigilance and look only to our soil and water for threats.
We are an AIR POWER, and for quite some portion of the last 20+ years, we have sought to reinforce our air superiority by reaching farther, to cyberspace, to protect our nation from security threats most Americans never stop to consider.
With the technology in computers that advanced with lightning-speed, we must seek to define and control it [the technology], which is how we'll negate security threats to the U.S. and her people; threats such as hackers or hostile agents who can utilize computers, computer programs, and their "information highway" to perpetrate attacks against us. To that end, the U.S. Air Force, and each military branch, should seek to identify threats that each of us can be harmed by without being aware of the harm.
Along with establishing more units to supervise cyberspace, we should encourage feedback from the experts... counter-hackers... to be able to formulate faster, more-effective security countermeasures. Why recruit a specialist if you're not going to take his/her advice?
Basically, I'm suggesting to create the 21st century equivalent of the 1950s Cold War survivalist:
people who anticipate major disruptions in or total collapse of the existing social order in
the future due to war, natural disaster, economic collapse, disease, divine retribution or other reasons, the latter being computer hackers who attack our nation's infrastructure.
"Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories."Sun Tzu

Response by TSgt Keith Wright made Jul 9 at 2015 10:31 AM

2015-07-09T10:31:59-04:00

Col, Regarding Security challenges, I believe that one area is within Air Force Office of Investigations. We need that agency to be more transparent within their operations. The understanding is that our Servicemen are not present for their entertainment. These issues OSI brings can compromise the mission of the USAF. OSI is a very important part of the Air Force however we need folks to work within the mission not above it. Which brings problems to the overall mission. The tools and skills OSI agents learn cannot be used for personal vendettas, or to target people or intimidate anyone for their own personal reasons. The same skills and tools taught in OSI may have certain side effects and those side effects need to be taught in Mental Health. That way our folks are not diagnosed improperly. These issues can cause homicide, suicide, and behavior unbecoming. The mind is a powerful tool; if the mind was manipulated then it can be a very devastating tool. CIA Agent Robert Steele wrote a book for the Army War College, All Minds all the Time, and in relation to that book is Human Manipulation. In the 70’s the CIA was taken to court for the reckless use of hypnosis and the victims where paid out hundreds of thousands to their victims. The Air Force has had issues with this as well. Any serious issue can compromise the Security of the Air Force.