Posted on Jul 2, 2015
Prepare for a Long War? Aren't we already in the Midst of a Long War?
8.62K
82
46
10
10
0
This is interesting... We have had no new National Security Strategy since 2011, and now as General Dempsey steps down, he tells us to "prepare for a long war".... It is like he is saying "good luck with that"...
"In a new National Military Strategy, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warns the Pentagon to reorganize its global footprint to combat prolonged battles of terrorism and proxy wars.
The U.S. military needs to reorganize itself and prepare for war that has no end in sight with militant groups like the Islamic State and nations that use proxies to fight on their behalf, America’s top general warned Wednesday."
- That said, does the US (Population, Political Leadership, and Military) really have the staying power and patience to execute this?
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/07/dempseys-final-instruction-pentagon-prepare-long-war/116761/
"In a new National Military Strategy, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warns the Pentagon to reorganize its global footprint to combat prolonged battles of terrorism and proxy wars.
The U.S. military needs to reorganize itself and prepare for war that has no end in sight with militant groups like the Islamic State and nations that use proxies to fight on their behalf, America’s top general warned Wednesday."
- That said, does the US (Population, Political Leadership, and Military) really have the staying power and patience to execute this?
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/07/dempseys-final-instruction-pentagon-prepare-long-war/116761/
Strategy
DoD
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 15
I will say that I am not a fan of GEN Dempsey. I think his thinking and logic is that of wars past. He was at the helm when this ISIS thing kicked off. He is describing something that we already know, or at least should know. It is monday morning quarterbacking. I really haven't seen him do anything decisive. I think he was completely out of his element. He might know conventional warfare but this fighting by various parties in a hostile country such as Syria proved we didn't understand what we were doing. It even shows further with our failure to stop the growth of ISIS. To me he just said "Well, we really don't have a new plan so we are going to keep trying to do what we having been doing and eventually we will make progress." I like the new SECDEF. I think he will be able to make a difference. But I would have rid myself of most of the senior leadership that let the raise of ISIS happen.
(5)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
LTC Bink Romanick - I was not intending to offensive... I was simply giving my opinion. I don't get a vote... I just get an opinion.
I started as Armor Officer... and yes I know need tanks, so long as others have them. I too, if I had to bet, would have never guessed the Armor School would move to Benning... For many reasons, I thought it would be the other way around... It should have been for all common sense reasons... Except, the Infantry school was never moving... I also spent a lot of time support both heavy, light, and SOF forces... so I am not exactly clueless on the Army. It is hard to be a good a maneuver supporter if you don't under who you are supporting and how they fight.
I clearly understand our Counterinsurgency effort were reaction, and the Army stated we were going back to maneuver warfare doctrine as our main effort. We had gotten far away from that since Desert Storm.
Armor in Bagdad was and other Urban Areas makes little sense... and we lost a lot of tanks and Bradleys in so doing; unlike Desert Storm where they were at their best. Nevertheless, nothing made me feel better, when we had an issue, than when a Tank and Bradley section would respond to help.
I think we have been arguing about Armor vs. Infantry as long as we have had both.
Nevertheless, I will always consider the Army and Infantry centric organization, and hence think the Commanders should be by and large Infantry.
I started as Armor Officer... and yes I know need tanks, so long as others have them. I too, if I had to bet, would have never guessed the Armor School would move to Benning... For many reasons, I thought it would be the other way around... It should have been for all common sense reasons... Except, the Infantry school was never moving... I also spent a lot of time support both heavy, light, and SOF forces... so I am not exactly clueless on the Army. It is hard to be a good a maneuver supporter if you don't under who you are supporting and how they fight.
I clearly understand our Counterinsurgency effort were reaction, and the Army stated we were going back to maneuver warfare doctrine as our main effort. We had gotten far away from that since Desert Storm.
Armor in Bagdad was and other Urban Areas makes little sense... and we lost a lot of tanks and Bradleys in so doing; unlike Desert Storm where they were at their best. Nevertheless, nothing made me feel better, when we had an issue, than when a Tank and Bradley section would respond to help.
I think we have been arguing about Armor vs. Infantry as long as we have had both.
Nevertheless, I will always consider the Army and Infantry centric organization, and hence think the Commanders should be by and large Infantry.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Bink Romanick -
Disclaimer: I am not saying that he is not best choice due to him being Armor. That is really not what I getting at. I believe that the issue is that POTUS may have wanted a General that would case no issues. As stated by COL Charles Williams -
This why GEN Mattis would never move into such a position. Instead they picked GEN Amos. GEN Amos was the first and only time in History to where a Aviator led the Marines. It seems to be an odd pick.
Disclaimer: I am not saying that he is not best choice due to him being Armor. That is really not what I getting at. I believe that the issue is that POTUS may have wanted a General that would case no issues. As stated by COL Charles Williams -
This why GEN Mattis would never move into such a position. Instead they picked GEN Amos. GEN Amos was the first and only time in History to where a Aviator led the Marines. It seems to be an odd pick.
(1)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
CPT (Join to see) - LTC Bink Romanick As said, Armor and Infantry guys have been arguing about who is the main effort as long as I have been paying attention. No one in my branch worries about that. We know we matter, and we constantly adjust to stay relevant to the maneuver commander. I will say, the MP, ENG, Chem guys have been together at Leonard Wood since 1999, and we work together, but they are more like the Shias, the Sunnis, and the Kurds on most days... The Maneuver started in 08/09... and even before the Armor Center physically moved it was impressive how both sides embraced the change... at the Maneuver Center of Excellence. Despite their banter about who matters more, they understand each other. Not so much at the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LTC Bink Romanick - Also, thanks for the young comment. I do look great for my age but don't let my rank fool you. I have been in the 14 years now. I do realize that ISIS used to be AQI and it formed into ISIS when Al Baghdadi branch off into his own group after a rift with AQ. I do realize that it isn't our war but it will be when Baghdad falls. This whole time we have been saying stuff like, we have this under control, or "that city didn't offer any tactical advantage" after a defeat of the Iraqi army. They are right and wrong. The city may not have really meant anything to us but it meant something to ISIS. I just see a strategy in Iraq that is failing to stop the ISIS advance and dislodge them from the Iraqi cites. It just seems to me if you aren't really obtaining any victories on your side you would reassess what you are doing? I am sure they are doing that right now.
This pays homage to GEN Rosecrans. He was a very successful General but made a mistake and lost the battle of Chickamauga. He was relieved due to this.
This pays homage to GEN Rosecrans. He was a very successful General but made a mistake and lost the battle of Chickamauga. He was relieved due to this.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
WW2 spending peaked 37% GDP, but it "only" lasted 4 years.
Korea peaked at 13% GDP and also lasted about 4 years
The Vietnam war peaked at 9.5% GDP and lasted about 10 years.
All of the middle east wars have peaked at under 5% GDP
A simple linear regression would suggest that the US population will "support" a war at that spending rate for in excess of 20 years, especially since it's not on dinner TV every night like it was in Vietnam
Korea peaked at 13% GDP and also lasted about 4 years
The Vietnam war peaked at 9.5% GDP and lasted about 10 years.
All of the middle east wars have peaked at under 5% GDP
A simple linear regression would suggest that the US population will "support" a war at that spending rate for in excess of 20 years, especially since it's not on dinner TV every night like it was in Vietnam
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Great Post Sir! I honestly think this speaks to our Leaders focusing on our Borders and what is taking place in the U.S. a "Batten Down the Hatches" type of approach. Build a stronger internal defense system and spend money on understanding our Enemies. We can chase these groups around for the rest of the time we're given by God, but does that really make sense. We can create enough jobs, vacations, and other great things to keep everyone home. I truly believe this should be our focus and challenge. Let's make America strong and forget about all the other crazies running around. My two cents, Rant over!
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google