Prepare for a Long War? Aren't we already in the Midst of a Long War?

2015-07-02T09:55:16-04:00

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/

Dempsey’s Final Instruction to the Pentagon: Prepare for a Long War

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.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 10:03 AM

2015-07-02T10:03:51-04:00

Well, at least someone finally said it. I realize it was as he was on the way out the door, but someone had to say something to this point. We have gotten mixed up into something that will take decades to end.
Our political leaders never want to recognize that a conflict can take more than a decade. Hell, we ended WWII in just a couple years after we fully engaged in Europe, right? At least, that seems to be the mindset.
Until political leaders allow warriors to fight a war as a war is meant to be fought (you rain Hell upon your enemies until they beg you to stop), we will be doing this over & over & over again for generations.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 10:23 AM

2015-07-02T10:23:59-04:00

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!

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 2 at 2015 10:55 AM

2015-07-02T10:55:15-04:00

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

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 2 at 2015 12:22 PM

2015-07-02T12:22:11-04:00

Very interesting read sir. During the "Great Wars" The world was polarized, good vs. evil and us vs. them. It was a concept that was easy to grasp and focus on, not just from a military standpoint but from a civilian standpoint. Our way of life vs. their way of life was the ultimate outcome in a conventional war. Fast forward to today and where is the simple polarization? Americans are at odds with each other over self-identification to a point where you ask, "Does anyone care what's going on elsewhere?" There are so many smaller regional conflicts that are taking center stage in the absence of a hot or cold global war that it's difficult to decide where our main focus should be - Russia? ISIS? Iran? NK? And also what playing field do we focus on - cyberspace, airspace, ground space? Conventional warfare, IMHO, has all but gone the way of the Dodo with the political reshaping of the world. Russia is fighting internally, ISIS is fighting for Lord knows what, NK is simply fighting itself as it has been all these years, Africa has been involved in its internal tribal conflicts for centuries and we've hardly gotten involved and we're trying to keep Iran out of the nuclear bomb business. I don't foresee any crossing the 38th parallel or Fulda Gap scenarios playing out, more like surgical strikes and limited engagements. Can our military support enough of these "mini-wars" simultaneously and effectively in its current state of transformation? I think the jury is still out.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 2 at 2015 1:59 PM

2015-07-02T13:59:25-04:00

One of the paradoxes of our way of war is to look at a new democracy and waiving our hands in victory. Another paradox is the huge amount of resources and assets needed to wage these wars is unsustainable.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 2:18 PM

2015-07-02T14:18:42-04:00

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.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jul 2 at 2015 5:25 PM

2015-07-02T17:25:35-04:00

COL Charles Williams I have stated in many of my comments that the "war on terrorism" is just in its infant stages. You notice I didn't say the Global War on Terrorism, because that coalition fell apart many years ago, when it shouldn't have. I personally don't see any end in sight when these individuals have grown up to hate infidels (generation after generation). I think we are in for some very rude awakenings yet to come. I think this war will last in one form or another for many decades to come. I truly believe that we need a world coalition that is working together to cut the head off the snake and then cut the heads that grow right back once again and again. This is a world issue that needs real world leaders battling it in the offensive mode. Even though there was a lot of dislike for George W Bush, he did manage to bring a large part of the world together after 9-11. He just couldn't sustain it! We need leadership that can sustain a long offensive fight taking it to the terrorist on their ground and utilizing world money, not just US Dollars and our military. Just an opinion to be agree or disagree with! Standing by for the feedback.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 5:54 PM

2015-07-02T17:54:35-04:00

Reminds me when Donald Rumsfeld said, "I don't know where, I don't know when, but something awful is bound to happen." How about we use our intelligence and shut these guys down. Use their own cyber warfare strategy against them first.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made Jul 2 at 2015 6:11 PM

2015-07-02T18:11:03-04:00

Probably a forever war. it all kind of stems to inaction and actions. inaction on the follow up of the Afghan soviet war, and action of always backing dictators in muslim countries where it just breeds extremism.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2015 8:18 PM

2015-07-02T20:18:50-04:00

General Dempsey was being diplomatic, allow me to be more blunt, we need to build a force that matches the mission. The overall organization of the DOD has remained relatively unchanged since the National Security Act of 1947 was implemented. That's pretty sad. Let me put this in perspective, the structure of the DOD of today was put in place before nuclear submarines, before computers, before ICBMs, before drones, before cellphones, before transistors, etc. . . . . Although the organization is largely unchanged (there have been limited changes), the DOD is taking a bit more of a sophisticated and nuanced approach to addressing security threats and the way by which the instruments of national power are welded, but struggling to do so as a result of outdated, brittle, and arthritic organizational structures. The Army's Pacific Pathways, the Marine Corps' new amphibious strategy, the recently negotiated partnering agreements with the Philippines, Australia, and the Japanese are all steps in the right direction.

Despite these sparks of flexibility, old organizations created to address threats from a bygone era continue to exist. We need to fundamentally rethink everything. EVERYTHING. Does the service component (MARFORPAC, PACAF, PACFLT, USARPAC) still have a place? Since WWII have they ever fought as organizations, or have their structures been peeled off to support various JTFs and MNFs? Should we have standing divisions or companies or battalions that will be formed into divisions? Has anyone asked the question? Do we need wings, groups or squadrons that would be task organized into wings when necessary? Are these the optimal organizational structures? Today, when the DOD fights, it fights in a task organized manner. The task determining the organization. Look at any operational JTF, or MNF, from any COCOM. All have been task organized - a rifle company from EUCOM, an SBCT from NORTHCOM, and a few aircraft from PACOM could comprise a JTF or be part of an MNF in CENTCOM. When's the last time a division or wing fought? If fighting as a wing or a division is the exception, then why do we build structure to support an exception? Shouldn't the security structure be a reflection of the threat environment? Do we have the right force structure resident in the Reserves and the Active components? Maybe the less likely utilized divisional, wing and component level structure should be placed in the Reserves? Why do we hold on to structures that might need refinement or elimination? If you're reading this and you feel angst, is it because I'm missing something or because you have internalized your service or branch's dogma? We don't need what's best for the services, we need what's best for the nation. Culturally, we need more organizational agility and more flexibility of thought. Here are some other areas we can improve upon:

1) CYBER: Cyber is here, it is real, and we need to execute on this. How many breaches does it take? The recent OPM breach is but one of many. Are we getting the best hackers? Why not?
2) HUMAN RESOURCES: Why do we still have separate administration systems across the services? This is ridiculous. We all will get one VA, why do we need four separate pay systems?
3) LOGISTICS: Different logistics tails? Isn't the SAE 30 weight oil across the services all the same?
4) AVIATION: Different missions across the services require different aircraft mixes. For the most part we're moving in the right direction on this, but we could do better. I'm not sure I understand why the Marine Corps and Army have different light, medium, heavy and attack helicopters.
5) C2: We fight joint. Period! Why aren't all exercises, at all levels executed jointly?
6) NAVY AIR: With long range hyper sonic missiles (DF-21D) should we be building more carriers?

I understand this ultimately gets to funding, the budgetary process, congressional districts, vested interests. We could go on and on. For me, General Dempsey's point is we are in a different threat environment, we need to optimally organize ourselves, our training and our equipment for that environment.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jul 3 at 2015 8:27 AM

2015-07-03T08:27:47-04:00

It is interesting that he is warning that others will need to prepare for threats that have arisen under his watch and he has not successfully addressed them or even really started. We have no strategy and have not for a number of years. I do not know how vocal Dempsey was behind closed doors in meetings with the president and his leadership. He seems to have gone along to get along and into his retirement plan. He has been surprised too many times and he seems willing to knuckle under when pushed. This is not all his doing, he has a boss and his boss has been unwilling to engage appropriately either.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 8:13 PM

2015-07-06T20:13:35-04:00

Somebody's been sleeping during the OPORDs!

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jul 6 at 2015 10:11 PM

2015-07-06T22:11:41-04:00

This strategy, at least the commentary on it leads me to believe that the DOD has recognized that warfare has morphed. Today, we have Hybrid Warfare, Cyber War, Asymetric War, COIN conventional operations and on and on.

The War on Terror is finally defunct as a term as it should be.You use tactics, you can't fight them.

They're keying our strategy on the "Long War" which will undoubtedly be long running, murky, un satisfying and difficult to put into metrics and undefinable as to what constitutes a win. If indeed a win is attainable.

How do you defeat an idea? That can't be strategized.

We are in a dangerous and highly unstable world with many failed states and a lot of non sate actors with alliances in flux.

And we haven't even considered the effects of climate change and dwindling water and food supplies it will cause.

You can never forsee events, strategy can't cover all eventualities. You have to remain Semper Gumby.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jul 7 at 2015 8:34 AM

2015-07-07T08:34:11-04:00

I guess 14 years plus isn't long enough.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 11:12 AM

2015-07-07T11:12:45-04:00

The National Military Strategy is a 17 page document. An infantry battalion will produce a 70 page document for an OPORD to seize an objective at NTC. If we're looking for details or revelations at a Strategic level, we need to spend some more time at the War College reviewing what these documents do. They are not CONPLANs and certainly not OPORDs. There are documents that get into the details across the spectrum from tactical to theater strategic to DOTMLPF level actions at the OSD and DA levels which when pieced together under the BROAD GUIDANCE of the NSS and the NMS, provide the level of detail necessary to understand the ways and means. I personally have a hard time judging and laying blame at the strategic level because I do my best to understand that at these levels of leadership, there are more complexities at hand than I can possibly fathom. There are things at play which I have never been exposed to and most likely never will. Being where I am now has provided me an appreciation for the way things work "here." I can see what people want to do versus what they can do. I asked the question in another forum, "Is this the Strategy we want and need or is it the Strategy we can get?" I believe that the NMS is limited by a process out of synch with itself. Budget is driving this more than anyone has said, but if we're playing along with the home game, like we should be, then we've known this. GEN Dempsey is a damned fine officer. So is GEN Odierno. So is GEN Allyn, GEN Milley, GEN Campbell, and the rest of them (in general...hah...I crack myself up). Each will continue to do their job as best they can, knowing that the lives of service members rely on them. This document is meant as a frame that goes around a picture. A REALLY BIG ONE. I find it hard to demand detail and precision when dropping a 2000lb bomb from 30K feet. To do so defies reality and logic.