Pakistan

The conflict in Afghanistan will be decided by how we handle Pakistan. They simultaneously kill hundreds of Taliban, and shoot at us during cross-border raids. The ISI has Taliban leanings, the military has military leanings, and the civilian government has corrupt leanings.

While many have been in denial, Afghanistan was always a regional conflict, the failure of ISAF to see it as such has only resulted in a successful ouster of the Taliban in 2001 culminating with their dramatic resurgence.

Jammous!

With security rapidly improving in Iraq, we see many hard-charging combat units transitioning into things like helping locals care for livestock. How can we get better at this? Integrate NGO's at the BCT level once security improves to a defined level? Something to ponder...

Does this mean freighters can mount .50 cals now?

Galrahn over at Information Dissemination is talking about a US Navy statement saying that it can't/won't protect all civilian commerce transiting the Gulf of Aden. Which begs the question, who will? The cost to the global economy is substantial, as it is one of the most heavily trafficked straights in the world, and yet the Navy seems to feel that fighting piracy is below them. What in ze hell? The Navy seems to be in full retreat from the littoral region, even though that is the Naval equivalent of counterinsurgency warfare. Previously, they told the Marines they weren't getting any closer than 25nm to shore. So who is going to bare the cost/risk? With insurance costs on shipping skyrocketing I can't imagine it will be long before we see the rise of a "Blackwater Navy." Congressional hearings and civilian NGO outrage will be soon to follow no doubt. But that is the price you pay, if there is a demand going unfulfilled, it won't be long before the market creates a supply. Maybe I should strap on my eye patch and try to get a Letter of Marque from Congress?

Standing up . . .

The Iraqi military, border, and police forces are starting to approach self-sufficiency in the most important area, logistics! Between this and the provincial election law finally getting passed, the way is being paved to shift fire from Iraq back to the, "West Virginia of the Islamic World." (With apologies to the Islamic World.)

Things to come . . .

Starting this coming Monday, I'll begin discussing future rolls of each military branch. I'm going to try and throw a lot out there just to get the ball rolling. I know more about things Army, Marine, and SOF related, less so when it comes to the Navy and Air Force. Again, the key is to define the role within the context of a national grand strategy which focuses both on deterring or initiating a regime change in rogue actors, and providing stability and humanitarian aid everywhere else. While we are currently seeing the majority of the Stability Force growing within the Army and Marines, each branch has something it can contribute.

On Georgia

One quick note on the recent conflict in Georgia, while many people see this as the collapse of the Core-Gap theory of expanding Globalization, I think it is telling that despite the fact that Georgia is a clear ally of the United States, at no point did we ever offer military support against Russia. Regardless of who you see as the provocateur in that conflict, and I will be quick to point out that Georgian democracy is at best, wanting, the fact is that the Cold War military dynamic with Russia hasn't changed. They still have nukes. If we do have a conflict with Russia, it will once again be by proxy. And the constabulary force is better suited to such a conflict. The only nations we can reasonably expect to go to war with on their own territory, (whether perceived or actual) are those without nuclear weapons. Hence why I include the non-nuclear caveat in my force sizing argument. The only way to persuade a nuclear enabled state at an acceptable cost is to use diplomacy to bring them into the international system, economics to undermine the base of their power. Remember Putin's soul? It looked a lot better before oil went above $100 a barrel.

Inaugural Post

BLUF:

In the study of modern warfare, a bifurcation has arisen between those who believe we must structure and deploy our military to combat primarily non-state actors, primarily in the form of counterinsurgencies, and those who believe we should align our forces to face traditional state opponents. I believe that this is a false dichotomy, and that as the only military power with a truly global reach, it is our responsibility to provide both options to policy makers.

First, how this all got started, LTG Caldwell says it much better than I could.

GEN Omar Bradley once stated that "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals study logistics." The weakest link in the logistical base of the US military, or the military of any truly democratic state, will always be the political will of its citizenry. For this reason, it is vital that we include civilians in any discussion about the future structure and purpose of our Armed Forces. I offer this blog as an open forum for the discussion of anything from the tactical (counterinsurgency, maneuver warfare, special operations) to the operational ("The Long War," AFRICOM) to the strategic (procurement, force structure, forward deployment).

In this discussion I find several publications to be of particular utility:

- Thomas P.M. Barnett: The Pentagon's New Map, Blueprint for Action, and the soon to be published: Great Powers.

- Thomas L. Friedman: The Lexus and the Olive Tree, The World is Flat

- Combined Arms Center: FM 3-0: Operations, The Counterinsurgency Field Manual, FM 3-24 and Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-33.5

-and many more, but these form the basis of my personal understanding of global conflict and the prescription for its cure . . . I welcome additional submissions for my perusing pleasure.

Additionally, there is a great spectrum of my fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen, whom I turn to as sources of information, insight, and experience. And there are of course other sources such as blogs, traditional media outlets, and my own twisted imagination.

For those not squared away on current military affairs, there are essentially two schools of thought on the direction of future conflict. They are generally, but by no means entirely, divided along generational lines, with an older, Cold War-era group seeing a world where the great powers of the planet must inevitably clash in tradtional military struggles, and a younger, mostly junior and senior officer crowd that sees the future of the military lying in stability operations, conterinsurgency, and humanitarian aid, all with the purpose of reducing regional conflicts that could scale up into larger full-fledged wars. These distinctions rule over how they see aquisitions, research, force structure, pretty much everything that comprises the military. If you believe in the Stability Operations crowd, you want Amphibious Warfare ships, UAVs, and tons of boots on the ground to do everything from handing out aid to tracking down terrorists. If you are a Westphalian Warrior, you want Tanks, Subs, F-22s, all complemented with a healthy serving of Nukes on the side.

I believe that we must have a force for both types of warfare. One that can eliminate state actors by force, and one that can work with NGOs, coalition partners, and local leaders to target violent non-state actors, build up local security infrastructure, and pave the way for economic development that eventually improves quality of life. I believe that we need a small, conventional force that is "sized" to take down the armed forces of the most militarily powerful non-nuclear enabled "rogue" state. (currently Iran) And a larger constabulary force that can act to spread security in any part of the world destabilized by disaster, be it natural or man-made.

This blog is a discussion about how to best achieve those two forces, as they are what is expected of us as a military force by both the world and the American taxpayer. I offer this basic outline only as a starting point, and welcome discussion, including that which suggests we go completely one way or the other. Who knows, maybe you'll change my mind.