Homeland Security Watch

Comment by William R. Cumming

November 13, 2012 @ 8:37 am

And while not all most continue to label defeat as victory.
The current crop of Flag Ranks biggest worry is that the complex supporting the Armed Forces will shrink and they will not have their next job with private pay piled on top of their military retirement.

Comment by John F. Morton

November 13, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

The United States until WW I did not have a standing army. Whenever it needed army troops for overseas, it recruited “U.S. Volunteers.” Our Army prior to WW II was smaller (I think) than Yugoslavia’s, which had only been a state since Versailles. After WW II, we departed from that tradition with the peacetime draft, and we departed from the tradition of no entanglements with NATO and the recall of Eisenhower as SACEUR and the posting of two divisions to Europe by Truman with a standing army posted overseas no less. All for good reason, to be sure during the Cold War. Ever since, we have grown accustomed to the idea of troops overseas and planning for land wars and COIN beyond our hemisphere, most of which have not wholly served our national interest if one looks at it honestly. If we in this age of debt triage our national interests and say that, for example, we are no longer in an era where we should entertain the idea of a land war in Eurasia then perhaps we no longer need a peacetime standing army and can rely on other military assets for security and other elements of national power to effect our will. Such a determination could return West Point to its original mission under Thayer which was to produce engineers who could build national security infrastructure like coastal fortifications, bridges and frontier stockades (I simplify but you get the point–system administrators to use another’s term). As for the pointy end of the spear, the Army certainly would retain specops capabilities in peacetime and on occasion use them overseas. The Navy would have its SEALs and Marines. The USAF its drones. We’d have BMD and space, and offensive nuclear capabilities as our strategic deterrent. We’d also have offensive cyber. But how much better would our balance sheet and public diplomacy be if we were traditionally postured without a force projection capability in this post-industrial age that would not be perceived as threatening in an imperial sense? How much better would be the patriotic sense of those in the smaller peacetime Army if they were to be trained in engineering infrastructure instead of shock and awe and occupying territory peopled by hostiles? Are those not the system administrator skills so necessary for national building here and abroad if we choose to play in say humanitarian ops? Would that not make for a resilient nation? I do not see the need for planning and applying resources for conventional war right now. Do we honestly need to plan for an invasion of China, Russia, Iran or Pakistan which only a WW II-size army could do? However, I do see the need for a strong Navy to advance the traditional freedom of the seas, especially in the Pacific, with an emphasis on sea control vice power projection. We do better to avoid rattling China with trying to offset their anti-access capabilities and resource, meet and surpass their cyberwarfare capabilities. I could go on. But y’all get the idea. As for failed or failing states and their harboring terrorist networks, the old idea of draining the swamp has cost too much money, alienated too many allies and foes alike and finally brought home too many dead, wounded and vets with PTSD. We need to find a better way.

Comment by bellavita

November 13, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

For more on “how we got here” — i.e., what John Morton describes — you might enjoy reading David Unger’s “The Emergency State: America’s Pursuit of Absolute Security At All Costs.” http://www.amazon.com/Emergency-State-Americas-Absolute-Security/dp/1594203245

Comment by bellavita

November 14, 2012 @ 7:27 pm

From The Medals They Carried at :

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/what-is-petraeus-legacy-ctd-1.html

You observed that so many journalists stand in the presence of men like Petraeus with “open jaws and worshipping eyes.” That brings to mind the military’s cultural shift in its medals, ribbons, and badges.

Consider these portraits of Generals Petraeus and Eisenhower. Petraeus is wearing over 30 ribbons and badges on his uniform. I’m sure he earned each of them. But of that 30, how many civilians will notice that only one item was for heroism (Bronze Star with “V”)? Eisenhower earned only ten U.S. decorations (plus countless foreign ones), and – as was the custom of the day – typically wore only three or four at a time.

So few of us have military experience. We see a solider decked out with all kinds of razz-mataz and we assume he’s a modern Audie Murphy, a Rambo ten times over. But the truth is, most accoutrements merely denote successful completion of an assignment, or time spent overseas – not necessarily in combat. Servicemembers can even earn a ribbon for volunteerism in their personal lives.

Too many in America stand in awe of the military partly because the awards and decorations system has become so inflated. We used to hesitate to adorn soldiers with ribbons, medals, and the like – it smacked of European symbols of nobility. The pendulum has swung too far toward over-recognition of service. We ought to chasten ourselves, put the brakes on this ridiculous, clown-like boastfulness where every troop looks like a Libyan field marshal. But with so many of us slack-jawed at the sight of a soldier, who among us has the political courage to scale back on the excess that creates this over-adulation of the soldier in the first place?