Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

"introduced a resolution recommending that our nation commit no less than 4 percent of our gross domestic product to the annual defense budget"

Yeah, great plan. I'm sure that will go over really well. I know exactly what this country needs: more submarines!!

What world are these people living in?

The funny part is: the Future Combat System is basically useless too. All that is needed is a good secure communications platform. No fancy headgear or anything stupid like that.

Technology is no substitute for strategy and in today's world nothing is going to be accomplished with brute military force alone.

Her pitch seems to be: "Just Spend Money"...

On a better subject -- I have been waiting for comments on the John Nagl op ed in the NY Times a few days ago. I think it was an excellent presentation of how COIN needs to evolve. And, he seems to be looking at the history as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02nagl.html

There are elements of a good point in there, though. Some of that equipment she mentions is a staple of Sysadmin operations; no matter what strategy we follow, we'll need to address the problem of aging equipment at some point.

It doesn’t appear that the purpose of Senator Dole’s piece was to propose a strategy but to advocate for resources for the current strategy. It certainly isn’t ground breaking or revolutionary but she is right about the state of our equipment and funding. Even if we don’t need large weapon programs for the near peer enemy, we do still need to send people and equipment places in the world, this requires ships and planes.

CT: it's in the queue

Seth: i think Tom's point is that we need to stop buying those big systems (decide strategically), which not only take huge amounts of money, but also personnel, training, focus, etc.

Mike,

Taking a strategic view, I can make the case for more submarines, in fact I have, but when I did it was part of a larger strategic vision. I think the case for 4% GDP could be made from the strategic view. I however don't see that strategic view from Mrs. Dole, or a great number in Washington.

Your last point is the bullseye. After talking to VA Morgan last week, I'm more convinced than ever the Navy and Marines have the foundation for the right strategic vision. The questions are do the other services have the right vision, and even if any services are getting the vision right, will they match resources to the vision? Will they continue rigorous intellectual development of that vision? These are important questions.

The jury is still out.

Mike,

I had to blog your comment. The Navy may classify their 'resources' plan that matches strategy, but that doesn't mean it can't be explained strategicly nonetheless.

If we (those of us who blog or write) don't take the strategic view to the public, then the "Elisabeth Doles" of the world have the dominate voice. That strikes me as not good.

Sean-
I understand that Tom is against the big bloat ware programs, as am I, but people take money too. Healthcare alone is now up to 9% of the DoD budget and they are looking at it going up to 12% in the next few years. Through money and technology at a problem is never the only answer but if we get the right tech with the right strategy then things will get rolling. I believe it’s in PNM where Tom writes about the military worrying about their weapon programs going away but he seemed to indicate that the new sysadmin force would require a whole new set of programs.
On top of that 4% really isn’t that much last year we were up to 5%. I’m sure most of us know the stats: 33% during WWII and dropped down to 3% pre-9/11. If we are going to carry out a strategy like Tom proposes we have to be willing to spend the resources- recruiting, training, supplying and yes weapons. If every now and again we have to buy a submarine or Aircraft Carrier to keep the old guard out of the way so be it (though I would rather not).

Don't forget training and recruiting, Seth. As the Army runs into the limits of its traditional sources of new recruits, it's forced to look for new soldiers elsewhere who don't always make the grade. To make the most of these new sources, DoD will have to diversify its training methods to make up for the shortfalls of these new sources. That means more boot camps.

Michael-
I mentioned recruiting and training. The available population that the Army can draw from is actually quit large but the high standards limit it to a select few. I know this is a completely different story than most people try to sell but as Adams said “facts are stubborn things”. The percentage of High quality recruits (those with High School Diplomas and AFQT levels I-III) has gone up since the 70’s and 80’s. It was higher in the 90’s but that was during the drawdown so of course we could be more selective. The number of moral and medical waivers has dropped by almost half. This leaves the military with about only 20% of the target age range that is eligible for service.
But more money is needed for both of these activities simply because the amount of training needed is significantly greater. Not only do soldiers have to know how to move, shoot and communicate but they also have to know how to interact with foreign cultures and train other Armies. The new urban operating environment creates another financial draw has we have to build more training facilities and a fake city is far more expensive than just going out into the desert or woods. Not to mention that if the Future Combat System does ever come on line it will be more technology that soldiers will have to learn how to master.