Have you been keeping up with the proposed cuts in the Army? I have and with good reason. Combat power. Unless you're the most silly think tank member or part of the airpower can do it all mafia, you're aware that wars are decided by young men standing on, and owning real estate.
You can't do that from the air.
Additionally I'm a Marine Corps snob. The Marine Corps is a shock force. A rapid response force. Even a crisis response force if you want to use the latest buzz words...but it isn't an Army. So to keep the Marine Corps "pure" we need the Army to do the jobs that the Marine Corps isn't designed or optimized to perform.
So I read the latest by American Mercenary with alarm.
The Army is getting shredded. Raped. Destroyed. Whatever you call it it ain't good. Check out his article here, and understand the drama. Combat power is being cut...and Ukraine proves one thing. We don't live on a safer planet. A weaker Army means even fewer options for decision makers and did you notice that the action in that country involved 99% ground forces? An air centric defense is a fools thinking.
We don't live in a world that will afford us the time to mobilize, equip and train ponderous reserve forces. three months in 1950 might be long enough to mobilize, but three months in this day and age, with 24/7 news cycles and public relations, it's enough to see a country pull off a military action and have its actions accepted as de facto and irreversible since most people, apart from those directly affected, have short attention span. A short, sharp engagement for some atoll in the South China Sea or a major war on the Korean peninsula or Eastern Europe would be impossible for our reserve forces to play any part in deterring or reversing aggression. If our enemies can strategize on getting inside of our mobilization OODA loop, then we need to restructure how we mobilize and do it faster.
ReplyDeleteThe entire military but especially Big Army need a major reform NSC 47 to adjust for the 21st Century. For Big Army:
Scrap the Key West agreements, give Army some more Predators and the A-10s to replace the Kiowas.
Transfer KC-10s, C-17s, C-5Bs and most of the C-130s to the US Army so it can actually rely upon it's own transport fleet and figure out to deploy. Then sit down with Navy and discuss how to rapidly deploy BCTs, either in support of USMC or independent of it for certain threats. Start developing acquisition strategies both services can lobby for.
Totally revamp the Active and Reserve components with an emphasis on replacing the current messed up mode. Having the Army Reserve composed of only Combat Support and Combat Service Support is a huge mistake. Nobody else in the world has TWO separate reserve components that split into specific combat and CS/CSS specialties..this is stupid. It should be split into echelons with specific mobilization timeframes.
For every Active component Army BCT, there needs to be an Army Reserve BCT twinned to it and based on the same base so they can train together. Enlistment terms for AC should be two years, then you transfer to a Reserve unit for two years. Make the mobilization and deployment for an Army Reserve BCT less than one month. A soldier would serve in the an Active BCT for the two years, then transistion to the Reserve BCT where he would see many of the same soldiers he served with on active duty. Institutional memory, culture and traditions are kept intact to create motivated, well-trained Reserve BCTs. If he wants to stay longer than two years in the Reserve BCT, he can if his performances are competetive.
Bonuses should be offered to combat MOS from soldiers who have already served in Active BCTs. National Guard should be composed of 15 BCTs for mobilization for major wars. Numerous smaller Combat Service Support units would raised and assigned to each state would primarily be for responding to national emergencies but in a pinch would be used to create new BCTs for larger wars or Humanitarian missions abroad.
33 Active Duty BCTs that can deploy in under two weeks.
33 Army Reserve BCTs that can deploy in one month.
15 National Guard BCTs that can deploy in two to three months.
81 Total BCTS that could be mobilized and fighting in the less than four months.
If a war lasts longer than that, a war that would require conscription, then we much bigger problems. But for most contingencies, an Army that could field 81 BCTs in less than six months would be more than adequate.
Sounds good to me, there are some good troops in the reserve component but for a big fight, or to add any meaning to our conventional deterrent, the year or so they need to get ready just doesn't cut it. I like your idea but the main issue I see with it would be keeping people trained to high enough of a standard to deploy them w/in a month like you say. People have a hard time with their jobs getting along with their service as it is. Also, not that I'd have a problem with it, but it seems like we would need more bases to spread out these BCT and their sister units. Probably a good idea to spread it all out a little bit anyway. And building bases would create a bunch of jobs as a pleasant side effect, mostly military friendly jobs that could be staffed by those higher readiness reserve unit troops. Kind of a rambling train of thought response on my part but I think its a pretty damn good idea.
DeleteThat's why I think they need to look at enlistment terms. A 2 year active, 2 year reserve and 2 year IRR status should be a fair deal for short-term, non career soldiers. And soldiers could use their two years in the Reserve BCTs to go to school. There is also nothing stopping them, (if they have good performance reviews), for soldiers to get a degree, then going back on Active Duty.
DeleteThe Army would have an incentive to identify local community colleges and Universities for investment in good vocational and ROTC programs.
Soldiers interested in making a career or multiple terms of service would have plenty of incentives to invest in belonging to a regimental systems where they could have stability for home life, education, post-military careers, etc. If they want to be part of the service, but don't want the hassle of long deployments away from home of an Active BCT, they have the ability to be in a Reserve BCT. Regimental Promotion or assigned boards would have the ability to select the best qualified soldiers.
As for National Guard, there should be generous bonuses to attract former servicemen who have combat or CS MOS' and already been through the Active and Reserve system perhaps NG headhunters who can offer things like further educational benefits OR moving costs OR housing vouchers. Join the Texas National Guard's BCT, your kids get to go to the University of Texas, etc.
For Combat Support and Combat Service Support NG units, they'd have generous benefits and bonuses, but with the expectation that they'd only deploy abroad in dire circumstances e.g. WWIII. Most of their efforts would be dedicated to domestic national defense and secondary role of disaster/humanitarian relief.
Forgot to mention, each Active BCT/Reserve BCT pairing should have a regimental system that controls promotions, billeting, training, and other personnel systems. You could name the regimental unit, which is just an HQ that would never deploy and never have any operational control, after divisions e.g. 1st Infantry Division, 2nd Armored Division.
DeleteAside from the assigned number of Officer billets in a BCT, there would be additional billets at the nominal "division" HQ for officers assigned as instructors for local ROTC programs, assigned to Pentagon or services schools like Army War College, medical treatment and recovery. Once an officer is ready to assume duties in a BCT, they could be assigned back to BCT or at the 'Division' HQ.
Dude you just gutted the Air Mobility Command. That'll never happen.
Deleteno, I just changed the hats and stuck in where it belongs....US Army
DeleteWe made a mistake when we allowed the Air Corps to split off. It should be part of the larger Dept of War as part of an team Air/Land team.
No more Next Gen. Bomber, no F35 boondoggle, no Air Mobility Command, just land and air components that support and complement each other.
Like I said, we need to reboot national defense and ditch the NSC 47 structure and its artificial constraints that inhibit cooperation.