New Strategy for Military

The debate concerning the national deficit has increased in fervor in recent years with significant escalating costs associated with military spending including the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, large tax cuts for all Americans including the super wealthy and the specter of rising healthcare and social security costs. While discussion of various strategies to head off further accumulation of future debt is appropriate, an interesting element is how obstinate numerous individuals are when it comes to discussion of reducing military expenditures. While it is true that the controversial Simpson-Bowls deficit reduction strategy included military cuts most of those cuts were haphazard and unfocused. The simple reality is that a significant amount of funding will have to be cut from the military budget intelligently to effectively address future deficit problems while maintaining public confidence in the military itself.

There are two central issues when discussing the matter of reducing funds to the military: first, the paranoid belief that national security is somehow greatly compromised by reducing funds at all and second the lack of a clear strategy for the military in modern society. The first issue can be better addressed by highlighting the second issue. At the moment there is no consistent recognized role for the military. While there is a mission statement: “protect the sovereignty of the U.S. of America from foreign aggression” there does not seem to be a clear execution strategy for that mission statement. Basically should the military be offensive, preemptively attacking potential enemies or defensive, counteracting clear aggressive behavior towards the U.S. and her territories? On its face the better execution strategy seems to be defensive, especially when considering future costs.

The biggest concern with an offensive strategy is the dynamic nature of the attack targets. Without an imperial mindset there is nothing to conquer, thus initiating an occupying force is not appropriate, yet large state complexes are no longer the chief threat. The shift away from single sovereign state forces applies focus to stress the moving parts associated with the interrelated groups that exist within sovereign nations and can move between nations. However, without acquiring cooperation from those nations direct attacks against these independent groups can be complicated. A chief example of this complication is the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan with regards to Al Queda and the Taliban. The U.S. cannot simply invade Pakistan to remove Al Queda so they resort to smaller scale unmanned drone attacks, which still cause problems both in their collateral damage and how they influence the relationship between the two countries. These complications decrease cost and probability efficiencies of defending the sovereignty of the U.S.

The administration of a defensive strategy offers numerous financial advantages. First, standing military manpower can be significantly reduced to a reserve force, which can be periodically rotated during non-global war to ensure performance excellence. For example the military could have 500,000 total members with 100,000 on active duty (weekend training, etc.). After a set time period individuals would rotate from active duty to reservists and a pre-determined new 100,000 would move from reserves to active duty. Such a rotation would keep everyone in the military reasonably fresh and up-to-date on new combat techniques and strategies; current focus would more than likely be on urban combat. Rotations would be true to the proportional representations of the total military demographic. Basically suppose the 500,000 troops were 33% army, 28% navy, 22% air force and 17% marine then the 100,000 active duty troops would be 33,000 army, 28,000 navy, 22,000 air force and 17,000 marine.

A defensive strategy could also eliminate the old standing ‘two ocean front war strategy’, highlighted by the Vinson-Walsh Act in 1940, that has been used by pro-military spending advocates, but is no longer appropriate because no real legitimate threat can materialize in the Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean Sea front. No African or South American country can field a naval threat that a land-based or air-based counter-attack force could not neutralize effectively with almost zero to zero collateral damage. Currently all Western European countries are allies and if foreign relations change the change will not occur so quickly that some of the existing eleven carrier groups could not be adjusted appropriately.

Of the existing carrier groups two can be anchored in Annapolis, one with a European Ally (if needed due to concerns in the Middle East similar to the 5th group currently in Bahrain) and the remaining eight at various places in the Pacific theater to ensure Pacific maritime rights for all East Asian countries. With the elimination of the two ocean strategy no additional naval forces will be required in the budget until an existing high-value ship is decommissioned saving significant funds over the long-term. As a rule of thumb a single carrier group could be replaced every ten years, thus significantly reducing procurement costs. In addition with the focus on the Pacific Theater some carrier groups will not have to be replaced and could instead be sold abroad when viewed as out-of-date if so desired. Basically no additional naval forces will be required under such a strategy.

With the advancement of unmanned drones offensive air-to-ground capacity can largely be transferred from manned bombers to these unmanned drones. Therefore, no new bombers will be needed in the near future. The emphasis on offensive air-to-air combat is limited as well due to the strength of the U.S. carrier groups and surface-to-air missile defense networks, thus the need for new fighters will be significantly reduced. New fighters would only be required when existing technology is completely out of date and computer analysis identifies kill ratios of greater than 5 to 1 against potential existing opponents. Based on these new criteria unnecessary further procurements like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet can be eliminated.

Playing defense would also eliminate the need for expansion of heavy armor because only two countries have the capacity to engage in a land war with the U.S.: Canada and Mexico; the likelihood of either one of those countries invading the U.S. is incredibly small. If the unthinkable did happen any invasion force can be countered with air superiority and naval counterattacks from both coasts (the carrier group at Norfolk and those in California). Therefore, no procurement of additional heavy armor will be needed in the budget for decades under a defensive strategy. In honest analysis with the increasing likelihood of urban combat, the cost/benefit ratio of heavy armor in general becomes less and less viable.

Some would argue that such cuts to the military would result in lost jobs. Of course it would because that is how a consumer based economic system operates, when spending in a particular field decreases the size and structure of organizations providing goods and services to that particular field decreases. However, it is completely irrational to continue spending money on military equipment that would not be necessary in a real defensive strategy over an offensive-defensive “bi-polar” strategy. Jobs that exist based on this irrational spending can be regarded as pure inefficient government subsidized jobs because the defense contractor that employs person A in that particular job is creating inefficiency in the transaction by siphoning off a large portion of the money for itself which then leaves the economy versus that money going directly to the employee. Any free-market capitalist should be in favor of eliminating such inefficient transactions. For any argument of sympathy for these individuals losing their jobs… why is it that these individuals, most who have had large five to six figure yearly salaries and should have large savings accounts, should receive sympathy yet there is no sympathy when thousands of lower paying, but more essential teaching or police jobs are eliminated?

It is important to note that while a defensive strategy will significantly diminish the number of new military projects and overhead costs of current maintenance, there should be no reduction in funding for DARPA. While there are some instances where research at DARPA may be viewed with a roll of the eyes the overall structure and importance of DARPA cannot be understated for it is these homerun/strike out research projects that have the higher probabilities of creating innovating weapon and armor technologies, which will reduce costs over the long-term. In addition a defensive strategy will reduce the probability that active military personnel enter combat. However, despite this reduced probability salaries and benefits currently granted to military personnel should not be withdrawn or reduced, but can be rearranged more efficiently if need be.

Reducing military costs will also require the expansion of cheaper surface-to-air and surface-to-sea missile systems as well as alternative fuel-based unmanned drones. One means to improve the ability to design these drones is to reduce carrying weight by reducing missile capacity. Also developing localized electrical magnetic pulse weapons due to less collateral damage engagement will be useful. In large part a significant amount of savings will come from reducing use and size of the mobile carriers (drones over fighters and bombers). Finally increasing funding for intelligence operations (CIA etc.) will increase preparation time for attacks against the U.S. reducing the total cost of defense. Basically consider the similar medical analogy in that if one knows the pathogen causing the illness one can deduce its method of attack, thus the cost of treatment is significantly reduced.

It stands to reason that there will be three major areas of global conflict over the next few decades. First, Eastern Asia as India and China continue to via for influence and economic development while nursing old grudges, China competing with other Southeastern Asian countries and Japan for control of local waterways and other oceanic bodies, India and Pakistan continue to via for control of the Kashmir region and the continued saber-rattling of North Korea towards South Korea. Realistically this area has the greatest potential for sparking a larger global conflict. Second, in the Middle East with Iran’s progressing attempts to acquire nuclear arms and the fierce determination of Israel to prevent a nuclear Iran and the continued Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Third, various elements of unrest could breakout in Central and Southern Africa. Fortunately these conflicts will largely remain regional and have little global catalyst effect. The above considerations for military spending in a defensive strategy will allow the U.S. to effectively address these potential conflicts with the ability to protect U.S. sovereignty as well as assist in protecting the sovereignty of other independent nations. It could be argued that all foreign military bases outside these combat areas could be eliminated with no additional new bases being built.

Some raise concerns about how allies would respond to significant cuts in the U.S. military budget. Any negative response would be derived from unnecessary fear and ignorance. First, there are very few nations that even directly make use of an “intimidating” influence of the U.S. military in foreign relations (Japan and South Korea come immediately to mind in their relationships with China and North Korea respectively). Second, there is a lot of overreaction in that any cuts to the U.S. military will somehow exponentially diminish its ability to conduct battle operations. With eleven carrier groups the U.S. navy will be able to effectively intervene in any major conflict area that is not in central Africa for decades to come even if zero new ships are constructed. Third, the emergence of new drones can compensate for losses due to their repeated use without placing pilot lives in danger or requiring new training for who would have replaced those killed. Unfortunately almost all complaints by allies about military spending cuts are largely driven by self-interests and one could wonder why these allies have not planned for the eventuality of a cut in U.S. military spending because one is inevitable one way or another.

There are three keys to significantly reducing military spending without compromising national security. First, prioritize a defensive strategy taking advantage of the geographical location of the U.S. and her surrounding allies in order to reduce the demand for military force. Second, eliminate expansion of the military (no new forces) instead focus on replacing aging technology with relevant significant upgrades. However, one should not replace a piece of technology just because something better exists, only do so when that new technology is a significant upgrade versus perceived enemy capacity. Third, expand FBI and CIA intelligence gathering to eliminate potential attacks before they materialize and create more efficient strike opportunities against mature threats. It is sad how little money is spent on FBI and CIA activities domestically and internationally versus how much money is spent on developing a helicopter or jet fighter that is 2% better than the previous model. Similar to the second point sometimes one wonders if Congress masquerades as Apple consumers in that they need to buy the next model even if there are no real fundamental improvements. Overall controlling military spending is easier if priorities are reassigned to focusing on a defensive front over an offensive one and do not reduce U.S. protection probability.

The Potential Hypocrisy of ‘Supporting the Troops’

"Support the Troops", a rather simple statement that continues to be a flashpoint of emotional and political fervor in the United States; sadly all of that emotional and political energy clouds the abject failure to live up to it. The very concept of supporting the troops only came into prominence in the last few decades initially as a response to the inappropriate conduct of citizenry towards soldiers returning from Vietnam. These soldiers were improperly viewed as a voluntary arm of the U.S. government, which anti-war protesters believed manipulated intelligence to conduct war for economic and political reasons. Unfortunately the soldiers were caught in a Catch-22 quandary as if they refused to serve they faced possible criminal prosecution where if they did serve they faced death and ridicule from the very people they were serving to protect. In addition the soldiers had no real power to control the course of events between the U.S. and other sovereign nations, so realistically all they could be responsible for regarding the events in Vietnam was their own conduct.

In effort to avoid the repeating the shameful treatment of those soldiers involved in Vietnam the slogan “Support the Troops” was founded. Unfortunately the concept of supporting the troops was twisted and corrupted by politicians by connecting it directly to the patriotism of an individual and their personal opinion regarding current military conflict; George W. Bush and this administration perpetrated the most egregious violation of the spirit of this mantra. Under George W. Bush if one questioned military conflict orchestrated by the U.S. in any region of the world, not only would the patriotism of that individual be challenged, but also their support of the men and women giving their lives in the conflict. Of course this corruption of the spirit of the mantra further clouded its misapplication. Today there are two rather large misconceptions regarding what it means to support the troops that still have prominence today.

First, when one supports the troops this support should not be a blanket of unconditional support. For instance how it is morally justifiable to support the actions of a soldier that murders citizens of the country in which the conflict is occurring when those citizens propose no direct threat? Those troops deserve no level of support and should not receive any. The total war philosophy that citizens can later turn into possible combatants or that they support current combatants with their activities both on a recreational and occupational level is foolish. The probability that these non-violent citizens enter combat activities is largely determined by the actions of the parties engaging in combat.

For example it is unreasonable to restrict most occupational tasks carried out by a citizen because such action is necessary for the survival of the individual and such restriction would lead to resentment. If the citizenry of a given region does not view the combatants as a conquering, occupying or barbarous force then little concern should be given to the concept of the citizenry turning violent. Therefore, there is no reason to kill them. Some may say that it is difficult to criticize troops without first hand knowledge of their experiences in a combat zone and although that is true, there is a clear difference between justifiable homicide and murder and differentiation between the two should not be clouded behind a uniform.

Second, it is foolish to believe that genuinely supporting the troops is a very simple task that only requires the purchase of a silly colored magnet stuck to a motor vehicle. Actually supporting the troops is derived from passing legislation that is beneficial to troops both on the battlefield and on the home front. It is sadly hypocritical that a number of individuals who display visual symbols proclaiming support for troops also vote for elected officials who cut veteran medical benefits, refuse to raise salaries for soldier while gleefully raising their own and cut education opportunities for the soldiers and their children. These individuals 'support the troops' by making it harder for them to live quality lives during and after the tenure of service is over. Clearly supporting the troops goes beyond simply saying it and displaying some superficial object. Truly supporting the troops involves voting for elected officials that will provide better training and equipment, a reasonable salary and quality benefits. In addition the public must put pressure on politicians and commanding officers to ensure proper strategies are executed and enough resources are allocated to reduce the probability of casualties and the livelihood of the wounded.

Finally military commanders themselves must support the troops by abandoning the outdated notion of ensuring each death has a purpose. The need to provide purpose to death is silly because when an individual dies for a goal that is not achieved, why is that death meaningless? The real purpose of existence is in the way a person lives life and the decisions that are made during that life. The circumstances and end result of an individual's death are irrelevant when defining the purpose of individual's existence. Of course certain deaths can be considered tragic, unexpected and even unfair, but one should not look at death as having a purpose or not.

For instance if a soldier dies in battle for the cause of freedom for his occupied country and the revolution fails, it is wrong to say that the individual's death was without purpose. To only judge a death based on the final outcome of the event leading to the death is shortsighted and stupid. It would be great if all just causes people died for were eventually achieved, but that is not reality. In the case of the military, individuals who join the military are well aware of the consequences and the potential for death, thus by volunteering they accept these consequences for the opportunity to fight for and protect what they view as important. Therefore, to commit more resources or troops to a cause for the sole purpose of giving meaning to the deaths of those who have already fallen is foolish, irresponsible and has the potential to create a greater number of individuals that die without meaning in the eyes of those that possess this narrow view of existence.