Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 19, 2015
This is what the future of the US Army will look like
On September 17, I had the privilege of testifying before the Congressionally-mandated Commission on the Future of the Army.
Its members include retired Army generals Carter Ham, Larry Ellis, JD Thurman, and Jack Stultz, former Pentagon officials Robert Hale, Thomas Lamont, and Kathleen Hicks, and former Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond Chandler III.
It owes the Congress a report early in 2016 with its recommendations for how the American Army should be sized, structured, equipped, and otherwise prepared for its likely future challenges in service to the nation.
The basis for my presentation was my new Brookings book, The Future of Land Warfare. It also constitutes the official written version of my testimony. While endorsing much about today’s U.S. Army, an institution I consider to be in generally good shape (if quite stressed and strained by the wars of the 21st century as well as other challenges), I offered three main arguments before the Commission:
1. Today’s U.S. Army is fairly small by most relevant measures. At just under one million total soldiers, of which just over 450,000 are on active duty and the rest in the National Guard or Army Reserve, it is about 60 percent the size of the late Cold-War Army.
Adjusted for the fact that today’s American population is larger than it was in the 1980s, today’s Army is in fact only about half its latter Cold-War size relative to the demographic base from which it is derived. Globally speaking, the United States has about 5 percent of the world’s population but only 3 percent of its active-duty soldiers. These statistics are only suggestive, not conclusive.
But they imply that any ideas for further cuts to the Army should be viewed with considerable wariness. In fact, I would oppose such proposals.
Getty Images / Paul J RichardsUS Army reservists.
2. The Obama administration’s argument, as reflected in its 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, that large-scale stabilization operations should no longer guide force sizing for the Army is mistaken. There is no way to be confident that future large-scale stabilization missions (or related operations involving counterinsurgency, peacekeeping, and/or disaster relief) can be dismissed out of hand. In fact, quite a number could have strong relevance to American national security.
In my book, I develop scenarios from South Asia to the Middle East to West Africa to Central America that could be important enough to require a U.S. military response (generally as part of a multinational coalition), should they actually occur.
US Army via Wikimedia CommonsThe world still needs the US Army at the ready.
3. The “two-war strategy” or “two-war framework” for sizing U.S. ground forces that has guided American defense officials since the Cold War is no longer optimal for future planning purposes. In fact, in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, the second of those two hypothetical wars is no longer considered to be one for which the United States need prepare a dominant and rapid military response.
According to that document, it would suffice that the United States “inflict unacceptable damage” upon an enemy in such a second conflict (at least until the first mission was concluded). To my mind, that is a vague and potentially inappropriate goal for American military operations, especially those involving ground forces.
US Army PhotoThe Army cannot tolerate vague guidelines when going to war.
As such, I recommend a different paradigm—a “1+2” force sizing construct, with the 1 mission being a high-end war (like another possible conflict in Korea) and the 2 being smaller and multilateral, but potentially long and stressful, simultaneous operations of one type or another. This basis for force planning is in fact no less demanding than that contained in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review.
But I believe it is more realistic, more intuitive, and therefore more viable as a basis for resourcing and training the Army. It is also more helpful in explaining what the U.S. Army must do to the American people and Congress as well as friends, allies, and other parties around the world.
34 Comments on "This is what the future of the US Army will look like"
Hello on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 3:49 pm
The army should be shooting anything that moves along the Mexican border. Yet they prefer to cruise around the globe in expensive boats instead.
I’m sure Planted-Agent would agree that this is the Chicago Ghetto Lawyer’s fault.
Apneaman on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 4:46 pm
Hello, they’ll be shooting you soon enough and good riddance – shit stain. You could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and no one would give a shit. You ain’t nothing special and you ain’t necessary. The world don’t need you.
ghung on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 5:23 pm
Hello said; “The army should be shooting anything that moves along the Mexican border. Yet they prefer to cruise around the globe in expensive boats instead.”
Yeah, Hello, I’d like to introduce you to my daughter’s husband who may well be one of those Rangers jumping out the back of that ‘J’. He’ll explain some things to you, especially the part where he swore an oath….
Ever put your ass on the line for crappy pay, long months away from family, and idiotic comments from folks like you? If not, STFU.
ghung on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 5:33 pm
….oh, and Hello, a lot of his Ranger buddies are Latino. Maybe you should think about that.
ghung on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 5:38 pm
…. and they don’t “cruise around the globe in expensive boats”. That would be the Marines.
Davy on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 7:15 pm
Just so you all know Hello indicated (he or she) is from Europe in a comment a few months ago. Who knows just thought I would mention that. Hello can you clarify your blood line?
Makati1 on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 8:05 pm
Wow! This piece of propaganda sure brought out the negative in some of us…lol.
Bring the troops (and their families) home from those 800+ foreign bases and save the Us hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and the world a lot of unnecessary death and stress.
Odd that Russia, the number two military has exactly one military base outside of Russia. And China, number three, also has only one base outside of China. Both are for their navies.
“According to official information provided by the Department of Defense (DoD) and its Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) there are still about 40,000 US troops, and 179 US bases in Germany, over 50,000 troops in Japan (and 109 bases), and tens of thousands of troops, with hundreds of bases, all over Europe. Over 28,000 US troops are present in 85 bases in South Korea, and have been since 1957.”
http://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-us-has-a-military-presence/
“The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with over 156,000 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories and an additional 70,000 deployed in various contingency operations as well as through military attache offices and temporary training assignments in foreign countries.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
I suspect that when the crash happens, they will all be brought home as unsustainable out of the country. By then they will be needed to control the riots at home.
Apneaman on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 8:08 pm
Latinos Claim Larger Share of U.S. Military Personnel
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2007/HispanicsUSMilitary.aspx
Makati1 on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 8:13 pm
ghung, the Us military these days is filled with “jar heads” (appropriate as they are mostly empty) the unemployed, and the apes who just like to kill, plunder/destroy and rape. They are led by males who want power and control, not democracy or freedom.
There has been zero justification for a US military to even exist after WW2 except to make profit for the elite and protect the Fatherland … er … Homeland from invaders.
They are even less needed now when any real war will likely be over in one day.
onlooker on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 8:28 pm
I suspect much of this deployment is for intimidation purposes, to protect certainly ally regimes and to support any future coup that serves US interests. They certainly are not their as a peacekeeping force.
Makati1 on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 8:48 pm
Forgotten or buried?
“Seventy years after the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945, a number of important historical details about the conflict have been forgotten by the US public. These facts may be unknown or ignored by the people of the United States, but much of the world hasn’t forgotten them, and they have relevance in relation to current events.”
http://journal-neo.org/2015/09/18/top-ten-forgotten-facts-about-the-second-world-war/
And the forgetfulness goes on…
Poordogabone on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 9:01 pm
“1. Today’s U.S. Army is fairly small by most relevant measures. At just under one million total soldiers, of which just over 450,000 are on active duty and the rest in the National Guard or Army Reserve, it is about 60 percent the size of the late Cold-War Army.” […]
“But they imply that any ideas for further cuts to the Army should be viewed with considerable wariness. In fact, I would oppose such proposals.”
Any chances of trimming the dod budget without cutting on personnel?
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/234578-sanders-requests-meeting-with-dod-chief-about-wasteful-spending
apneaman on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 9:08 pm
America’s Empire of Bases
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/from_the_archives_of_tomdispatch_americas_empire_of_bases_20150812
rockman on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 10:11 pm
As Yogi said: predictions are difficult…especially about the future. It seems not so much a future of miltiple large deployments but semiperpetual small but numerous deployments. We are hopefully beyond the days of large standing armies squaring off. But the world of small regional conflicts involving non-uniformed militia types seems certain. In such a world s larger military forcd would be needed, We’ve already seen the problems associated with long term/miltiple deployments by our troops.
It’s difficult to imagine the world not becoming more violent as resources diminish and populations grow.
Plantagenet on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 12:11 am
Hello’s fantasies about the Army “shooting everything” along the Mexican border are unusually silly, even for someone as silly as Hello.
———————————
Its hard to see how the US Army will be involved in any wars in the future. As Obama has shown, its probably smarter not to send in the army, but just to use drones and the US Air Force to bomb and blast and assassinate various individuals that the administration doesn’t like, especially since this can be done with little or no risk to US personnel
Cheers!
adamc18 on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 1:41 am
The last justifiable war was WW2. Everything since then has been a costly disaster, both in financial terms and in the waste of human lives.
The politicians who led the US and its allies into these wars are all guilty of war crimes. Could someone explain why the US taxpayer seems happy to fund these futile wars in the Middle East and send their young to be killed and maimed in conflicts which have nothing whatever to do with America? It raises the fundamental question; has anyone asked the American people why they should get dragged at huge cost into this nasty corner of the world?
theedrich on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 3:15 am
Close, adamc18, but no cigar. The last two World Wars were in no way justifiable. That idea is due simply to the interminable propaganda from you-know-who. The U.S. always likes to portray itself as virginal and fighting for missionary reasons. The old Puritan ethic still drives the idiots savants in the Council on Foreign Relations who merely obey their megalomaniac paymasters. The idea of America as world cop will not go away, because the bribe-ocrats need it to justify their existence. The last “justifiable” war might arguably have been the War of 1812, when we tried to take over Canada. (Apeman is undoubtedly happy we didn’t succeed at that, otherwise his nation wouldn’t have its “libel laws” restricting free speech.) With the exception of the Korean War, since then everything has been clearly unjustifiable.
Davy on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 6:40 am
Lots of people with little understanding of military strategy, tactics, and abilities. Many have their clouded agendas that get in the way of proper understanding. Militaries today fall into two classes 1st world and third world abilities. All the major powers have similar abilities and quality of equipment. This is a globalized world so equipment, and knowledge of effective technology and best practices is well known.
All militaries have a particular orientation that will impact their force composition. Politics, corruption, and industrial lobbying are some of the negatives. Militaries have different sizes and abilities per their economics. Europe could have much more effective armies if it were not for the lack of investment. Yet, considering Europe’s mandate for its militaries they are adequately prepared. Russia and increasing China have very effective armies both on training and equipment. Russia is remilitarizing under Putin’s dream of a greater Russia. China has designs on Asia as their backyard. The US has its usual increasingly failed superpower motivations.
The US is in a class all its own for the sheer size of the investment in its armies and the training from global engagements and commitments. I might add it is the engagement and the commitments that are the true indicator of an army’s strength because it must take all its various assets and bring them to bear in these engagements. Training and preparedness is the highest on the list of an armies capabilities. Moral is right up there with training and preparedness. The US has all of the above. Where the US fails is politically.
We have the third world nations which are the ones doing most of the fighting over these last couple of decades. They are mixture of mostly poor practices, but some high moral, and a mixture of equipment. The third world has been where the first world has been fighting many of its battles. In that respect they are the training ground and the testing areas for the technologies of death.
The US military is and will be in decline both because the rest of the world’s capabilities are on the increase and the economics at home is on the decline. There is still no one that can compare to the US in the field. We won nearly all battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. These conflicts did not achieve their ends of a phony nation building mandate but that is political issue not military. On the ground the battles and many of the military tactics and strategies were effective. This was not always the case initially but eventually the US learned and adapted.
The cost of that success was huge and some heads should role in the US political leadership for such a large waste of treasure that gained nothing. In fact I would say a significant systematic instability was created in MENA that was the genie let out of the bottle. This region was due for a revolution of sorts from population and limit issues but the US made it worse with political vacuums. Politics is generally where mandates fail.
In any case the world can no longer afford wars of any size. If China and the US would engage in a large scale hot war the game would be over for the global system. We would have a Minsky moment of paralysis and decline. Wars and expanding militaries are no longer the trend. As this economic descent gathers speed and economic crisis develop across the board globally militaries will find they will be increasing called on to fix failed leadership efforts the same time their capabilities will be diminished by a declining global economic system. We are in the end days of modern military.
BobInget on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 9:02 am
Drones.
Pops on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 9:47 am
Yep, drones & hackers & that one button.
Then, post WWIII, sticks and stones
Boat on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 9:56 am
adam,
has anyone asked the American people why they should get dragged at huge cost into this nasty corner of the world?
The answer, no. But the American people as a whole are a hawkish lot. They don’t mind trusting their politicians even though they keep voting their party out after a few years of failure.
WWII was the reason. Many think that the US should have went in and shut down Hitler years in advance of WWII and saved a lot of treasure and lives.
bug on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 10:05 am
Boat, who thought that? I think FDR and the maybe new dealers did. As I remember from history, the Republican didn’t want to have anything to do with Europe, and the US citizens didn’t want to get involved after the WW1 outcome.
Boat on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 10:21 am
Davy,
We disagree on so many fronts it’s hard to know where to start.
Militaries today fall into two classes 1st world and third world abilities. All the major powers have similar abilities and quality of equipment.
Saddam had the 4th largest military in the world and it held up for 2 weeks?
Europe could have much more effective armies if it were not for the lack of investment.
Davy you know nothing of Europe and it’s investment. Go look it up lazy. They outspend Russia like 5-1 or more. Europe out spends China by a huge amount. Just Google military spending by country.
The US military is and will be in decline both because the rest of the world’s capabilities are on the increase
China spends like 200 billion a year on it’s military, that is up from 150 billion.
So in my view the over sized bloated US military should be 1/2 the size and be able to handle any crisis. Not in decline at any rate now.
Boat on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 10:25 am
bug,
That’s correct. Hind site is always easy.
AFVET` on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 10:46 am
I agree basically with everything he said. Obama has so drastically reduced the military to where it no longer has full capability. Secondly their planning is for what they think will happen. Nothing has ever happened according to plan since all planning was in error. As strong, capable military is a necessity for our country, for war, humanitarian and peace keeping mission, though I will hasten to add war with definable victory, conquering is the only reason we should ever go into another combat scenario, otherwise we stay at home. Limited strikes, no requirement for complete victory is not only stupid it kill American soldiers, airmen, navy, and marines needlessly with no reason. Obama does not see this, he want to kill Americans to show he can do something. Another thing, most important is that we must have the latest and greatest equipment to fight the war, continuous development and upgrades are required to maintain superiority, superiority is a must, alway will be.
joe on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 11:05 am
Armies? Who needs em? People looking to spend pork and to shoot at someone without either the tools or knowledge to fight back. That WAS the middle east.
Now that Europe is undergoing it’s 1st real phase of Islamisation there is only one army that truly matters, armies of migrants.
It’s possible that through democratic and demographic processes Islam could get the armies, tech and nukes of western Europe. Thanks Crapitalism, thanks leader of crapitalism, thank you America.
rockman on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 11:28 am
Drones and bombing avoiding boots on the ground? Yes indeed: that certainly brought N Vietnam to its knees. LOL. The US will likely be pulled into conflicts focused on resource security. Not as common as any number of countries, of course. But we’ll likely get pulled into a number of those conflicts. Unfortunately so far such a level of involvement (Libya, Syria, etc.) hasn’t proved very fruitful except for the folks who make a living selling our govt munitions.
Boat on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 11:28 am
AFVET,
Obama is a war hawk. He certainly has not reduced the military bloated budget. Try to google military spending by country. The US spends 3x the amount China does. 6x the amount Russia does.
mike on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 11:57 am
Errrmmmm – what has any of this to do with peak oil? Unless it is the problems American armed forces will face when their tanks run out of diesel and their humvees out of petrol and their stealth bombers out of jet fuel and their nooclear carriers out of fuel because of the declining availabaility opf Uranium.
GregT on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 12:08 pm
Obama is a war hawk.
Another person that does not understand the political system within his own country, one iota.
apneaman on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 12:58 pm
mike, the piece is not really peak oil related. They do serve other dishes here ya know? Your comment does bring up another elephant in the room though. The one avoided like the plague by almost all academics and proponents of an alternative energy society. Does anyone seriously think the world’s militaries will give up those advantages? No and to keep them they need BAU. Armies are like any other complex organization in that they will cannibalize everything and anything they can to survive. Except they got guns. TPTB are nothing without them, so will damn well make sure they get what they need. Any military history buff knows exactly what happens when you stop supporting them.
apneaman on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 1:28 pm
‘MURICA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=63&v=nfK9UPEQavo
Makati1 on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 8:49 pm
Ap, thanks for the vid. So very very definitive of America today! Has the most expensive, high tech military in history and hasn’t won anything since … the Civil War? We were late for both world wars and came in at the end after the foe was weakened. Since then, it has been all down hill. Except the M.I.C. has been getting fatter and fatter, just like Americans.
apneaman on Mon, 21st Sep 2015 12:29 am
Centcom Made Clear Bad News on ISIS ‘Wasn’t Welcome’
Intelligence Directorate Strongly Favored Upbeat Comments
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/09/18/centcom-made-clear-bad-news-on-isis-wasnt-welcome/