Military Branches

[Caine]

I think the US would be better served by consolidating its law-enforcement services. Do you really need Police departments, Sheriffs departments, Marshalls, State Troopers, DEA, ATF, FBI and Lord knows what else?

Yes. Because I enjoy the idea that the states operate independently of the federal government.

 

[Andalublue]

Yes. Because I enjoy the idea that the states operate independently of the federal government.

Then state police and federal police. Surely two police forces is enough for any non-authoritarian nation.

 

[reefedjib]

The US forces (and the forces of the first world) should be divided into two departments: Department of Defense and Department of Modernization.

The Department of Defense will have Naval, Air Force, Marines and Army dedicated to fighting against organized militaries throughout the world, predominantly in the Core. So all of your Naval power projection and combat air power as well as Air Force combat airpower, Marine Corp MEFs, and Army BCTs will fall under this umbrella. Although they fight in an integrated fashion, each remains a separate force to preserve esprit de corps.

The Department of Modernization will be dedicated to operating in the Gap, between first world and third world countries with developmental problems. All conflicts of the last 50 years have taken place in the Gap. It would have non-BCT Army and non MEF marines for use in counterinsurgency operations. The last 7 years of Iraq and the last 9 years of Afghanistan fall under their purview. In addition to those security elements, the Department of Modernization will have specialists from wide ranging fields as technical manpower. Security force training, economics, infrastructural engineers, agriculture, government, etc. These would be long term (4+ year) assignments. The job of the Department of Modernization will be to help countries integrate into the Core.

 

[samsmart]

The Department of Modernization will be dedicated to operating in the Gap, between first world and third world countries with developmental problems. All conflicts of the last 50 years have taken place in the Gap. It would have non-BCT Army and non MEF marines for use in counterinsurgency operations. The last 7 years of Iraq and the last 9 years of Afghanistan fall under their purview. In addition to those security elements, the Department of Modernization will have specialists from wide ranging fields as technical manpower. Security force training, economics, infrastructural engineers, agriculture, government, etc. These would be long term (4+ year) assignments. The job of the Department of Modernization will be to help countries integrate into the Core.

I think that such a force would work better under the Department of State rather than under the Department of Defense. The purpose of the Department of Defense is to wage war on behalf of the United States. I don't think anything should take away from that.

However, I would say that there needs to be "Peacekeeper" units of our military who are better trained to work with local governments of the areas the U.S. occupies and trained to work in a law enforcement capacity in occupied areas. That way, there'd be less retraining and more preparedness when the U.S. goes from conquerer to occupier in areas it wages war in.

 

[reefedjib]

I think that such a force would work better under the Department of State rather than under the Department of Defense. The purpose of the Department of Defense is to wage war on behalf of the United States. I don't think anything should take away from that.

It is definitely separate from DoD, you are right. I am not sure State has the capacity to operate in a counter-insurgency environment and, given its core diplomatic mission, it may not be suited for the job. I was thinking a new Department...which would work closely with State. State would be the driver for forming the Organization of Democratic States, an organization which would execute modernization missions in the Gap.

However, I would say that there needs to be "Peacekeeper" units of our military who are better trained to work with local governments of the areas the U.S. occupies and trained to work in a law enforcement capacity in occupied areas. That way, there'd be less retraining and more preparedness when the U.S. goes from conquerer to occupier in areas it wages war in.

Exactly!

 

[Johnny]

The DoD should NOT control the guard IMHO.

Each state should maintain it's own militia. Giving control of the guard to the federal government made the states subservient to the government.

 

[Wiseone]

The DoD should NOT control the guard IMHO.

Each state should maintain it's own militia. Giving control of the guard to the federal government made the states subservient to the government.

I disagree, the National Guard and its historic militia units have always been subject to Federal service for all practical purposes if not all legal purposes, although that is debatable. State militias for example were called up and served directly under Washington as part of the Continental Army, in fact for the first few years almost the entirety of the Continental Army were state militia units, that act was controversial at the time but was authorized by the Continental Congress. Now of course in that Army the units were still organized and fought as their original militia units, except for those units that were created initially as a Federal army units obviously. However the state governors had no authority over their militia, total authority resided in Washington whose authority was granted by what was then the closest thing we had to a Federal government.

In modern times the USANG is organized into divisions and brigades as is the rest of the Army, however these divisions and brigades incorporate guard units from across several states, sometimes states no where near each other. If these were broken up into purely state centered units they would lose much of their combat capacity, deployment capacity, and effectiveness. The Guard has been organized along these lines since 1916, and without that kind of organization the American Army during its conflicts from WW1 to the present would be lacking much of its combat power.

For example during WW1 upwards to 50% of deployed forces were USANG, now if they werent organized along the same lines as the regular Army then commanders in France would have faced a different organizational structure, rank system, equipment, standards, etc etc for each individual state and their Guard. That is a God awful mess. Not to mention that those Guard units would be much smaller from lack of Federal funding.

 

[rathi]

I agree that the guard should remain under federal control. In the event we are invaded and actually need the guard for its primary purpose, it is vital that a unified system of command and logistics be in place.

 

[Caine]

Then state police and federal police. Surely two police forces is enough for any non-authoritarian nation.

Well, former confederate states were barred from creating their own State Police agencies during the reconstruction era, as a way to keep states from amassing centralized authority of law.

You ever hear of South Carolina State Police? Georgia? Etc? No because southern states were not allowed to have it.

That ban was still in effect in the 1920s when the great state of North Carolina started their State Highway Patrol. Nothing prevented us from having a centralized traffic safety organization. As long as it remained focused on only traffic safety.

 

[UtahBill]

The Army because you can't win a war without boots on the ground.

Sure you can....if we had nuclear weapons at the START of WWII, we wouldn't have needed boots on the ground....
Just bomb the hell out of them, even with conventional bombs, and then leave. They can clean up the mess themselves...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The DoD should NOT control the guard IMHO.

Each state should maintain it's own militia. Giving control of the guard to the federal government made the states subservient to the government.

Fair enough, except the odd time when the nation is being invaded and the real military needs all the manpower possible.

Also, there's the time when Ike nationalized the Alabama national guard to stop the guard from keeping black kids out of school.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The Coast Guard cannot be absorbed by the Navy because the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of the military for law enforcement purposes in domestic territory.

Then again, the Coast Guard is already part of the Department of Defense, and part of the Department of the Navy. It has an independent command in peace time, but in times of war, the Coasties take their orders from the Navy.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

I voted the navy and here's why.

If we only have the Navy (and this would probably count the Marine Corp since that is a part of the Navy as well) then we will be perfectly capable of doing what the Department of Defense should be concerned about...defending the US. Canada and Mexico are never going to attack us and for any other nation, the US Navy can keep them at bay. This will have the added benefit of preventing large-scale invasions of other countries. We would still have the capability to do smaller, shorter term deployments (like to say, help with a humanitarian crisis, to secure US citizens, invasions of small countries, or punitive raids on larger ones). We'd still have air power to do air raids and probably completely control the air space of just about anyone who we could encounter as an enemy, and we'd still have good special forces units.

In essence, if we have all our resources in the Navy, we can do everything we currently do except do a large-scale invasion of another country. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. It would force us to look at other options first, not just diplomacy but military strikes below the level of a full invasion.

Also, consider what happens if we fund the other branches. Choosing the Coast Guard only makes sense if you want the US to be completely isolationist, the Army doesn't have the naval vessels needed to support large scale invasions overseas (no carriers, cruisers, destroyers, larger transports, or logistics vessels) and without the Navy (or in a pinch the Air Force) to take them places they aren't worth that much, especially against a country with a decent navy. The Air Force lacks ground troops and naval vessels meaning it is a) totally dependent on foreign bases (bases that will be harder to keep if there is no promise of US ground troops showing up if they're needed), b) can't engage in any actions more than air strikes. The Marine Corp is similar to the army only more so as they are too selective and small in numbers to do what the army can.

So the Navy is really the only choice. The US did well (and even intervened in many places) when the navy was the biggest part of the military and barring a conventional WW3 (which could not be fought without the navy anyways) can do anything that is needed to keep the US safe.

 

[samsmart]

Then again, the Coast Guard is already part of the Department of Defense, and part of the Department of the Navy. It has an independent command in peace time, but in times of war, the Coasties take their orders from the Navy.

This is true... But it wasn't my point.

My point was that the Coast Guard acts as law enforcement, previously under the Department of Transportation and now under the Department of Homeland Security, during peacetime but duringg wartime they can act under the Department of Defense in a military capacity.

However, the Navy never acts in a law enforcement capacity in domestic territory because of the Posse Comitatus Act.

So while the Coast Guard can act in both law enforcement and military capacities the Navy acts only in a mililtary capacity domestically.

 

[MSgt]

I got into an argument with a co-worker about this topic. He seems to think that the consolidation of branches would make for a smoother deployment when necessary, communication would be virtually seamless, etc... I disagreed and the 'chat' got a little heated. I didn't (and still don't) see the point in consolidation, but thought maybe someone here could clue me into something that maybe I was missing when I was 'talking' to this guy.

You should call him an idiot.

Kennedy's Whiz Kids also thought such fundamental basics in regards to consolidations. They believed that all should wear the same uniforms. All should use the same weapons. All should use the same planes, equipment, and so on. This guy you were arguing with is clueless. The Whiz Kids were proven wrong in their visions.

Consolidation would weaken the force, by stripping specialities. Because the missions are so broad, one consolidated branch could not sustain the training needed to support this diversity. Marines and soldiers can't be trained to walk patrols and steer ships. Air Force bombers cannot also be trained to dog fight. Transport helicopter pilots cannot be trained to fly attack Apaches and Cobras. The Army's big box mentality could not sustain a Marine mission and vice versa.

The branches are needed in order to sustain speciality. Without speciality, there is no focus that hones a skill or a mission. It becomes too ragged. "Jack of all trades, but master of none" becomes the reality across the single consolidated branch. It's our specialities that enable us to perform Combined Arms with perfection. It's what makes us the best.

Army - Big box war focus and occupation.

Marine Corps - Assault and battle oriented.

Navy - Sea domain warriors plus.

Air Force - Whatever they are trying to figure out since 9/11.

Mixing all of this into one is just plain senseless.

 

[MSgt]

Our Military Branch Choices should be Army...or Navy?

The Army has enough internal problems without adopting three other branches into the fold to belch on. Even Saddam Hussein's military was distinctly seperated on the grounds of basic mission. Consolidation is self defeating. If it had to happen it would have to be an entirely new unit void of the bad habits of the past.

 

[MSgt]

Sure you can....if we had nuclear weapons at the START of WWII, we wouldn't have needed boots on the ground....
Just bomb the hell out of them, even with conventional bombs, and then leave. They can clean up the mess themselves...

It's impractical though.

Iraq proved once and for to the RMA and the Washington black holes that their ideas of winning wars was not correct. The Gulf War was an exception not to be repeated any time soon. Despite Rumsfeld's idiocy and his worthless "Shock and Awe" tactics, boots on the ground was needed to fight that war mile by mile.

 

[samsmart]

You should call him an idiot.

Kennedy's Whiz Kids also thought such fundamental basics in regards to consolidations. They believed that all should wear the same uniforms. All should use the same weapons. All should use the same planes, equipment, and so on. This guy you were arguing with is clueless. The Whiz Kids were proven wrong in their visions.

Consolidation would weaken the force, by stripping specialities. Because the missions are so broad, one consolidated branch could not sustain the training needed to support this diversity. Marines and soldiers can't be trained to walk patrols and steer ships. Air Force bombers cannot also be trained to dog fight. Transport helicopter pilots cannot be trained to fly attack Apaches and Cobras. The Army's big box mentality could not sustain a Marine mission and vice versa.

The branches are needed in order to sustain speciality. Without speciality, there is no focus that hones a skill or a mission. It becomes too ragged. "Jack of all trades, but master of none" becomes the reality across the single consolidated branch. It's our specialities that enable us to perform Combined Arms with perfection. It's what makes us the best.

BTW, what do you think of the Canadian Forces, which is basically Canada's unified military? While they unified their command structure, Canada doesn't have the same scope of operations that the U.S. does, which is why I don't think the U.S. should do it. But I would like someone with your military experience to comment on it if you could.

 

[MSgt]

BTW, what do you think of the Canadian Forces, which is basically Canada's unified military? While they unified their command structure, Canada doesn't have the same scope of operations that the U.S. does, which is why I don't think the U.S. should do it. But I would like someone with your military experience to comment on it if you could.

Most unified militaries are only that in name. Underneath the name they may as well fall under different roofs. Even under Napoleon's Army they were separated in terms of cavalry, artillery, and so one. But their "enemies" were across the border (The Egyptian campaign would have been easier had he a standing Navy that focused on sea duties only.) This is true for most. Unified militaries generally have a single local mission with very few exceptions. They are traditional in that neighboring enemies were the targets. Today's world is different which is why even under a unified Soviet military or a Chinese Army there were/are distinctions of speciality which act as seperate branches.

Unified militaries are fine if your mission calls for something less than ours. But they aren't good enough to stand on their own because of their lack of speciality. One of the reasons no military can stand up to us is that we are diverse in our training and specialized, yet more than capable of supporting each other. I've never been along side Canadians, but Canadian forces are one of our greatest allies in a fight they involve themselves in. In Afghanistan, they are third on the list for casualties. And this is not because they suck, but because they are in the fight. First and second are America and the U.K. respectively. Everyone of our other "allies" are far below and far away from the fight. In fact, the total casualty count of every one of our other allies barely exceeds what Canada has lost. Historically, the big three have always been these three English speaking nations sticking together.

 

[reefedjib]

It's impractical though.

Iraq proved once and for to the RMA and the Washington black holes that their ideas of winning wars was not correct. The Gulf War was an exception not to be repeated any time soon. Despite Rumsfeld's idiocy and his worthless "Shock and Awe" tactics, boots on the ground was needed to fight that war mile by mile.

I respectfully disagree. We had the wrong strategy post-invasion and correcting it did not require more boots on the ground prior to the build up of the insurgency. Rumsfeld and brass (Franks, Abasaid) should have immediately gone into COIN mode and get the troops off the bases and into FOBs and patrolling continuously. Protect the population, right? 3 block war. They did it right in a few areas (Mosul) but it should have been theater wide. Instead, we decided to stand-off, train security forces, and disengage soonest, leaving an operational vacuum that the insurgency filled.

 

[MSgt]

I respectfully disagree. We had the wrong strategy post-invasion and correcting it did not require more boots on the ground prior to the build up of the insurgency. Rumsfeld and brass (Franks, Abasaid) should have immediately gone into COIN mode and get the troops off the bases and into FOBs and patrolling continuously. Protect the population, right? 3 block war. They did it right in a few areas (Mosul) but it should have been theater wide. Instead, we decided to stand-off, train security forces, and disengage soonest, leaving an operational vacuum that the insurgency filled.

I'm not sure where you are disagreeing. You are condoning boots on the ground here, which is what my statement was clear about. Boots were needed between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, and boots were needed after Baghdad fell. 12 years of Washington rhetoric that technology alone will win our wars just like in the Gulf War was proven false. It was always going to be false because the scenarios of the Gulf War was a wargamers wet dream. A lack of boots and an avoidance of cities is what allowed our military to have to fight later fights, because the enemy merely hid. Furthermore, most of Iraq never felt defeated and never even saw a U.S. military unit when we took Baghdad. In a nation where people were separated in accordance to tribe and community, this was devistating in the long run. But not enough boots on the ground after Baghdad fell was a definate point of where we screwed this up. You want to secure a neighborhood in New York? Drop in a beat cop. It's fundamental and virtually everything about occupation 101 was ignored by the Rumsfeld coven.

I could write up a long winded post of what I believe about what went wrong (and you know I'd be right because I am MSgt), but I've been told that people are tired of reading my "crap." I also tend to be in this entirely for the discussion rather than thread subject restrictions and people don't seem to like that divergence these days.

By the way, where near is Reston?

 

[reefedjib]

I'm not sure where you are disagreeing. You are condoning boots on the ground here, which is what my statement was clear about. Boots were needed between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, and boots were needed after Baghdad fell. 12 years of Washington rhetoric that technology alone will win our wars just like in the Gulf War was proven false. It was always going to be false because the scenarios of the Gulf War was a wargamers wet dream. A lack of boots and an avoidance of cities is what allowed our military to have to fight later fights, because the enemy merely hid. Furthermore, most of Iraq never felt defeated and never even saw a U.S. military unit when we took Baghdad. In a nation where people were separated in accordance to tribe and community, this was devistating in the long run. But not enough boots on the ground after Baghdad fell was a definate point of where we screwed this up. You want to secure a neighborhood in New York? Drop in a beat cop. It's fundamental and virtually everything about occupation 101 was ignored by the Rumsfeld coven.

I think we agree on the use of a different strategy, where the boots are playing beat cop immediately after Baghdad fell. My difference with your statement is I don't think we needed MORE boots on the ground. I think the strategy change with the numbers we had committed would have been enough to effectively fight the insurgency and build local security forces to end the looting. I think we agree that we would be facing an insurgency, no matter what. But we didn't need more boots. At the height of the active insurgency/civil war we only needed 50,000 extra boots with the strategy change. Anbar Awakening helped of course.

I do think the looting would have happened no matter what and no matter how many boots we had on the ground. To many locations to protect and we didn't know which would get hit. Looting is evidently some sort of tradition over there and much of it was coordinated.

I could write up a long winded post of what I believe about what went wrong (and you know I'd be right because I am MSgt), but I've been told that people are tired of reading my "crap." I also tend to be in this entirely for the discussion rather than thread subject restrictions and people don't seem to like that divergence these days.

I would love to read such a post, if you have the time and energy to write one. Note that I think disbanding the Iraqi Army was necessary.

What do you mean by "rather than thread subject restrictions and people don't seem to like that divergence these days"? I don't understand.

By the way, where near is Reston?

Reston is in the Dulles corridor, outside of DC.

 

[peepnklown]

I voted the navy and here's why.

I agree and would like to see a US constitutional supported military. The US Constitution provided for a full time Navy (oversees both the Marine Corps and Navy) and an army only to be called up when needed and for a limited time (no standing peacetime Army!). The control of the National Guard would return to the states. So, the national/federal government would leave us with the Navy and Marines and the states would have their militias or National Guard.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

I agree and would like to see a US constitutional supported military. The US Constitution provided for a full time Navy (oversees both the Marine Corps and Navy) and an army only to be called up when needed and for a limited time (no standing peacetime Army!). The control of the National Guard would return to the states. So, the national/federal government would leave us with the Navy and Marines and the states would have their militias or National Guard.

A small cadre force to provide the experienced officers and NCOs during wartime would be necessary, but beyond that I wouldn't have a problem with that scheme.

I would like to point out however, that the Constitution did not ban standing armies, even very large standing armies, it simply stated that the army could not be given appropriations for more than 2 years at a time (meaning that at most, Congress could decide not to fund the army every two years). It is, of course, a sign of the Founders thinking that they did not place such restrictions on a navy and it makes sense when you consider that Navies do not lead coups (doing so can be rather impractical given the small numbers of ground troops navies have access to and you certainly can't use those limited forces to pacify the countryside). They probably would not be too thrilled at how large the Army is (though they'd be proud of the current US Navy).

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Most unified militaries are only that in name. Underneath the name they may as well fall under different roofs. Even under Napoleon's Army they were separated in terms of cavalry, artillery, and so one. But their "enemies" were across the border (The Egyptian campaign would have been easier had he a standing Navy that focused on sea duties only.) This is true for most. Unified militaries generally have a single local mission with very few exceptions. They are traditional in that neighboring enemies were the targets. Today's world is different which is why even under a unified Soviet military or a Chinese Army there were/are distinctions of speciality which act as seperate branches.

Unified militaries are fine if your mission calls for something less than ours. But they aren't good enough to stand on their own because of their lack of speciality. One of the reasons no military can stand up to us is that we are diverse in our training and specialized, yet more than capable of supporting each other. I've never been along side Canadians, but Canadian forces are one of our greatest allies in a fight they involve themselves in. In Afghanistan, they are third on the list for casualties. And this is not because they suck, but because they are in the fight. First and second are America and the U.K. respectively. Everyone of our other "allies" are far below and far away from the fight. In fact, the total casualty count of every one of our other allies barely exceeds what Canada has lost. Historically, the big three have always been these three English speaking nations sticking together.

I'm glad to have someone of expertise to discuss this with.

I was recently chatting with two friends (both former Marines), and we were talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (one served there, one was out of the service before it started, but was in First Gulf War) and we were actually thinking the other way. That further division would be better.

It was based on this. The overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam's regime were relatively simple compared to what followed. I suggested (and my father was Navy, so I'm familiar - but I didn't personally serve and probably couldn't have even if I wanted to) that we create a "Peace Force" and an "Anti-Insurgency Force" (you can call them what you like).

The "Peace Force" would be armed but would focus primarily on recovery of the occupied nation, but would be able to respond defensively to attack. The Anti-Insurgency Force would be a fast, mobile force that would squelch and hold regions in turmoil until the "Peace Force" would come in once security is established.

The reasoning behind this is that the invading force (the current branches) are trained to kill the enemy, which require a degree of dehumanization of the enemy. I think, psychologically, it would be very difficult with the absence of uniforms (and that's going to be just about any conflict we face from here on out) to think one way and then turn on a dime and try to win over hearts and minds once the enemy government is toppled.

Thoughts?

And I just want to say I've really appreciated most all of what you've posted - even if occasionally (though not often), we've disagreed.