Military Transformation- Mission Not Yet Accomplished

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by NATO AIR, Oct 20, 2004.

  1. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    some good points, especially at the end about what is lacking in vision and planning. as always though, i love to hear the comments of army and marine vets who have far better understanding of this than i do and can provide clarity and sense to articles like these....

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Wow...that statement is NOT based on reality. In fact, the army has made Signifigant steps in various areas of transforming into a more lethal fighting force. In 2002 - within the four-year window cited above, the army has stood up TWO STRYKER Brigades; One currently in Iraq doing GREAT things, the other lined up to take it's place.

    This statement is flawed - there is no quagmire in Iraq. The planning and actions taking place in our Army today are more rapid-paced that at any time since I became affiliated with the Army, May 6, 1992.

    Uh...spring of 03? That's 18 months ago. lol..dude writes it to seem like it was 20 years ago. Operations like Iraq and Afghanistan are validating the need for rapid, urban-friendly forces - the later more so in Iraq. Keep in mind, the new lighter, faster force isn't designed to replace the Heavy Armor brigades; but to do work in areas not easily accessable via 60 ton tanks.

    The way the Army names and allocated dollars 'has' changed, dramatically. In a nutshell, most army spending can be broken down into 'mission' or 'operation' dollars. Today, the Army uses a centralized 'operation-dollars' organization to streamline how the Army spends it's money on each base; making roads, buildings, and such. The 'mission' dollars still stream from the same sources - largely Forces Command, in Atlanta, GA. There are more knowledgable "Budget" dudes here who could provide more input.

    Does the author of this piece have a 'focking CLUE' on how much money it takes to stand up unique Brigades such as we have today? It's not just buying new STRYKERS - that's a small part of hte problem. We have to train thousands of troops, Mechanics, and Leaders in not just 'where' to employ their weapon systems, etc, but 'how best to'.

    The article goes on, but become more and more editorializing what's happening; that's impossible to debate. I can tell you from a 'Fort Lewis, and 1st (US) Corps perspective, not just the way we fight is changing, but where and for how long. Big things are afoot...stay tuned.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. MJDuncan1982
    Offline

    MJDuncan1982 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    506
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Ratings:
    +25
    I'd have to disagree with you that Iraq is not a quagmire. It appears to me that it is.

    However, anyone of the official (military or governmental) definition of a quagmire? (a.k.a. - not out of a normal dictionary)
     
  4. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741

    I agree with the Webster's definition - in that sense, evey war we fight - every conflict is a quagmire:

     
  5. MJDuncan1982
    Offline

    MJDuncan1982 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    506
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Ratings:
    +25
    See, it doesn't seem that that is how it is used by people in the government, media and military.

    I remember Rumsfeld vehemently denying we are in a quagmire but if you use the Webster version it is obvious that every war is.

    There is some other definition that is more commonly used.
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    This article is trash. The Army is in full-blown transformation, not just in the creation of six Stryker (medium) brigades, but with the reorganization of forces. The JTF is a plane that can be used by all three flying services (i.e. Navy, AF, and Marines), making the military more of a "joint" force.
    And the author complains that we are building new submarines and fighters when our enemies don't have/use such technology. Should we fall behind in military technology, then? Is that really what he's suggesting?

    What a load of bunk. This person obviously has no clue what the military is doing to transform.

    And oh, by the way, Army transformation started in 2000, three years before it became "all the rage" during Iraq. I should know; I was in the first Stryker brigade for almost three years.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    The Army's transformation involves a lot more than just weapons. It also involves command and control, doctrine, intelligence and analysis and so forth. There is virtually nothing in the military that is not undergoing some kind of transformation. I know, it's what I do for a living now.
     
  8. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Are you a DA Employee or DA Contractor?
     
  9. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Neither. I work for a Federally Funded Research and Development Center(FFRDC). I work Joint integration issues between the US Air Force and the other services (particularly Army) regarding both current and future systems and operations. Fun job but lots of travel here in the States as well as overseas.
     
  10. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Kaplan needs to apply for a job at 60 minutes. His distortions are only matched by his sloppy research. He either chooses to ignore or has absolutely no idea how long it takes to get an item of equipment from concept to final approval. Equipment is designed and developed with the best foresight available based on current cirsumstance. Who would have envisioned the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union? Certainly no Democrat would have. Had a the president been some Democrat instead of Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union would be alive and well today and probably a bigger threat than ever.

    Kaplan is also guilty of wearing his blinders when he bitches about particular items of equipment:
    "Nearly all the big-ticket items in the fiscal year 2005 military budget—which a House-Senate conference committee approved this month—have nothing to do with transformation, nothing to do with any threat on the horizon. Look at them:

    $4.1 billion for 24 F-22 stealth fighter planes—at a time when our prospective enemies can barely fly fighter planes, much less shoot down our non-stealth aircraft;

    $4.3 billion for continued development of the F-35 Joint Strategic Fighter, a smaller version of the F-22;

    $2 billion for a new "Super Hornet" version of the F/A-18 fighter plane;

    $2.3 billion for a new Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine, at a time when our Navy faces virtually no threat and possesses more subs than it knows what to do with."

    First, keep in mind that stealth technology was under development at least as far back as Reagan. Second, Kaplan somehow ignores the potential threat from the Chinese and the North Koreans. There are other nations in the world who could be potential foes over the next twenty years. France, India, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. Some of these have sophisticated equipment and would present a significant challenge.

    We cannot forsee what the future will bring. The only thing we can do is try not to get caught flat-footed - as we have been at times in the past.
     

Share This Page