Military Guys, Current or Former

[Annie]

I just found this posted on Austin Bay's site, (bio: Austin Bay
Austin Bay has written a column on military issues and foreign affairs for the Express-News since 1994. His column is syndicated by Creators Syndicate, and his commentaries frequently appear on National Public Radio's Morning Edition program. He also has appeared as a guest commentator on CNN, C-SPAN and ABC News Nightline.

Bay served for four years as a special consultant in war-gaming in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (1989-1993) and has had two commercial war-games published. He also published four nonfiction books and two novels, including the spy thriller Prism. While on active duty in the 1970s, Bay served in Germany with the 1st Infantry Division and in the Pentagon during Operation Desert Storm. His current reserve assignment is with U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, where he is working on rapid force deployment projects.

Bay is a graduate of Rice University in Houston and has a doctorate in English and Comparative Literature from Columbia University. He's also the father of two daughters and spends a great deal of time driving to and from soccer practice.)

At the site you will find a couple of links to things he's written on the military numbers and readiness. Any comments that would help us who are just 'citizens?'


http://austinbay.net/blog/index.php?p=69

 

[CSM]

Thank you so much for the link.

His commentary about "boots on the ground" vs "high tech" are right on the money. There is an ongoing debate among the services right now (particularly between the Air Force and the Army) regarding the need for ground forces given the technological edge that the US (in particular the Air Force) loves to employ. Until the current form of guerilla warfare made itself evident in Iraq, the Air Force was winning the debate hands down. Now, however, the Air Force is struggling to find ways to contribute (besides logistic and intelligence support) to the urban/guerilla warfare scenario. There is no question that in terms of human sacrifice, the technological approach to war is the way to go, HOWEVER, nothing shows committment like a real live soldier's presence. It is true that the Army is seeking it's own robotic versions of the ground pounder, but they fully realize that the living breathing soldier is a critical component of the combat force.

There is no question that the more globally involved we become, the more soldiers we will need. Robots, UAVs, and smart bombs cannot and will not win the "hearts and minds" of civilian non-combatants. In fact, I believe the reverse is true in that those devices show a particular disregard for human life especially if the employment of such weapons causes civilian casualties as collateral damage. Also, though the well trained soldier or Marine on the ground is a fearsome adversary, they carry with them the one thing a robot or UAV will never have ... human compassion. American soldiers are somewhat unique in that after all is said and done, they really do try to aid their fallen foes (despite media hype to the contrary) and go out of their way to show kindness to the civilian populace.

In my opinion, the bottom line is that we as a nation will always need to maintain and increase our technological edge but we must never ever think we can replace the foot soldier.

 

[Annie]

Thanks CSM for the response. I guess that is what I was thinking too. I've always believed that when the need to deploy troops is required, once their 'first job' is over, they are the best ambassadors the US has. As you said, that cannot be a robot!

 

[CSM]

Thanks CSM for the response. I guess that is what I was thinking too. I've always believed that when the need to deploy troops is required, once their 'first job' is over, they are the best ambassadors the US has. As you said, that cannot be a robot!

Also, a nations troops on the ground show real commitment. Precision bombing no matter how precise shows a lack of willingness to pay whatever price...committing troops shows a sincere and lasting effort and will. I think that is why I regard Clintons bombing of the aspirin factory as so much fluff; he did not follow on with troops and therefore appears insincere.

I am not advocating using ground troops on every crisis or situation or committing them lightly, make no mistake about that!

 

[Annie]

Also, a nations troops on the ground show real commitment. Precision bombing no matter how precise shows a lack of willingness to pay whatever price...committing troops shows a sincere and lasting effort and will. I think that is why I regard Clintons bombing of the aspirin factory as so much fluff; he did not follow on with troops and therefore appears insincere.

I am not advocating using ground troops on every crisis or situation or committing them lightly, make no mistake about that!

Spot on there. Having the troops to respond helps keep the need for responses down. Europe could learn something from that.

 

[pegwinn]

Hi there Kathianne, good stories.

Your writer is dead on with the need to maintain enough ground forces trained and equipped to get-r-done in places where high tech isn't an option. I got the impression that he opposes SECDEF and the transformation to a smaller Army. I concur. But I am not sure he mentioned that you actually need two different animals for ground predators.

I don't personally believe the Army should lighten up. I think they should be a continental spanning entity. Light forces move quickly and hit hard. But like a small man boxing a heavyweight, they cannot take a full punch. Without starting an interservice wrestling match, we have a rapid deployment force already. They are known as Jarheads.

But, no matter how good at immediate deployment and kicking in a door they are, Marines can only win battles, not the war. To actually win the whole war, you need a force that can literally sustain itself in the field for years across a huge swath of ground. The Army of the US is the only field force of it's kind in the free world now. No other force can move into a theatre of operations and settle in like new neighbors. All rivalries aside. I will get there, and be prepared to fight for 90 days, alot faster than CSM. But once he gets there, he will move in, evict the occupants if required, and sign a long term lease. :teeth:

BTW, everytime I deployed we went into Ambassador Mode once the operation was stabilized. Air Power and PGM's will not rebuild roadnets and schools, hand chocolate out to local kids, immunize the kids, or even distribute bads of rice. But the PGMS will get better media coverage I think.

Off to errands. Have a good one now.

 

[Annie]

Thanks Pegwinn, I appreciate those differences. Both you and CSM are convincing me that my understanding of the military is that they are way smarter than given credit for. As I read through military blogs and converse with guys like you, we are indeed fortunate with those that serve and respresent our country.

 

[pegwinn]

Thanks Pegwinn, I appreciate those differences. Both you and CSM are convincing me that my understanding of the military is that they are way smarter than given credit for. As I read through military blogs and converse with guys like you, we are indeed fortunate with those that serve and respresent our country.

awww shucks........ :happy2:
(pssst......... go easy on the smart comments..... Jarheads are only allowed to read three words at a time with a max of two sillybulls)

 

[Annie]

While talking about the military, I brought up military blogs. I've learned so much from several of these, but I thought some might like a typical post looks like. This is one of my regular reads, and this is one of his regular posts. While sometimes there are 'discussions' of regulations and weapons, that I'm clueless about, moreso the talk is like the following. They are thinking of the people in the locales that 'bad' things happened and how to make them better places.:

http://2slick.blogspot.com/2005/02/thinking-outside-box.html

Thinking Outside the Box

Some of you might remember when I mentioned my West Point classmate (we'll call him "Mike") who found my site via the Wizbang Awards (he recognized the "2Slick" moniker- which originated when we were in flight school together). He's a Kiowa Warrior (OH-58D) pilot, and he served a year in Fallujah during the time I was in Mosul. He and I have had some excellent debates and discussions over the past few months, and he recently sent me the following gem- read it, and you'll understand why I've been trying to talk him into starting his own blog:



A suggestion for the first major decision of the new government: a new name for the country.

'Iraq' has a history basically from WWI, and the British mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - the last vestige of the Muslim Caliphate. The problem is (besides a name imposed by the British Empire) that the name does nothing to unify or appeal to the people who live their now. There is no overwhelming sense of Iraqi nationalism- no ethnic, religious, political or cultural unifying theme in Iraq.

I would suggest that the new government look to the rich history of the region - the birthplace of civilization, and appeal to the historical significance of the area within Iraq's borders. By going back before the birth of Islam, you bypass the Shia-Sunni strife, and going back far enough you can claim the first modern culture in the world. Call the new Nation Sumer or Babylon appeals to the pride, nationalism, and helps redefine an identity. That identity will be key in defeating the Sunni-Shia-Kurd-insurgent factions as they struggle to find a place in the new country. Calling it Babylon appeals to the people and helps them define themselves in a new way, outside of the horrible history of the last century - much in the same way Egypt or Syria claim a historic heritage to the ancient civilizations, the newly elected government should choose a new name that unifies the country, appeals to their rich history, and by passes the existing divisions with a goal of building a newer, stronger nation.

Anyway, just a thought. If I lived there, I'd want people to identify themselves as a Babylonian (or Sumerian, whatever - Babylon may have poor connotations to the Christian world) than a Sunni, or Shia, or Kurd - it's a way to build some unity, and capitalize on the promise of the elections.


Smart stuff, huh? I agree with him 100%. I'd be interested to see how the guys at Iraq the Model feel about such an idea. If anyone out there is tight with those guys (or any other Iraqi bloggers out there), please try to ping them for their thoughts...

 

[freeandfun1]

While talking about the military, I brought up military blogs. I've learned so much from several of these, but I thought some might like a typical post looks like. This is one of my regular reads, and this is one of his regular posts. While sometimes there are 'discussions' of regulations and weapons, that I'm clueless about, moreso the talk is like the following. They are thinking of the people in the locales that 'bad' things happened and how to make them better places.:

http://2slick.blogspot.com/2005/02/thinking-outside-box.html

Interesting, but if you were to call it "Babylon" I think the Christian world would FREAK out!!

It would also give fundamentalist evangelical more ammunition in their struggle to convince others that Bible prophecy is being fulfilled every day!

 

[Annie]

Interesting, but if you were to call it "Babylon" I think the Christian world would FREAK out!!

It would also give fundamentalist evangelical more ammunition in their struggle to convince others that Bible prophecy is being fulfilled every day!

May or may not be, my point was that many military guys think about issues, big and small, that the vast majority of our country do not even know the existence of.

 

[freeandfun1]

May or may not be, my point was that many military guys think about issues, big and small, that the vast majority of our country do not even know the existence of.

Wasn't disagreeing with you. Just commenting on his subject. I have read many good military blogs.

I was reading about one the other day in "Mens Journal" I believe, that was about a blog written by a young enlisted infantryman. It sounded very good. I will see if I can find a link to it....

 

[Annie]

Wasn't disagreeing with you. Just commenting on his subject. I have read many good military blogs.

I was reading about one the other day in "Mens Journal" I believe, that was about a blog written by a young enlisted infantryman. It sounded very good. I will see if I can find a link to it....

Thanks. http://www.blackfive.net is an excellent blog, not to mention that Matty is a nice Irish guy! There is a military ring so they are easy to find.

 

[freeandfun1]

Thanks. http://www.blackfive.com is an excellent blog, not to mention that Matty is a nice Irish guy! There is a military ring so they are easy to find.

Oops, the link doesn't work. Pops up saying the URL is for sale.....

 

[Annie]

Oops, the link doesn't work. Pops up saying the URL is for sale.....

My bad: http://www.blackfive.net/

That's .net!

 

[freeandfun1]

danka!

 

[CSM]

Hi there Kathianne, good stories.

Your writer is dead on with the need to maintain enough ground forces trained and equipped to get-r-done in places where high tech isn't an option. I got the impression that he opposes SECDEF and the transformation to a smaller Army. I concur. But I am not sure he mentioned that you actually need two different animals for ground predators.

I don't personally believe the Army should lighten up. I think they should be a continental spanning entity. Light forces move quickly and hit hard. But like a small man boxing a heavyweight, they cannot take a full punch. Without starting an interservice wrestling match, we have a rapid deployment force already. They are known as Jarheads.

But, no matter how good at immediate deployment and kicking in a door they are, Marines can only win battles, not the war. To actually win the whole war, you need a force that can literally sustain itself in the field for years across a huge swath of ground. The Army of the US is the only field force of it's kind in the free world now. No other force can move into a theatre of operations and settle in like new neighbors. All rivalries aside. I will get there, and be prepared to fight for 90 days, alot faster than CSM. But once he gets there, he will move in, evict the occupants if required, and sign a long term lease. :teeth:

BTW, everytime I deployed we went into Ambassador Mode once the operation was stabilized. Air Power and PGM's will not rebuild roadnets and schools, hand chocolate out to local kids, immunize the kids, or even distribute bads of rice. But the PGMS will get better media coverage I think.

Off to errands. Have a good one now.

Right on the money. Each military service has its role to play. In my opinion, each does it very well.

 

[hylandrdet]

Thank you so much for the link.

His commentary about "boots on the ground" vs "high tech" are right on the money. There is an ongoing debate among the services right now (particularly between the Air Force and the Army) regarding the need for ground forces given the technological edge that the US (in particular the Air Force) loves to employ. Until the current form of guerilla warfare made itself evident in Iraq, the Air Force was winning the debate hands down. Now, however, the Air Force is struggling to find ways to contribute (besides logistic and intelligence support) to the urban/guerilla warfare scenario. There is no question that in terms of human sacrifice, the technological approach to war is the way to go, HOWEVER, nothing shows committment like a real live soldier's presence. It is true that the Army is seeking it's own robotic versions of the ground pounder, but they fully realize that the living breathing soldier is a critical component of the combat force.

There is no question that the more globally involved we become, the more soldiers we will need. Robots, UAVs, and smart bombs cannot and will not win the "hearts and minds" of civilian non-combatants. In fact, I believe the reverse is true in that those devices show a particular disregard for human life especially if the employment of such weapons causes civilian casualties as collateral damage. Also, though the well trained soldier or Marine on the ground is a fearsome adversary, they carry with them the one thing a robot or UAV will never have ... human compassion. American soldiers are somewhat unique in that after all is said and done, they really do try to aid their fallen foes (despite media hype to the contrary) and go out of their way to show kindness to the civilian populace.

In my opinion, the bottom line is that we as a nation will always need to maintain and increase our technological edge but we must never ever think we can replace the foot soldier.

Absolutely correct!!! However, we must place emphasis on the use foot soldiers.

The muslims view the very idea of using hi-tech gadgets to fight, instead of real live soldiers, as a sign of cowardice. In their minds, they believe that if you are in the right, and GOD is behind you, not only should you be willing to spill your own blood for your cause, but you should be able to win, because GOD is behind you.

My father was a Marine, he told me about the Marine's rivarly with the legendary "Chicken Men" during the Vietnam War. Despite all of the Marine's efforts, the VC still kept their motto in their minds, "Beware of the Chicken Men" He still regrets telling me that story because he thinks it was the deciding factor in my chosing of the ARMY.

With that being said, I told everyone here before that I refuse to allow any of my nephews and nieces, to join the military, unless they're willing to fight, kill or die while looking that ENEMY in the eye.

If we're going to talk that talk, we're going to walk that walk!!! I'm a fourth generation war veteran, "Robocop" is not going to replace MY FAMILY'S VALUES! If we believe in this war, then we shall fight, kill and die! Fuck "Robocop"!!!

 

[CSM]

Absolutely correct!!! However, we must place emphasis on the use foot soldiers.

The muslims view the very idea of using hi-tech gadgets to fight, instead of real live soldiers, as a sign of cowardice. In their minds, they believe that if you are in the right, and GOD is behind you, not only should you be willing to spill your own blood for your cause, but you should be able to win, because GOD is behind you.

My father was a Marine, he told me about the Marine's rivarly with the legendary "Chicken Men" during the Vietnam War. Despite all of the Marine's efforts, the VC still kept their motto in their minds, "Beware of the Chicken Men" He still regrets telling me that story because he thinks it was the deciding factor in my chosing of the ARMY.

With that being said, I told everyone here before that I refuse to allow any of my nephews and nieces, to join the military, unless they're willing to fight, kill or die while looking that ENEMY in the eye.

If we're going to talk that talk, we're going to walk that walk!!! I'm a fourth generation war veteran, "Robocop" is not going to replace MY FAMILY'S VALUES! If we believe in this war, then we shall fight, kill and die! Fuck "Robocop"!!!

I don't give a rat's butt what the Muslims think, but there is some truth to what you say. Of course, I am not saying we shouldn't use high tech either; use it where we can but in SUPPORT of ground troops. Believe me, if it was just about "high tech" vs "human life" I would advocate using nukes....

 

[hylandrdet]

I don't give a rat's butt what the Muslims think, but there is some truth to what you say. Of course, I am not saying we shouldn't use high tech either; use it where we can but in SUPPORT of ground troops. Believe me, if it was just about "high tech" vs "human life" I would advocate using nukes....

Fair enough.

However, We should give a rat's butt because we prefer to fight for conversion to democracy. We're not fighting for total destuction, which is what Hi Tech weapons stand for. One bomb killing one insurgent and many bystanders is not the answer; if anything, its a successfull recruiting tool for the insurgents.

The muslims, who are seeking democracy, will appreciate our sacrifices when they see us dying besides them; versus watching a bomb kill their children, and few insurgents.

Hi tech weapons are designed to kill with convience and without a conscience; therefore they should be the true weapon of last resort.