To: Win Smith who wrote (161043 ) 4/27/2005 5:09:09 PM From: TimF Respond to of 281500 The U.S. military is superb at defeating conventional forces--as its three-week blitzkrieg from Kuwait to Baghdad in the spring of 2003 demonstrated--but not nearly as good at fighting the kind of guerrilla foes it has confronted since. "Not nearly as good" is true in the sense that we are more capable of destroying conventional units, even quite powerful ones, than we are at rooting out an insurgency. But "not very good" would not be true. Bush and Rumsfeld have adamantly resisted any permanent personnel increase because they insist, contrary to all evidence, that the spike in overseas deployments is only temporary. I'm pretty sure it is temporary, but temporary doesn't mean "very short". More soldiers probably would be worthwhile but a combination of large budget deficits and recent recruiting problems make that difficult. Re: reducing bureaucracy - Usually a good idea (although it can be taken to far), but often difficult to implement. Also there is some benefit of having additional ranking officers and staff if we ever really do have to mobilize for a serious war. (Iraq while large by the standards of our wars in recent years, is not the type of war that requires a national mobilization. By almost every standard its smaller than Vietnam or Korea, and even they didn't require a serious level of national mobilization). Still if we can "trim the fat", I'm all for it. The bulk of Iraqi reconstruction funds have gone through the cumbersome procurement bureaucracy Which is supposed to make sure that funds are not misused but which consumes a lot of funds, and causes a delay, in the process. If this bureaucracy does its job it might prevent certain types of fraud and waste but the effort at prevention probably costs more than the amount that would be lost in fraud and waste. "fifty-five Special Forces trainers in El Salvador accomplished more than did 550,000 soldiers in Vietnam." But they didn't have to fight anything like the NVA. The situations where very different. Still the growing use of special forces is a good thing in these types of conflicts. They would be useful in any war, but are probably esp. so in "low intensity conflicts". There are other ways the United States can take advantage of foreign fighters. Washington could, for instance, create its own version of the French Foreign Legion or the British sepoy regiments--the "Freedom Legion," a force that would be led by a handful of American officers but made up of non-Americans who would be lured into service by the promise of U.S. citizenship when they completed their tours of duty. Unlike the hordes of freelance security contractors hired today, the Freedom Legion would at least be under the direct control of the U.S. government. Interesting idea, but the politics of it are dicey. Its something to think about but I wouldn't rush right in to it. IT IS BY now a truth universally acknowledged that the United States government is woefully deficient in "human intelligence." This may or may not be true in a relative sense (compared to other countries) but it does seem to be true, at least to an extent, in an absolute sense, which is more important. In Iraq our human intelligence has apparently increased as the insurgents have become less popular, but things are still far from perfect and this isn't just about Iraq. Increasing our human intel capabilities should be (perhaps already is) a focus going forward. There are plenty of Americans willing to move to lands that Wal-Mart has not yet penetrated. Most of them work for charities, businesses, media organizations, and other nongovernmental entities. Those who work for the government cannot possibly hope to advance their careers by long service abroad: one wins promotion by spending time inside the Beltway, not in Baghdad or Tora Bora. That has to change. Robert Scales, a retired general and former commander of the Army War College, has proposed creating "global scouts"--military officers who would spend years, even decades, living abroad "with no diminution in career progression." Even if such scouts fell behind on the promotion ladder, they could still be compensated in other ways. Such a program could be built on the back of the existing foreign area officer program, which allows some officers to specialize in foreign cultures but which is generally regarded as a dead-end career move. Scales argues that, as part of a transition to "culture-centric warfare," global scouts should be given precedence in military intelligence agencies over the "technologists" now in control. The State Department and the CIA need to institute similar programs to allow talented individuals to spend longer in the field, so that they can develop true expertise. Sounds like a great idea to me. If the military needs a spur to action, it should recall what happened the last time it failed to take guerrilla warfare seriously: the time was the early 1960s, and the United States was just starting to get embroiled in a conflict in Vietnam. While the US had a lot to learn in Vietnam, we actually didn't do a bad job of guerrilla warfare fighting. Where we failed was in our attempt to make the government in the south strong enough to fight the north. We didn't only "win all the battles", we even won most of the skirmishes, but we didn't go on the offensive against the north or its supply routes, or effectively help the government in the south become strong enough to fight off the communists by itself, which meant the war would drag on and on until we got sick of it and left. There are some lessons here for Iraq, but than there is no "Northern Iraqi army" to deal with, which is just one of the difference that make the situation in Iraq easier. Tim