View Full Version : Reorganize the Defense Department
Roguish Lawyer
06-21-2007, 17:44
In this thread, you have been given complete power to reorganize DOD and any other parts of the government which are related to or play a meaningful role in DOD's mission. (But the idea here is a military reorg, not other stuff. So feel free to play with State or CIA or whatever, but let's not get into civilian departments like HHS or Education.) What would you do?
For example, should we eliminate the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and create new DOD entities? Should functions of those four branches be consolidated in some fashion? How do you deal with the "jointness" problems that have been discussed elsewhere?
:munchin
Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-21-2007, 19:51
You do realize that volumes have been written on this subject since its inception? I hope you really want to tackle this bear as it is sort of like the lingering pain of pushing on that loose tooth with your tongue until you start to taste the blood. The result is going to be the same, the damn tooth will pop out but you still will have the hole in your jaw leaving a void with nothing to fill it.
Roguish Lawyer
06-22-2007, 07:48
You do realize that volumes have been written on this subject since its inception? I hope you really want to tackle this bear as it is sort of like the lingering pain of pushing on that loose tooth with your tongue until you start to taste the blood. The result is going to be the same, the damn tooth will pop out but you still will have the hole in your jaw leaving a void with nothing to fill it.
Sir, perhaps I am just getting in touch with my feminine side, but I just want to talk about this without actually accomplishing anything. :D
Kyobanim
06-22-2007, 08:14
Sir, perhaps I am just getting in touch with my feminine side, but I just want to talk about this without actually accomplishing anything. :D
You mean, we're supposed to act like the government?
Sionnach
06-22-2007, 08:30
You mean, we're supposed to act like the government?
Hah, hah! I just spit water on my keyboard!
Go back to calling it the War Department. DOD sounds weak; we want our enemy to know its War we plan to make and are not just in this to defend ourselves.
The Reaper
06-24-2007, 08:43
My main gripes would be duplication of efforts between Army and Marines, and lack of proper prioritization by the Air Force. The Key West Agreement was a disaster for the other services relying upon the AF to provide tactical airlift and CAS, since somewhere along the way, the AF decided that it was not a supporting arm, but a supported one. I would restore tactical lift, like C-130s and smaller, and CAS, like the A-10s back to Army aviation, with the commensurate personel and budget slices.
TR
This follow around your master plan TR ;)
1st Combine all ground forces Army and Marine.
Calling it a totally new Service so they don’t bitch about it.
2ed split the Air force into two branches one air space and one ground.
(SASC) Strategic Air & Space Command (all bombers, fast mover’s, missile defense, and space craft) we can do away with the NASA money pit. (Yay)
(GAC) Ground Attack Command (all other aircraft that fly and have anything to do with ground forces even helicopters and transport aircraft) This Branch would be under direct control of the newly created Land Force
3rd The Navy would be broken down and completely over hauled (no more aircraft carriers) just Three types of watercraft. (Submarine’s both Attack and Nuclear and the next Generation Stealth Ships armed with tomahawks, anti ship, and antiaircraft systems they would also have a few armed Predator’s for recon that could be launched and recovered, these ship’s would travel in pair’s along with one attack submarine.)
4th Combine all National Guard, Boarder patrol, DOT, Customs, INS, into the Homeland Security Agency. Like the Coast Guard and Airport Security are now. And base them in the pentagon we should have room now that some services are combined.
groundup
06-24-2007, 15:03
7624U: other than removing the aircraft carriers from the Navy, your plan is pretty much exactly what I would go with.
The Pentagon's New Map (http://blip.tv/file/268384)
Some of what he says in the video makes sense to me.
NousDefionsDoc
06-24-2007, 16:22
The Pentagon's New Map (http://blip.tv/file/268384)
Some of what he says in the video makes sense to me.
Great talk. Somebody needs to teach him to walk like a man.
I think he's on the right track and has some good ideas. I didn't care for his split of the forces. He also tends to over look the fact that the line between the phases is not as hard as he perhaps would like. There is a lot of over lap and reverses, etc. What amazes me is how every one seems to ignore the fact that there has been a force doing both since 1952.
I also disagree with his concept of flooding a country with 250,000 after the initial fight. Security and PR nightmare. Terrorist's wet dream.
Ret10Echo
06-24-2007, 16:47
I would not want to remove the carriers from the Naval inventory. That would make the presumption that a ground base for air operations could be secured within resonable distance (no multiple in-air refuels). Ground attack aircraft have notoriously short legs. Getting them as close as possible is very important to the ground fight.
I saw the video and bought the book. The concept of bridging the gap has some merit, but it takes time. If you pole-vault a country into the 20th century you have a probability that the younger generation is not going to be too quick to want to revert to the 7th century...but the flip side of that is that you provide technology to your potential enemy.
Combined forces....reduced staffs...not sure how well that will fly.
I wanted to get rid of the carriers mainly from the huge signature and logistics’
Support they take, I like the idea of a navel strike force that is invisible. Also I have considered the refuel situation. This would be handled by long range refueling drones. We would also need a fast assembled runway that could be emplaced in 18-24 hours after the first wave of troops hit the ground.
Ret10Echo
06-24-2007, 18:16
I wanted to get rid of the carriers mainly from the huge signature and logistics’
Support they take, I like the idea of a navel strike force that is invisible. Also I have considered the refuel situation. This would be handled by long range refueling drones. We would also need a fast assembled runway that could be emplaced in 18-24 hours after the first wave of troops hit the ground.
Carriers are a huge footprint, but in some instances present a very good projection tool into certain theaters. Issue is the vulnerability of the system. Maybe a redesigned carrier that is smaller and more lethal? That would reduce the size of the supporting fleet.
The timeline could be even shorter if you went with a Vertical Takeoff and Landing ground attack aircraft...
x-factor
06-24-2007, 19:38
Incidentally, I had an email exchange with Barnett in 2004 after I read Pentagon's New Map. He's a nice guy with a lot of good ideas, but he's not Moses with the tablets.
Generally speaking, he's great at assessing the problem. My only beef with his Core/Gap paradigm is that he's got a blindspot for perception. He doesn't appreciate that not everyone in the world wants to be globalized, that large portions of the world view the global economy with mistrust, fear, and/or disgust. But thats not the question of this thread, so moving on.
Also, I agree with NDD 100%. I think, because he doesn't have any operational experience in anything (intel, military, diplomacy, whatever) his solutions fall a little short on practicality. He needs to think about things as spectrums rather than dichotomies.
Enough about Barnett though...
The problem with RL's initial question is that building a modern military takes very specific service-centric technical expertises, but employing a military is a joint effort. All things considered, the US has actually done a remarkable job of squaring that circle by having the services build and the regional commands fight. I don't think that basic dynamic is something you want to mess with. Going back to a service-dominant system is a bad idea. Moving to a system where the commands raise their own forces may be tempting but I think it would be a disaster for efficiency and interoperability.
I think TR's got the right idea in terms of keeping the service/command system, but reshuffling the missions/responsibilities of the services.
Here's a couple ideas along those lines off the top of my head:
- All fixed wing aircraft brought under the Air Force. With the Air Force no longer under pressure to prove its need to exist, it will stop trying to win wars by itself and commit to being a team player.
- Marine forces brought into the Army, but retain the "Marine" tag as a unit specialty, like being Airborne. The elite traditions live on, the petty bickering dies (or at least is down-sized).
- Reconstitute the Strategic Air Command as a subset of the Air Force responsible for non-joint strategic strike missions. This will be the Air Force component of STRATCOM.
- The rest of the Air Force should be broken down into self-sufficient Composite Air Expeditionary Wings (as it is today). Everything from cargo to refueling to fighters to bombers. Each CAEW is then paired with a US Army Division (and under that squadrons paired with brigades) to form standing JTFs, along the same lines as the Marines current operational model. Those JTFs train together in peace and fight together in war.
- SOCOM remains largely as it is, but the AFSOC component will be expanded to include a certain number of fast-movers (currently A-10s...in the future, probably the VSTOL version of the Joint Strike Fighter).
- Carriers and amphibs continue on in their current role as mobile staging bases. CAEWs paired with Marine divisions will operate carrier-capable aircraft.
groundup
06-29-2007, 00:53
x-factor: I like the idea of giving units "tags" of Marine. The Marines do have a purpose - amphibious assault. Keeping units designated with that role would still be needed. 1 Infantry Div, 1 Armor Div, 1 Cav Div, 1 Marine Div - US Army :lifter