Are we "rotting from the inside" as a military force?

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 13:59:15 -0500

The title of this opinion piece caught my attention. I think the author makes some excellent points. I believe we are unrivaled technologically, so he's got that right. And it's hard to argue with his point about PowerPoint, eh? His historical examples are good as well.

I would say we may be vulnerable as a military. What do you think?

http://theweek.com/articles/541143/terrifying-vulnerability-military

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 2:11 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:11:37 -0500

I disagree that the "US has no power rivals". China and Russia BOTH have potential threats. China is more of an economic rival than a military rival (except in terms of numbers), but Russia is vastly amassing heavy military strength that is capable of matching us on the battlefield.

The biggest problems facing our current military are the reliance on technology and the continued desire for "fancier gizmos" instead of more effective. Military technology like the F-15, F-16, and A-10 are tremendous aircraft. Even improvements on the F-18 to the Super Hornet are great. The technology that the F-22 has to offer is great, but we haven't even started to get the bugs out before we invest billions into the F-35. More moving parts means greater chances for malfunctions. Greater integration of technology leads to the risks for hacking of encrypted networks and other problems.

We really need to get back to basics more than anything.
v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by CW5 Jim Steddum made Mar 1 at 2015 2:19 PM

CW5 Jim Steddum — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:19:43 -0500

Sure, the red tape and the lack of effective communication is a problem (complacency kills). I think we, at least in the Army, are recognizing these issue and putting in place innovative measure to combat the bottleneck and constraints to the flow of information while improving processes.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 2:20 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:20:38 -0500

The study the author cites for part of his argument is the topic of a RallyPoint discussion started by CSM Private RallyPoint Member, about lying to ourselves:

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/lying-to-ourselves-dishonesty-in-the-army-profession

Here's a link to the Strategic Studies Institute paper:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1250

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 2:25 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:25:07 -0500

I don't believe we are covered, so to speak. With the drawdowns, other cuts, etc...this puts us at a major disadvantage. In the past, we could sustain on 2 different wars or otherwise going on at the same time. We don't have that anymore. A lot of experienced people have been phased out, which is another piece of this. So, as long as the legislators and the Administration continue to make cuts, we are going to be extremely vulnerable.

And one thing to remember, we aren't necessarily unrivaled in technology.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 1 at 2015 3:16 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:16:54 -0500

"Power point" Really? I'm sorry, but was the author just trying to pad his word count? I understand that excessive briefings and meetings are an issue, but the specific tool (delivery method) is not the problem, it's the time lost from briefings & meetings.

Red-tape, which is designed to slow down efficiency, can be a problem, however it is also a necessary evil. You have to build a certain amount of red tape in, otherwise there are no brakes in the spending process and no oversight.

You want a streamlined process, but you don't want one so streamlined that a PFC can order a tank. Unfortunately you don't want it so convoluted that it's not worth using either. When that happens, people just bypass it.

Response by SP5 Michael Rathbun made Mar 1 at 2015 4:49 PM

SP5 Michael Rathbun — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 16:49:02 -0500

Short answer: Yes.

Every military force, in common with every complex living organism, is naturally in a state of decay at all times. Back in high school biology, we learned of anabolic and catabolic processes. Seimo seimo onaji desu.

The forces promoting decline are manifold.

One "garrison" unit in US Army Europe that I observed in 1969 was so hollowed out by poor leadership and "barracks fever" that they would have had trouble starting enough engines to make the Soviets even notice they were there during the drive through the Fulda Gap. One commander of an 18th Century deployment to the Caribbean lost over 90% of his force to mosquito-borne diseases before a single shot was fired. And in some units in my operational area up to 60% of enlisted were reported to be regular users of heroin.

In a healthy organism, processes are at work to forestall or repair decay; in a healthy military organization, the same is true. Not all of our units are healthy. The same unit in two different circumstances will require very different leadership styles and command focus in order to remain healthy and cohesive. We got a dose of instruction on that in SDB back in the day. I have no idea whether that is being taught anywhere.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 1 at 2015 5:38 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:38:42 -0500

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member Great article, which aptly articulates a great threat to our capability: our own complacency.

This quote "Enemy contacts in Afghanistan and Iraq would go unreported because they required a PowerPoint description after the fact." struck home...I may have some personal knowledge of some unreported enemy contacts for just that reason.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Mar 1 at 2015 6:00 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:00:18 -0500

Well, if you believe some of the articles posted about the Nuke Enterprise and some of the leaked internal emails. The answer is a clear yes.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 1 at 2015 6:01 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:01:30 -0500

I recommend you don't waste your time reading this.....this clown doesn't use original thought but conjecture and others thoughts.....I'd rather you spent time looking up his other controversial writings vice sharing this part of a rag that targets tearing down our organization.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 6:20 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:20:54 -0500

We are still "Army Strong" and the equivalent in other services. I think our soldiers, sailors and Marines are much better than they were compared to the Vietnam and Post-Vietnam era when I started; the morale and professionalism is better; and military and veterans have far better public support. However, the bureaucracy is very excessive (in the military and in all government organizations) and I think the main damage is causes the escalating costs and not getting the best "bang for the buck" (very appropriate metaphor here) especially with the bureaucracy of contract management.

As for PowerPoint, yes its a useful tool, but its used improperly. Every time I've been to a military conference or briefing, I see so many slides with circles and arrows (and a "paragraph' on the back of each one" LOL) and wire diagrams. That kind of clutter does more to create confusion. Good slides should have large, short bullet text and simple easy to see illustrations or diagrams. The purpose of PowerPoint is to simplify, not to complicate as it usually does.

As for briefings in general, keep them short and simple. (hence the name BRIEFing) Remember that the purpose of them is to communicate and make sure everyone's working from the same page and has the needed info Too many people try to use it to "impress" people with fancy graphics, etc.