Posted on Sep 2, 2015
Can the U.S. Military say "We don't do windows"?
18.4K
88
25
4
4
0
In this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG6I0khEd7s), an Army War College professor and Army Retiree discusses the Army Profession. His discussion is wonderful for gaining a better understanding of how we can call ourselves "Military Professionals" (it is applicable outside the Army, of course), and by what means we can maintain the profession.
I recommend watching the video, but this post is about a specific line in his presentation. He says the Army cannot say "We don't do windows." The metaphor means that the job of the U.S. Army (and the entire DOD by extension) is to do what the People ask of it within the bounds of the law.
In the early years of the GWOT, we had thoughtful discussions (and some not so thoughtful) about what roles the U.S. Military should be fulfilling in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. Why were we doing civil reconstruction; that should have been the State Department's job! We should not be instructing Iraqi and Afghan police forces; warfare is our business, not the police's! Why should we work with local governments; shouldn't that belong to diplomats?
What do you believe should be the bounds of acceptable use of military resources? Even at home, should we have a role in disaster relief (DSCA) or law enforcement (e.g. Little Rock racial integration in schools)? Abroad, should U.S. Military resources be used to stabilize a country, provide humanitarian assistance or relief, enforce or keep the peace? Do we "do windows," whatever those windows happen to be?
I recommend watching the video, but this post is about a specific line in his presentation. He says the Army cannot say "We don't do windows." The metaphor means that the job of the U.S. Army (and the entire DOD by extension) is to do what the People ask of it within the bounds of the law.
In the early years of the GWOT, we had thoughtful discussions (and some not so thoughtful) about what roles the U.S. Military should be fulfilling in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. Why were we doing civil reconstruction; that should have been the State Department's job! We should not be instructing Iraqi and Afghan police forces; warfare is our business, not the police's! Why should we work with local governments; shouldn't that belong to diplomats?
What do you believe should be the bounds of acceptable use of military resources? Even at home, should we have a role in disaster relief (DSCA) or law enforcement (e.g. Little Rock racial integration in schools)? Abroad, should U.S. Military resources be used to stabilize a country, provide humanitarian assistance or relief, enforce or keep the peace? Do we "do windows," whatever those windows happen to be?
Intermediate Level Education (ILE)
Army
Navy
Air Force
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 13
7
7
0
Very interesting article and good post.
I would tend to agree that anything within the bounds of the law that is a lawful order could be in our lines. I think that may have not been the intent to start with, but we have evolved as a nation and as a military.
I would tend to agree that anything within the bounds of the law that is a lawful order could be in our lines. I think that may have not been the intent to start with, but we have evolved as a nation and as a military.
(7)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I agree completely sir.
However, our primary focus, at least that of the Army, is combat operations or supporting combat operations. Humanitarian operations, nation building, etc., are all within the bounds of capabilities and responsibilities if asked so long as they do not violate any laws.
However, we as a force have to be ready for combat operations at any given time, and the civilian and military population need to understand and recognize that that is our primary focus and directive.
However, our primary focus, at least that of the Army, is combat operations or supporting combat operations. Humanitarian operations, nation building, etc., are all within the bounds of capabilities and responsibilities if asked so long as they do not violate any laws.
However, we as a force have to be ready for combat operations at any given time, and the civilian and military population need to understand and recognize that that is our primary focus and directive.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) absolutely! When it comes to limited resources (meaning active units, not money in this case) our priorities are to our "primary" mission, which you're right is combat operations. We have other entities that can accomplish other components of the missions we do, but no one else can really go into combat instead of our military.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
As I have a full load of classes this semester, I am going to by pass on the Video as I just don't have that amount of time. I do believe though, that we should be involved with-in the bounds of Law on almost everything. For one, we are the largest organized entity in the U.S.A. with central leadership. No one in the U.S. or even on this Earth has our capabilities to move humans and material, as fast and as effective as we do. We also can adapt to situations beyond the scope of any organization. We have entered a new era in world civilization. When the Military is no longer just a fighting force, but a organization that helps improve civilization as a whole. With Disaster relief, search and rescue, weather analysis, space exploration, humanitarian missions, and so on. We are no longer just a combat arm of the government, we are a truly diplomatic arm. With that being said, our main mission is the art of War. And No one on this Earth, can disagree that as a whole, the U.S. Military is the best there is.
(3)
(0)
MSgt Robert Pellam
LTC (Join to see) Capt Seid Waddell For the case of the over stretched force, there is a time when we need to use level heads to prioritize what the military does. First and foremost we are a defense force. At this point advisers to the POTUS should be saying, "we don't do windows" But as history has taught us, some leaders don't listen to their advisers. Army's become overextended, supply lines fail and next thing you know you're its in Russia, in winter with no cold weather gear.
This very point is the reason we have the JCS and all other military advisers surrounding the president. I pray that these high ranking people are not a bunch of "Yes" humans who fear for their job over their country. Should anyone talk back to their superior? Yes, but in a intelligent respectful way. Should superiors listen to their subordinates? Yes, that is one of the qualities of a great leader.
I still stand by my first statement that we are a total package. Shoot the Navy is even trying to sell that with the slogan "A global force for good." I also know that in my 21 years, we were fighting 2 wars, and were providing disaster relief at the same time. The U.S. military is one of the best multi function organizations in existence, proven time and time again.
This very point is the reason we have the JCS and all other military advisers surrounding the president. I pray that these high ranking people are not a bunch of "Yes" humans who fear for their job over their country. Should anyone talk back to their superior? Yes, but in a intelligent respectful way. Should superiors listen to their subordinates? Yes, that is one of the qualities of a great leader.
I still stand by my first statement that we are a total package. Shoot the Navy is even trying to sell that with the slogan "A global force for good." I also know that in my 21 years, we were fighting 2 wars, and were providing disaster relief at the same time. The U.S. military is one of the best multi function organizations in existence, proven time and time again.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSgt Robert Pellam, again I agree. I think GEN Dempsey, Secretary Gates, Secretary Panetta, GEN Odierno, etc. were not "Yes" men, but they dissented in respectful ways and were allowed to keep their jobs. There are obvious examples of the contrary.
I think that our Swiss Army Knife approach to employment increases our popularity, prestige, and trust with the American people. Anything we can do to remain at the top of the most trusted professions list, we should certainly do.
I think that our Swiss Army Knife approach to employment increases our popularity, prestige, and trust with the American people. Anything we can do to remain at the top of the most trusted professions list, we should certainly do.
(3)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
LTC (Join to see), good choice, sir. I bucked the base commander one time as a LT and was fortunate to have survived the experience - with the support of my O-6 unit commander.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I believe that there is a reason why we had to send active duty troops to Katrina. I also believe that since we have had the time to do AARs on it, FEMA and the NG should be able to handle it now.
That said, the State Department and Diplomats should be prepared to do their job the next time we oust a baddie in a foreign country.
We have to do these things because the proper departments and agencies we not prepared to do them on their own, Now that we realize the size and scope of the actual job, they should prepare to do them within the scope of their own funding. The effort expended to train us in some of this stuff cost us dearly in manpower and money.
That said, the State Department and Diplomats should be prepared to do their job the next time we oust a baddie in a foreign country.
We have to do these things because the proper departments and agencies we not prepared to do them on their own, Now that we realize the size and scope of the actual job, they should prepare to do them within the scope of their own funding. The effort expended to train us in some of this stuff cost us dearly in manpower and money.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google