Klow's Kollection

Reducing military spending

This issue needs a bit more research on my part before I can make an informed post, especially in dealing with modernizing our Armed Forces. 

Even with some of the most advanced weapons and training, friendly fire is still a possibility.

On the upcoming QDR

An article in BBCNews online gave a glimpse of the upcoming 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. Essentially the strategic focus will be on current rather than possible threats 20 years from now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8490884.stm

While it's good DoD is focusing on immediate threats, I am still concerned our strategic focus will swing too far away from regional conflicts, i.e. conventional warfare, and the Army will be unable to fight sustained larger scale wars. Our forces are stretched as is in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Seems like DoD is overcompensating for its inadequate understanding of guerrilla warfare after Vietnam.

US Drones hacked?

My initial reaction:

And even when officials admitted the signals were not encrypted, they believed they could not be hacked! Didn't Hitler and his Inner Circle think the same about Enigma?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/17/skygrabber-software-drones-hacked

But upon some reflection and talking with my friend over the phone whose friend was in the Army, maybe the media isn't giving us the whole story. Yeah, ya think!?

Seems the video feed can indeed be hacked, but they have no point of reference. What drone is where and what is it looking at? A house and a broken down car. Could be anywhere.

However, the communications and command protocols are indeed encrypted. I sure as hell hope they are! The clear video feeds apparently allow soldiers on the ground to see through the drones camera.

Having said that, this is not the kind of news the military needs. Yes they have not been very forth coming in the past and recent exposed cover-ups have not helped. The media however needs to take more responsibility and more time to bring a more accurate story. But an accurate story means sacrificing shock value.

Well tough!

Rethinking Future Combat Systems

I have always had suspicions about the Army's Future Combat Systems in dealing with insurgents. While it may work in a classic combined arms setting, the fluid nature of guerrilla warfare that has come to the forefront limits the programs effectiveness.

This week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a reevaluation on the program, given the current costs. The official DoD article link is here:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=53812

It comes as no surprise given the current deterioration of our economy. I've always wondered how the modernization efforts would be affected.

Having said that about FCS, there is a danger of cutting too much so our forces would be a 'paper tiger'. On a larger view, the strategic pendulum could swing too far toward dealing with guerrilla warfare and away from fighting mid level and large scale wars. In these times, all military branches must be a truly combined force to deal with all possible outcomes however improbable.

LTG Caldwell at CSIS

This blog was actual began some months ago but my attention went to other subject. I think it's apt to place it now given my recent post on the two camps of Army future thinking.

Some time ago, CSIS held an event (I called it a book release party) for the updated Army Field Manual 3-07 Stability Operations, in junction with the updated FM 3-0. I have included the links to both documents here but I would imagine there was no need.

FM 3-0: http://downloads.army.mil/fm3-0/FM3-0.pdf

FM: 3-07: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Repository/FM307/FM3-07.pdf

Simply put, stability operations have been pushed to the forefront when determining defense policy. And yet, there are some alarm bells ringing in my head. Maybe it's because I am weighed down by combined arms tactics of the Cold War and Desert Storm. I cannot help but think, there is so much the Army is doing these days that I am afraid they maybe overwhelmed.

I need to ponder this more...

Two Future Ideas for the Army

For some time now, the American military has sought to change the way they fight known as Force Transformation. My graduate thesis analyzed the Army's Future Force fighting insurgents. To this day the arguments on the direction of the Army still go on in the think tanks, government, and military headquarters polarized into two schools of thought.

One is the extreme shift moving away from massed force combat like in Operation Desert Storm to dealing with insurgents and nation building. The other is a moderate approach to a more balanced, less specialized force.

I was listening to NPR's extended analysis about the current state of the Army and the changes that are taking place place. They did a rather brief but interesting compare and contrast between the two ideas. My next entry will be a more detailed analysis of the two camps. Eventually, I want to saw my views on these ideas and possibly, just possibly, come up with a third option for the Army future of war fighting.

Tanks in the 21st century: A thought

For the longest time, I held the notion that the tank would have a place in warfare. Now, I'm not so sure. My wife and I played a World War 2 board where a group of infantry destroyed my tank unit, giving her the win. I had superior numbers of tanks, but her infantry won the day. I said; "Well in modern warfare, the infantry is still the focus." Then my mind started to grind rapidly. Maybe, just maybe, the tank is no longer an essential element of modern warfare?

It still has it's uses, but with the primary focus on counter insurgencies the tank's utility is limited. It is a spearhead, or perhaps a hammer. It is excellent in a war of maneuver and firepower; not so much in pin point strikes in urban environments with enemies hiding in buildings like in Stalingrad.

There are still needs for armored vehicles like modern APCs to get the infantry to a location safely. Yet, for a Gulf War vet like me who is weighed down by combined arms doctrine drilled into my head, I think it's time to reassess my thinking.

We should not completely dismiss the tank, but we should accept that the infantry has been and always will be the kings of battle, with the tank (cavalry), air, sea, artillery, and yes space, as vital support.

Rethinking siege warfare

In every war, there is one image that stands out from others. In World War 1, it's the dreaded trench. In the Eastern front, armies were mobile and fought brutally. The West was a different story. After the initial battles, armies on both sides dug trenches to counter the power of the machine gun and long ranged rifle fire. The result: deadlock. Neither side could break through the trench system without sustaining prohibitive losses.

Just as American and Allied forces tried to find ways to counter the guerrilla tactics of the insurgents, both British, French, and German forces tried to break through the trench systems in order to destroy the opposing armies. Before war came, many officers saw the effects of trench warfare in America fifty years before at Petersburg and in the Boer War. Yet, all stuck to the offensive doctrine with dreams of a dashing cavalry strike. It took many soldiers dying in no mans land to rethink this approach. That is war.

You know, I think I'm on to something. This is the evolution of siege warfare. I know it sounds academic and has been done to death, but I think I can expand my soon-to-be pet project. In fact,troops in Iraq are engaging a siege warfare with the fortress not made of physical walls but ideological ones. If that's the case, it cannot be done just by swift military strikes like Oliver Cromwell did in Ireland. The ammunition must come from helping the people rebuild their shattered lands and lifestyles and prevent the enemy from destroying them.

A thought on new military technology

I sometimes watch Discovery channel's show about high tech weapons. If there is a consistent thought, it's whether this weapon would truly work in battlefield conditions. I find myself constantly shaking my head as these new toys are demonstrated for the camera in static field tests. "Sure it looks impressive but wait until it gets to the battlefield," I say to myself.

Is it wrong of me to be constantly critical of new innovations? Would I have been critical of the steam engine replacing wooden warships?

I honestly think not. I have always been a bit skeptical of the march of technology outpacing tactics. This was reinforced when I was researching my thesis on the Army's Future Force in dealing with insurgents. Many of the documents on Force Transformation were full of business-like jargon: network-centric, jointness, etc. Progress simply for the sake of progresss. If true progress can be made, let's make sure that the technology can actually help in the battlefield. We appear to have squandered the opportunity to truly modernize the armed forces. Instead, the military simply was given new toys and rules before they were truly ready.