A Two-War Military

We are, without doubt, on the cusp of yet another "brave, new world." The global environment seems to be changing at a faster pace than with the post-World War II independence movements. New safe harbors are popping up, as are new dangerous waters. And, as we approach the adolescent years of the 21st Century, an old superpower is once again flexing its arms, and an ancient superpower is waking from its centuries-long slumber.

On top of all that, terrorism has taken on a new life. No longer dedicated regional acts of violence, terrorism has walked on the world's stage as a superpower unto itself. And American needs to be prepared.

The old saying goes that, "to secure peace is to prepare for war," and it remains as accurate today as it was when it was coined. American needs to be ready to fight wars on two fronts. Only these are not the fronts of western and eastern, or Pacific and Atlantic. These are the fronts of conventional and unconventional warfare.

America has oft made the mistake of downsizing her military when things "seemed safe," usually after the conclusion of a large or protracted war. And, every single time she's done that, she's had to remobilize. Every single time. Bar none.

I assure you, that pattern will not change.

The danger here is that we might make the mistake of downsizing while currently engaged in combat zones. Yes, one can argue that downsizing now would be an effective way of forcing ourselves out of the conflicts we are in, but, regardless of politics, that would be a serious mistake.

Terrorism isn't going anywhere. Trust me, it's not. As long as people somewhere, anywhere, disagree with other people, terrorism and guerrilla warfare will exist. Somewhat thankfully, our government and our military realize this, and our armed forces are transitioning themselves to fight such wars (what the Pentagon painstakingly refers to as "long wars"). This is fine, for we need that capability.

However, we're placing too much emphasis on the so-called "long wars." And we're doing so at the expense of our ability to fight conventional ones.

Russia is clearly staring NATO in the face, waiting for NATO to blink. China is clearly preparing itself to do the very same thing. And what's our response? To downsize.

Already, the Navy has canceled its admittedly ambitious 21st Century destroyer program, and the Army is cutting funding for its Future Combat Systems. Of the FCS, the portions of it that aren't getting the axe are primarily geared for, you guessed it, "long war" operations.

Most people don't seem to realize exactly how small our military has become. Yes, for a number of years, it was probably too big, but no longer. In the 1980s, the military was nearly 600 ships and over 30 combat divisions (including reserve forces). Today, the Navy stands at just over 200 combat ships, and 18 combat divisions (10 active, 8 national guard). Simply put, we don't have enough manpower to do anything.

Both the Russian and Chinese navies are growing, with each indicating that they are constructing new aircraft carriers to support blue water operations. Already, both the Russian and Chinese armies outnumber ours by an alarmingly disproportionate amount. And we're not talking combined, mind you. Including organized reserves, each outnumbers us on their own.

The solution is obvious, though expensive. Cut the fat out of the programs that have obvious fat, but don't further shrink America's military. In fact, grow it. This can be partially funded by doing away with the independent Air Force as well as taking the Marine Corps away from the Navy. The rest can be funded by slicing the fat from those programs that need it.

We need "long war" capability. That is clear. But we also need conventional capability, for at least as long as Russia and China remain possible enemies. For those critics who feel China poses little threat, please inform me exactly why they're expanding their military at a rate rivaled in the past 100 years by only the mobilization efforts of World War II.

Let's not be stupid, here. Let's secure peace.

Unfortunately, to do that, we must prepare for war.

Tales from the Airborne I: You Gotta Go When You Gotta Go

Imagine yourself a paratrooper. Strapped in on a C-130, 141, or 17, wearing a heavy parachute, an ill-placed reserve parachute, your rucksack across your thighs, your weapon under your left armpit, and your NVGs uncomfortably around your neck. The paratrooper to your left and right are seated next to you so tightly, you can tell if they have a tattoo on their shoulder just from the friction. All of this, and there's no bathroom.

Well, I take that back... there's a bathroom for the air crew.

When flying tactically, you're usually at Nap of the Earth, the air conditioning is off (purportedly to save power), and everybody needs to puke, much less take a piss. And, to make matters worse, I tend to overhydrate in order to avoid leg cramps. Which means I've got to go... and badly. It's going to be okay, I think, it's almost time to jump. I can piss when I hit the dropzone.

The command to stand up. Yes! The command to hook up. Yes! Check static line. Yes, yes! Check equipment. Oh, fuck yeah. Stand by for equipment check. Still with ya! Sound off for equipment check. Okay, okay, okay! All jumpers okay, jumpmaster! Door jumper, stand in the door! HURRY THE FUCK UP!

And then we wait.

And then I just decide to let it all go and piss down my leg. Pulling my pant leg out of my boot, I enjoy the sense of relief as it trickles to the floor.

Now, were the jump safety familiar with me, he wouldn't have said anything, but he wasn't, so he calmly walked up to me and asked if I was okay, and how many jumps I had. I replied, "Plenty. I just had to piss."

He nodded and smiled. We both sort of glanced at the Air Force loadmaster who was going to have to mop my fluids up later. Unspoken joke, as it were. Fuck the Air Force, right?

The safety went back to his position, the green light came on, and out my chalk went.

Lucky for me, the prop blast tends to dry one off real quick.

Ask the Question

I'm bored and I've received a couple of complaints pertaining to the fact that I haven't written anything here in a while, so I am.

Basically, this is for the people who know me. It's a test to see how well they know me. I'm going to write my answer to a question, and it's your job to figure out what the question was. Post your guesses below. The winner gets... well... I'll think of something.

1. "Teenagers, losers, and old people with nothing better to do."

2. "Not using turn signals."

3. "None of the above. Ask me again in four years."

4. "Road to Perdition."

5. "Gordon Ramsay, any day of the week."

6. "Monica Bellucci."

7. "The Air Force and the Marine Corps."

8. "He's an idiot, and single-handedly ruined my childhood. Well, no... Drew Barrymore might have helped a little."

9. "It's fiction. Don't believe the hype."

In Defense of Military Perspectives

Those of you who read me regularly (a shocking thought, I know) know full and well my view concerning the administrative wastefulness in maintaining a Navy-based Marine Corps and a separate Air Force. These views are well-researched, are based upon a study actually conducted by an Air Force Major, and are, undebatably, fact.

Sure, that the concept would ultimately benefit our military's effectiveness is highly opinionated, but that the concept would cheapen the cost of our military and lessen the burden on taxpayers (and allow for a larger military) is, once again, undebatably fact.

I receive a lot of feedback from a lot of people, many of them current and former servicemembers, concerning my highly controversial views. I can honestly say that none of their counterarguments hold any physical, fiscal, or operational weight. While that may sound a bit arrogant on my part, and probably a bit ignorant, it is true. Every counterargument I hear or read boils down to one thing: tradition.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, tradition is a wonderful thing to have (especially in the military) and we should do everything in our power to preserve it, but it should never, ever, get in the way of our adaptability. Ironically, the military seems to agree with most of my points and principles, except they hide my proposals by creating even more-bureaucratic "joint commands" instead of eliminated the fluff that requires the creation of such commands.

Going back to feedback, as I was in the Army for a total of nine years, I am often (if not always) accused of approaching my proposed military restructuring from an Army-centric perspective. I am writing this to show that this is not the case.

When I began my research, it was to support a spinning-off of the Airborne into its own branch of the military. An "Airborne Corps" of the Army, much in the same way the Marine Corps is of the Navy. A self-sufficient fighting force that is only related to its parent unit by way of funding and a shared medium.

My original proposal called for an Airborne Corps with its own close air support assets (like the Marine Corps has) and its own airlift (Army paratroopers currently rely on the Air Force for well over 90% of their jumps). In addition, it would have its own armor assets and logistics structure.

Now, this looked all fine and dandy on paper, and in a fictional short-story or two, but once I got into the budgetary portion of my research, it became clear that such a concept would be entirely cost-prohibitive. It became clear so quickly, that I didn't even bother to continue my research.

So, being a paratrooper and all, I decided to look into the feasibility of an Air Force-run Airborne Corps. After all, why not? Two options quickly set themselves apart from all of the other Air Force-Airborne options: 1) The Air Force would have to build its own infantry administration and operation systems, or 2) the Air Force would simply rely on the Army to train its paratroopers, and then feed them into the Air Force chain-of-command.

The first point would have been, quite obviously, too expensive (seems to be a pattern, doesn't it?) The second would have been, just as obviously, quite redundant.

And then it all came together. A Navy-Marine Corps is redundant, and a separate Air Force hobbles the Army's need for its own air superiority, airlift, and close air support. And, sorry, there's no way you can argue that, save for "tradition" (a point, by the way, which only weakly applies to the Air Force).

Which led to my current line of research, which only convinces me more and more every day that the Marine Corps should realign under the Department of the Army, and Air Force assets should be absorbed by the Army and the Navy.

My point? I started on this route in the exact opposite direction that I am almost always accused of taking. Army-centric? No, not by a long shot.

Airborne-centric? Oh, Hell yeah.

Want to read more? Check here:

An Overview of Restructuring the Military

I admit it, this isn't really a true blog, but as I've entered a new phase in my military-based research, I've decided to link all of my military blogs in one blog for easy access (and for those of you who might still be interested).

There is, undoubtedly, more to follow, including the Department of Defense's ridiculous propensity to preserve General and Admiral slots while pretending to streamline the actual force structure.

Anyway, here they are:

The Army Corps of... Marines?

Army Musings

The Military Draft: No So Random Thoughts

United States Marine Corps, Department of the Army

The United States Air Force: a Parasite Organization

Marine Corps versus Army: the Rank Problem

For those of you who might prefer a summary, basically:

1) The US Air Force should be split among the Army and the Navy, with close air support, tactical bombing, airlift, and air superiority assets going to the Army, and strategic air going to the Navy.
2) The US Marine Corps should realign under the Army.
3) The military in general should eliminate at least three enlisted and three officer ranks, and should reevaluate the necessity of the warrant officer system.
4) The military in general should eliminate as many flag positions as possible, thereby truly streamlining the command structure and increasing the efficiency of its administration system.

And there you have it.

The United States Air Force: a Parasite Organization

Before I get started on my well-researched rant, I just want to state that I don't think the men and women of the USAF are jerks, pansies, or parasites. Far from. They are as good as any other member of our armed forces, ready when we need them, willing when we ask them, and able when we send them.

But...

The USAF itself is a large waste of money.

First point: simply analyze our air power in our various armed forces. The Army has the largest "air presence" of any service. The Navy has their own air superiority, airlift, and strike capabilities. The Marine Corps has their own airlift, strike, and close air-support capabilities. The Air Force has all of that, plus strategic air. All this means that the people of the United States are essentially paying for four air forces, each with overlapping and oft-conflicting roles. Um... why? Politics, "tradition," and politics.

Second point: While the Navy and Marine Corps absolutely need their own air support (whether inherent to their services or provided by the air force), so does the Army. So why did the DoD arbitrarily decide that the Department of the Navy get to keep its aviation assets, while the Department of the Army did not? Politics, "tradition," and politics.

Given the current nature of DoD organization and budget, it's clear that the government wants to spend as little as possible on how the military is structured and operated. In a natural progression, DoD should streamline commands, eliminate flag positions, and put asset control in as few pots as possible (notice I wrote asset control, not the assets themselves). Which, obviously, would lead to the Army and Navy controlling their own air support. Well, like I said, the Navy does it, why not the Army?

Simply put, the United States Air Force would run much more efficiently should it "devolve" back into the Army Air Force. Army commanders would have their own air superiority, airlift, and close air support aircraft to use on pertinent missions, instead of having to ask and coordinate with the USAF. I mean, why does the USAF control tactical airlift, anyway? They don't need it for themselves on a large scale. But guess who does? That's right, the Army.

It's also common knowledge that the USAF (the institution, mind you, not its individual pilots) doesn't really care about its legally mandated CAS (close air support) mission. Why? Well, because they don't need it for themselves. But guess who does?

Anyway, this can of worms can be opened much wider, but the bottom line is that the USAF should either assume control of ALL air assets in the DoD (which still leaves the problem of "asking" and coordinating), or should collapse itself back into the Army, with the Air Force's United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) component (formerly known as Strategic Air Command - SAC) shifting entirely to Navy control.

This would cut many middlemen out, streamline top-down command and communications, and allow for closer operational training between the various arms.

I know a whole hell of a lot of people will disagree with me, but can you really give me any advantages that can trump saving money? Other than "tradition" and politics, of course.

Random Musings Amid Mental Chaos

Good cause or not, last night's American Idol special, "Idol Gives Back," had to have been the most bloated two hours of television since, well, the last two-hour episode of American Idol.

Scientists believe they found a planet similar to Earth, located in the Libra constellation. Religious fundamentalists believe that those scientists pointed their telescopes back at Earth, in a ruse worthy of the "moonscape in a garage" ploy apparently used to fake the moon landings.

The Army is attempting to transform itself in order to better facilitate an expeditionary role. Unfortunately, the other three services (especially the Air Force) are severely limiting the Army in doing so, to point of actually hobbling the Army. More to come on this, I assure you.

I'm once again at a crossroads: California, or Carolina? Both have pros, both have cons. But I'm strangely attracted to a short-term Carolina trip for some obvious reason (obvious only to those who know, however).

The season three finale of Battlestar Galactica continues to awe and bewilder fans and critics alike, and it was aired a month ago. Outdoing the horrific writing of the season two finale wasn't easy, but it damn sure happened.

Jake Peavy, resident San Diego Padres ace, struck out nine in a row (one short of the record) in a surprising loss to the Diamondbacks. Regardless, the Padres are still 12-9, and in good shape to defend their NL West title. That being said, if those bastards don't win a World Series soon, I'm going to be pissed.

And that being said, if the Chargers don't win a Super Bowl (or three) soon, I'm going to be pissed.

Floyd Landis is still fighting his 7,283 positive tests for synthetic testosterone in his Tour de France win last year. Give it up, dude... take the hit, admit that you embarrassed yourself and your country, and disappear already.

A friend of mine is donating one of his kidneys to his friend's 17 year-old daughter. He claims he's just impulsive, but I stand by my claim that he's a better man than most men I know, including myself.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is threatening to sue the Federal Environmental Protection Agency unless they allow him to enforce cleaner air acts. Say what you will about the Governator, but I think he's pretty serious about saving Planet Earth (which is a great television series on Discovery Channel, by the way). No, I don't think we should change the Constitution to allow him to run for President, but I have to say that he's doing a decent job with California.

As many of you know, Nevada moved up its primaries in order to be one of the first states to vote in the election year. This was done in order to make Nevada more of a "force" in national politics. Um, you have five electoral votes (out of a possible minimum of four)... I don't think anyone really gives a shit.

The brother of former Arizona Cardinal safety and Army Ranger Pat Tillman is claiming that the Army covered up the fratricide in order to avoid another public relations blunder. Oops, that didn't work. Similarly, former "super POW" Jessica Lynch claimed her story was "heroically exaggerated" for the same reason. While Pat Tillman's brother is certainly in the right, I have a fundamental problem with Ms. Lynch. As in, why did she wait until AFTER the book and movie-of-the-week deals to come forward with this? Hmm...

Toyota surpassed General Motors as the global king of automobiles last fiscal quarter. Honestly, I've owned two GM vehicles, and I'm thinking their fall has more to do with a decline in quality than any other reason.

I've recently noticed how science fiction almost always refers to its space-borne infantry as Marines, but almost never refers to its space-borne crew as Sailors. Why is this? Both are direct references to water, so why is one passé and the other not?

I'm done for now.

Nicotine-Withdrawal-Induced Musings

I chewed the last piece of Nicorette I had yesterday. Today, I am going through regular gum like it's heroin. An entire bag of blow pops, two 60-piece cans of Eclipse gum, and a pack of Dentyne Ice have all met their demise. I'd chew on my fingers, but you can't blow bubbles with flesh... or can you? Hmm...

Scooby Doo was invented by a Japanese guy. Who'd have thought? Two things can be deciphered from this fact. One, he almost made up for the Japanese social debacle that is known as karaoke. Two, the Japanese, realizing their attempt to corrupt American culture via automobiles and electronics had failed, were trying to screw us up on cartoons. Given the proliferation of manga and anime, I'd say they're well on their way to success.

If I'm not making any sense, blame it on the lack of nicotine.

There's a pizza chain accepting pesos now. Good customer service? Maybe. Or maybe it's time we pulled a European Union and forced Canada and Mexico to adopt the US dollar. Or maybe it's time we just shut up and let a business do what it wants to do. It's called freedom. So be it.

The NFL playoffs heat up this weekend with the divisional games. The rub? My sister is throwing my niece's birthday party this weekend, even though she was born on December 30th. The rub's rub? Out of the four playoff games, my sister scheduled my niece's birthday party at 2 PM Pacific Time on Sunday. Right smack dab in the middle of the Chargers-Patriots game. Guess which uncle isn't going to the birthday party?

If I seem like a dick, blame it on the lack of nicotine. Okay, fine, I'm always like this.

I love politics. Democrats, who are supposedly for cloning, specifically in terms of research and development, are suddenly against cloned food. For R&D, they claim that what we discover can only help, not hurt our civilization. For food, it's the opposite. I'm sorry, I was under the impression that John Kerry was no longer the face of the Democratic Party. Oh, well... they'll change their mind next month, anyway.

On the other hand, the Republicans actually seem to think that adding 20,000 troops is going to help the situation in Iraq. I agree, it's going to help the insurgents find more targets. There is a solution to the Iraq problem, but I highly doubt we're going to figure it out. Neither major political party is in any position to dictate how another country rebuilds itself.

Michael Moore is an ass, albeit an intelligent and talented one. Case in point, he not-too-long ago published a piece concerning the "fact" that we have been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. Basically, he's trying to equate that it took us less time to "defeat the Nips and the Nazis" in less time than it's taking us to "tame the Hajjis." And, once again, he's attempting to confuse his followers and the public-at-large with apples and oranges. Mr. Moore, if you want to make a real comparison, please add the amount of time we stayed in Germany and Japan as "occupational forces," which, whether you agree or not, is what we technically are in Iraq right now. Hmm... I guess we're still ahead of the timetable, aren't we? What a dickhead.

An Air Force vet was relieved of duty due to her appearance in Playboy. The Air Force claims that she violated some sort of "honor code." How? By appearing nude in a magazine that is readily recognized as an American institution? By appearing nude in the only erotic magazine that is allowed to be sold on military bases? By appearing nude? You fucking censors need to get lives.

Speaking of censors, how is Irreversible, the French film with the most disturbing rape scene in motion picture history, allowed to be shown uncut in the United States, but Malena, one of the most unassuming erotic and sadly romantic films in history, can only be shown after 17 minutes of the original version are cut out? We Americans are a strange and contradictory culture, aren't we?

Let me clarify Irreversible... it's not just the most disturbing rape scene in motion picture history, it's the most disturbing scene in motion picture history, period. No horror or slasher movie you can think of has a scene anywhere near as disturbing and disconcerting as that one.

Let me clarify Irreversible and Malena... I don't think either film should be censored. In America, we're accused of fearing sex but accepting violence. Progressives cite Europe as the "more mature" society, because they fear violence and accept sex. Personally, I think we're both idiots. In art, there's nothing wrong with sex nor violence. I'd say we should all turn Japanese, whose art is rife with hardcore sex and hardcore violence... but those assholes invented karaoke, and I'm having a hard time accepting that.

I'm getting irritable. Would anybody care if I have a cigarette? Just kidding. Although, I am about to start chewing my fingers.

Go Chargers!

The Army Corps of... Marines?

Like most former military, I follow our "wars" quite closely. While I'm not going to get into the politics of the matter, I'm definitely going to harp on the cost.

Seriously, what are we thinking? Can we possibly come up with a less efficient model with which to not only fight a war, but to run a military in general?

A few years ago, a Pentagon brain decided to analyze the current makeup of the US Armed Forces. His name was David Dyche and his conclusions in 1990 showed that, not only was the military wasting money on what everyone already knew that the military was wasting money on, but that the military was wasting money simply by existing in its current model. Through careful research and modeling, he figured that our current military was NOT the traditional "3 Branches + 1 Corps" that everyone thinks it is, but in reality is "two armies, two transportation forces, and four air forces." In other words, one huge waste of money (for those of you that are interested in Dyche's report, it is available online - keep in mind that I do NOT agree with Dyche's recommendations 100%, though his points are no less valid).

Now, I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty of his entire report, but I am going to comment on the Army/Marine Corps conundrum.

Essentially, what we have with a Navy-run Marine Corps is a SECOND ARMY. One that has a separate training system, a separate supply system, and a separate command structure. Is there a physical need for this? Absolutely not.

Traditionalists (including many former and current soldiers, airborne, and marines) will argue the necessity of a separate Marine Corps, but in all honesty, that is nothing but an old-school mentality stuck in a status quo world. A non-Army Marine Corps is simply nothing but a waste of time and money. Many of these traditionalists will argue that the role of the Marine Corps is different than that of the Army. While there is some (but very little) truth to that statement, their roles are no more different than say, that of the Army Infantry compared to the Army Airborne. And, despite the fact that some countries do, we certainly don't have a separate Airborne Corps, do we?

Realize that I'm not advocating the disappearance of Marine Corps traditions from the Army... absolutely not. Even as a former paratrooper, I recognize that no service takes more pride in themselves than the USMC. I think that allowing Marine Corps divisions to retain their distinctive headgear (similar to Airborne units wearing maroon berets) and their traditional histories is a good, and advantageous, idea. I would also suggest that the Army adopt the Marine Corps system of "Private-Private First Class-Lance Corporal" and maintain "Gunnery Sergeant" as a Marine Division honorific.

But, I AM advocating that paying for what is essentially a second Army is a waste. Joint Operations is getting to the point that the Army would be more than capable of cooperatively running an MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) with the Navy, as well as the Navy cooperatively transporting and deploying the Army.

This would save SO MUCH MONEY, it would make you sick to actually figure out how much. There are other advantages, as well, but I lack the time and the proper means to discuss them effectively here. The bonus? There is simply not one disadvantage, other than window-dressing, to collapsing the Marine Corps into the Army. Not one. Not a single one.

Before I conclude my point, I'm well aware that many of you will bring up Marine Corps aviation and how the Marines have dedicated air support. I AM a proponent of this, but this is related to the fact that I'm also a proponent of eliminating the Air Force as we currently know it. However, as this is not the point of this blog, I'm not going to cover any of that here.

So... like I implied, the only problem is getting past the institutionalized fuckers that don't really give a shit about saving this country valuable defense dollars, but care far more about what their uniform looks like.