Military Not Focused on Current Wars?

If you have ever doubted the existence of the Military Industrial Complex this article in the Washington Post should end those doubts convincingly. The article Gates Urges Military to Focus on Current Wars, contains several important underlying concepts about the thought process that occurs inside this institution of war. There is a surreal quality that runs through your mind as you read the text. The most glaring question is why exactly Gates has to remind them about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today implored the U.S. military to focus more on wars against insurgents and militias such as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than focusing time and money on potential conflicts.

We are engaged in two wars right now. These conflicts are supposed to be transcendent challenges holding off the threats of our destruction. Why aren’t our resources being geared towards the war we are fighting now? John McCain believes we need to be there indefinitely, meaning that the war in Iraq is actually the war of the future as well as the war of the present.

One underlying theme of the article is the military and corporate focus on the long term. Much of this long term focus is necessary because the weapons systems cost billions of dollars and are supposed to last for decades. Some of our aircraft may end up lasting to a century in service. You need real vision to plan for something like that. Some of our more expensive systems are also those that have little relevance to counter insurgency. For example,

He has focused in part on the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet, which the service covets for its speed, agility and ability to battle advanced fighters from countries such as China, but which has not made a single combat sortie over Iraq or Afghanistan.

As cool as the F-22 is the cost is exorbitant. The total cost of the program by 2006 was $62 billion. In April 2006, the cost of the F-22A was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft. Again, not one sortie in either of our current wars. This is just not a sustainable defense policy. We cannot fight wars effectively if we spend all our money of weapons systems that are not directly applicable to those wars. Gates spent time pointing out this annoying fact saying

"I believe that any major weapons program, in order to remain viable, will have to show some utility and relevance to the kind of irregular campaigns that, as I mentioned, are most likely to engage America's military in coming decades," Gates said. "Without a fundamental change to this dynamic, it will be difficult to sustain support for these kinds of weapons programs in the future."

Whether he is saying this so that the corporate interests understand that the future Democratic majority will feel this way or that he himself feels this way is not particularly relevant. The message needs to be sent that utility and multiple uses are also a major factor in funding projects.  

Mixed into the article is also the idea that America is not able to fight the conventional war that the MIC is planning and developing weapons for. This idea is one of the constant themes the Democrats are advancing, the military is broken and the war in Iraq is not sustainable in a responsible or sane manner.  This has particular relevance to any potential conflict with Iran. Iran appears to be the most likely target for the next, or just an expansion of the current, war. China, Russia, and Korea are not ruled out though. Gates talked briefly on the interplay between Iraq and Iran

He said that the Iraqis' recent operations in Basra led to the discovery of substantial caches of Iranian-supplied weapons, and "awakened them (the Iraqis) to the reality of the magnitude of Iranian meddling in Iraq."

"We're being very aggressive in going after the networks in Iraq, and the individuals who are interfering or supplying weapons from Iran," Gates said. "We have a number of other activities under way. We take it very seriously. But at this point our activities are focused pretty exclusively inside Iraq."

He initially said without qualification that those activities which he did not define were "exclusively" inside Iraq, but he quickly stopped himself and restated it as "pretty exclusively" inside Iraq, which seemed to leave open the possibility that the U.S. also is operating inside Iran.

It is not particularly surprising to learn that we are raiding inside Iran. The most likely scenario is targeted Special Forces operations against training facilities or weapons cahes along the border. At the same time he addressed future threats other than Iran.

He said it is "hard to conceive" of any country confronting the United States directly in a conventional war for some time to come, hinting at potential adversaries in North Korea, China and Russia. But he also acknowledged the stress on U.S. forces.

"It is true that we would be hard-pressed to launch a major conventional ground operation elsewhere in the world at this time, but where would we sensibly do that?" Gates said. "The United States has ample and untapped combat power in our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any, repeat any, adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan. There is a risk, but it is a prudent and manageable one."

I am not a military strategist but this does not make sense to me. I do not believe that air power or naval power alone would be enough to stave off a major offensive by conventional forces of any moderate size. I think Gates understands that also. He hints at what happens when we do not have the forces to deal adequately with a problem. The answer might be conscription, though i have not been able to confirm that Gates said the words all-volunteer force.

But Gates said that if the United States were to give up on Iraq -- to lose there -- it would send a message that the Army is broken, and such a failure could cripple the all-volunteer force as an institution. He noted that the war in Iraq is the second longest in American history since the Revolution.

Exactly what he is talking about here I am not sure. It sounds like the standard line about prestige except not. The army is either broken or it is not and staying in Iraq with a broken army will not deceive people into thinking every thing is fine. The question becomes just how important is Iraq in the long-term security plans of the United States.

The army seems to think Iran Iraq is not the long-term commitment that Bush and Co are portraying it. The military might be happier to withdraw from Iraq and rebuild the traditional military forces and develop those sexy high priced weapons systems. However, if we are going to be in Iraq for a very long time then we would really need a radical reallocation of our resources to the current conflicts. So which is it going to be money for the insurgent focused war in Iraq or the potential war with China/Russia/Iran?

Wapo Articles used here
Gates Urges Miliatry to Focus on Current Wars
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Gates: Reject tendency to focus on 'Next-War-itis'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...