Posts tagged military
Civilian count versus Military count (using terms I see in the press)
Mar 24th
Let me begin by saying I have never served in the military. I have good friends who have served and have a relatively extensive knowledge of the Marine Corp through work association.
Does everything you count count? Sure. Especially when it comes to lives. When trying to win a war what counts more? Your own, theirs or the uninvolved? This is a tricky one. but. In general I see the press (media) kind of letting perspective get outa wack.
I don’t condone killing civilians in war (I guess that is kind of a given for everyone). But where do we do draw the line between letting someone do their job and risking their own lives? It is unfortunate but I guess politics and military have to coexist. And to be honest while I like some political “watchdog” over military (just to keep everyone on the straight and narrow) in general I believe the military is quite aware of their responsibility to “people & environment” and from what I have seen and heard take it quite seriously.
But they also have a job to do. Win a war. Minimize their own soldier casualties. Maximize the other soldier losses. So when do we draw the line on politically careful restrictions when it starts costing us our soldier’s lives.
It must be tough to be in the military and try and win a war these days. Once again I certainly don’t condone ‘civilian deaths’ (or “collateral damage”) in war but at some point don’t people need to be realistic?
To what extreme do we hinder soldiers from doing their job? At the expense of their own lives?
The job of a military commander in battle seems like it should be to win the battle at minimal cost (time, people, material) in order to proceed to the next battle with “the most” to engage at the maximum level time and time again.
Frankly, protecting our own soldiers benefits the final objective.
How far does it seem to be out of whack? Here we go. A recent example in a newspaper. Afghanistan.
“Insurgents pledge to disrupt elections and dramatically increase usage of roadside bombs.”
Combine that with US/NATO saying (in the same article) “protecting civilians is our highest priority.”
I am not a military guy but something seems out of whack here. The bad guys are dialing up violence. The good guys (that is us in this case) are suggesting our priority isn’t getting the bad guys but rather minimizing risk to non combatants. Gotta tell ya. I would be happier if the good guys said something like “our priority is to minimize our good guy casualties and maximize the bad guy casualties.” Am I the only one who is concerned over this?
War has changed. I realize that. We see 40 casualties in one month now as unacceptable while 50,000 in one day at Gettysburg should maybe give us a moment to reflect on cost to win. Am I suggesting we go out and lose 50,000 of the good guys? Nope. Never. Just suggesting that war is .. well .. war. People die. And more people need to die if you want to win. I give you these numbers to try and give perspective (because not fighting wars on your own land causes some lack of reference).
Am I advocating “bigger losses”? Nope.
Do I know what a “reasonable” death loss would be in victory? Nope. I am not a military guy. As a non military guy 1 is unreasonable (or how about even 1 is a high cost). But even I know that is unreasonable if we seek success.
So you know what? I think it’s stupid for people like me (or the press) to be counting. I want the military counting and doing what it takes to win. Because I tend to believe they would like to win at the lowest count possible. And I sometimes think we diminish their military training and certainly are not showing the respect they deserve by questioning that fact.
But this rant isn’t about that. This rant is more how non military people dictating actions, by demanding overprotection of civilians, ultimately comes at the expense of our own soldiers lives (and winning I would guess).
And that is just damn stupid.
It just seems to me that by everyone making the focus individual soldier deaths and civilian losses we are losing sight of the fact our military is there to do a job. Our guys are trained. And trained to such a level that I have a hard time envisioning they are ineptly wandering around shooting anything and everyone in sight. I also have to be honest, I personally believe if I were in a situation where someone was shooting at me from a number of different directions I may be a little indiscriminate with regard to my own firing when trying to stay alive and keep my fellow soldiers alive.
And here is a further wacky thought. I am not sure the military would ever make it through the media gauntlet unscathed if it happened this way but if I had the choice of 480 casualties in one day and win versus 40 casualties a month and “maybe win”? I gotta tell ya, I would let the military do their job and win in one month.
Okay. Maybe this rant is simply to make a point that I wish we could let the military do their job. They know what they are doing. Yes. We can always find exception examples if we dig hard enough. I could find exceptions in everything if I look hard enough. But these people have signed up and trained, and are very very good, to do a job. At some point we need to get out of their way and let them do it.
That said. Once again. Let me state I am not for indiscriminate killing. I just get frustrated when I see media story after media story repeating “25 soldier deaths this month the highest this year.” For god’s sake. People are shooting at each other. Is 25 too much? Heck. One is bad. But having met a number of these guys … they signed up to do a job. They fully understand the possible repercussions of their job. And trust me .. they are doing everything possible to not be on that list.
Bottom line. In my mind. Get politics out of the way, suggest media have some perspective and allow the military to do its job. Because our good guys are pretty good at what they signed up to do.
The United States and China power balance
Mar 19th
This is a follow up to my “next conflict on the horizon.” And let me begin by stating I am not advocating a military buildup (although America does have to maintain a realm of competitiveness).
There is no larger threat to world peace than the growing imbalance between China and the United States.
Nothing. No larger threat. (just want to be sure everyone knows my point of view on this).
In the economic sense it is US, European Union and China (sure. You could throw in a couple of others but let’s call it the Big Three at the moment). In a military sense the EU drops out because they don’t have a combined military (and in fact I tend to believe a couple of the EU countries would love the opportunity to kick the other’s ass if given half a chance). So. It comes down to USA and China. C’mon. Let’s face it. Unless we have global pluralism or a “global country” (which we are not going to have) global peace, or alignment, will be dictated by balance.
And the balance is starting to get out of whack.
Economically it is way out of line:
The US has built up a massive trade deficit with China. The US argues that this is partly because China has kept its currency artificially weak, which makes its products cheaper overseas. I don’t buy the argument (although it could make up some of the deficit). China has a stranglehold on our economy. While some things may be complex this is black & white. Some things are just what they appear to be.
And the trade balance takes on even more perspective when you start factoring in population (which eventually translates into production and/or military capabilities).
POPULATION
China’s huge population gives the country’s economy a vast workforce from which to draw.
Thirty years ago, the “one child policy” was introduced in cities to limit the size of families, and this was reaffirmed recently when the population reached 1.3 billion.
One result of the recent economic boom has been a growing middle class, demanding a higher standard of living based on perceived Western standards.
Analysts predict this is likely to further stretch already limited food, water and other natural resources.
While the population is stretching important resources the good news is that it isn’t stretching geography (because if they were geographically bursting at the seams we would be in a world of hurt). But. 1.3 billion and growing is a really really big number. And envision if they eliminated the ‘one child policy.’ Yikes.
The Troubling Scenario
So. Beijing is building up its military forces. They have a very very large army with a whole bunch of missiles and stuff like that.
And combine that with a growth in popular nationalism (the belief that your country should maybe have more than it currently does … on any level you would like to ponder that).
Military. In recent years China has embarked on a rapid military build-up, acquiring the ability to project its power far beyond its borders. (hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … and you would do that because … well … gosh … because maybe you want something outside your borders? Nah. Couldn’t be.)
We need to assume one day very soon China will be in a position to challenge the US as the dominant power in Asia.
Now.
China’s leaders say their nation’s rise will be a peaceful one. So. How much do we believe China?
US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg recently called on China to reassure other nations about its intentions.
“Just as we and our allies must make clear that we are prepared to welcome China’s arrival as a prosperous and successful power, China must reassure the rest of the world that its development and growing global role will not come at the expense of the security and well-being of others,” Mr. Steinberg said.
Well. That sure makes me feel a lot better about the situation if they reassure us (didn’t Hitler say something about not taking anything but what was theirs in the first place?).
Ok.
Now let’s think about military strength and this national populism thing.
One of Mr. Steinberg’s predecessors, Susan Shirk, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian affairs under President Bill Clinton, says the combination of China’s growing military and growing popular nationalism presents dangers. “It creates the risk, not a high probability, but a risk, that one day China’s leaders could feel that to look strong in the eyes of their public they have to make a threat to Japan or to Taiwan and that they will feel that they cannot back down from that threat without jeopardizing their own domestic support or even their own survival in power. So I think that is a very dangerous scenario.”
In the world of relative understatements I tend to believe “that is a very dangerous scenario” is about a 15 on the understatement Richter scale.
In addition, what was once a radical fringe in national populism is now shifting slightly more mainstream (and we know how these things work … with a little nudge it becomes very mainstream). If you are looking for an example of what I mean, let me use a couple of quotes from one of the leaders in China’s national populism ‘fringe’:
“I am not just targeting Japan but all those who threaten the interests of the Chinese people,” says Li Nan. “Maybe even the United States and some others, I would see them all as enemies.” And Li Nan offers a view of how a future crisis, such as one over energy supplies, might spur on nationalist sentiment in China. “In the future, energy supplies will become more and more scarce. Today each American consumes 10 times as much energy as each Chinese person. So every nation will have to think about their own survival. At that time, nationalism will be the mainstream.”
Ok. I admit. I had to take a minute and ponder when I read this. It is the kind of vision that should give some in America pause for thought.
Anyway. I will leave you with a last thought from our government:
The US National Intelligence Strategy this year described China as presenting a complex global challenge.
There you go. A complex issue but we are on top of it.
I am feeling good. (slight gasp).
You Cut My Estimate By 25% And I Still Have To Win? (Uh Oh.)
Dec 31st
Well. I hope the Pentagon padded their estimate a little. What I mean is…I hope they asked for 40,000 soldiers knowing they only needed 30,000 to reach the objective.
In my world, if I had to cut 25 percent off my original estimate I am in one of two places:
1. Yeah. I can do the job but I have absolutely no margin of error.
2. Nope. Can’t do the job unless you change the objective.
Unfortunately for the Pentagon we know the objective has remained the same. Win.
Oh. (by the way)
And win in 18 months (and unsaid. “oh, and by the way, win in 18 months but I really want all of the 30,000 to come back ok?”).
There are days I bet the shooting range underneath the Pentagon is chockfull of more stars than you can imagine shooting out some major (or general) frustration.
Oh yeah, I also forgot…“Hey guys. While you’re driving around that hospitable tourist trap called Afghanistan make sure you don’t shoot, or kill with any weapon we may have, any civilians.”
The box the military has been put in would make a private company put in the same situation say,
"Well, that request is unreasonable and I not only won’t do it but…well…I frankly can’t do it".
But that’s right. These are our guys (and gals).
Our military has done some pretty impossible things before.
“The difficult we do immediately. The impossible take a little longer.”
US Army
(actually not originally their quote)
I am not ex-military but I know Marines. I know National Guard who went overseas. I admit it. I love these guys. I cannot imagine a better group of people fighting in the name of our country. The people in the Pentagon would amaze you with not only their smarts (the military academies are no University of Vermont – apology to my Catamount friends – but…you get the point.) And their ability with common sense to distill things down is amazing. So they are smart and have good common sense. Nice mix.
Ladies and gentlemen I started this little rant not to support the military (but I am okay with that) but rather they told everyone they needed 40,000 soldiers to do a job and the non-military said “sorry, you can only have 30,000 to do the job.”
We are once again asking them to do the impossible. And you know what? I bet they either do it or come close. Or they will do their damndest to do it.
So let’s all try to keep this in mind over the next 18 months or so and keep things in perspective.
I would have walked away from the job if it had been my company. The Pentagon doesn’t have that choice. And, you know, they may actually figure it out. I am rooting for them.




