February 24, 2015 by Campaign
This past weekend Right on Defense sent national security expert, decorated combat veteran, noted author and television commentator Col. Douglas Macgregor (Ret.) five questions about the state of the United States’ armed forces, current US operations in Iraq and Syria, and the size of the Pentagon’s budget. Many thanks to Col. Macgregor for responding to our request.
Right on Defense’s questions are in bold
This past weekend Right on Defense sent national security expert, decorated combat veteran, noted author and television commentator Col. Douglas Macgregor (Ret.) five questions about the state of the United States’ armed forces, current US operations in Iraq and Syria, and the size of the Pentagon’s budget. Many thanks to Col. Macgregor for responding to our request.
Right on Defense’s questions are in bold
 |
| Macgregor |
What are the real threats the United States faces today and is our military, in its current state, able to confront these threats?
1. China is too corrupt, too centrally managed, and most of its people have too little buying power for the PRC to remain economically healthy. As a result, China’s capacity to directly threaten its neighbors with military action is greatly exaggerated. China continues to view Japan as its principle threat. To the extent that Washington can it should mediate disputes and support freedom of access to the global commons, but otherwise avoid involvement in disputes between China and its neighbors.
2. Russia confronts serious internal decay, institutionalized corruption and permanent threats from Islamists in the South and tension with Japan in NE Asia. However, thanks to its reactionary leadership, Russia is likely to menace the peoples of Eastern and Northern Europe for the next two decades. Like Poland in 1920, Ukraine refuses to die. Fortunately, unlike the Arabs, the Ukrainians are not asking us to fight for them. This means only a change in Moscow’s leadership can produce a reasonable territorial settlement with Kiev that acknowledges Ukraine’s independence. Until that happens, the US should support the freedom and independence of the peoples of Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States with economic and military assistance, but otherwise avoid direct military involvement.
3. In the ME Sunni and Shia are locked in a struggle that is likely to last for decades. ISIS is a critical part of this struggle. In addition, the dysfunctional character of the world’s Muslim states and societies guarantees unrelenting violence until exhaustion and conflict produce change. To the extent the US is able, the US should avoid involvement in this regional violence.
4. Today, Mexico (along with much of Central America and Venezuela) qualifies as a failed states. The flow of criminality and human traffic from Mexico into the United States presents an existential threat to the American Republic. It is vital that we commit military resources to the security of our southern borders and littoral waters.
5. Long-term, the United States must develop armed forces to deter or defeat capable opponents, not light constabulary ground and air forces designed to bludgeon hapless Arabs, Afghans and Africans.
Bottom Line: The dysfunctional societies of Latin America present the greatest security threat to the United States. In the near-term ignoring the metastasizing cancer of criminality and corruption spreading into the US from Latin America could kill the American Republic.
In the long-term we cannot predict what nation-state or alliance of nation-states may attempt to dominate the Eurasian Land Mass and the “global commons.” We can only conclude that such a development is possible in 10, 15 or 20 years and begin preparing for it now without necessarily bankrupting ourselves in the process. To do that we need institutions and leadership we currently lack in national security.
How would you reform the military so that it is best able to confront these threats?
First, today, we have a president and SECDEF that must referee four independent services with conflicting agendas. Our defense structure is simply an anachronism left over from WW II. Its principle function is to redistribute income to districts, states, politicians and industrialists, not to effectively defend the United States. We need new leadership to address this critical issue and there is none for the moment on the horizon.
Second, in the absence of a national military strategy based on a rational defense budget the various services are operating independently. Each service seeks to justify itself and subsidize itself in perpetuity avoiding any change that might alter the status quo. Without a national defense staff that has the operational responsibility and authority to assist the President, the Secretary of Defense with command of the armed forces, the development of a coherent national defense strategy and the implementation of a rational defense budget tied to real national security interests this condition will not change.
Third, there is no human capital strategy to provide a national defense staff with the talent it needs to function effectively. There is also no real human capital strategy beyond the service academies to staff the armed forces with the leadership they need. Promotions to senior rank are a hit or miss proposition depending on personalities and political preferences. Enlisted ranks are treated with abject neglect on the assumption that more qualified enlisted men will always show up to do the job. There is scant evidence to support this assumption, but it prevails inside the uniformed leadership nonetheless.
What are your thoughts about current US military operations in Iraq and Syria?
These operations are unnecessary and largely counterproductive. The forces at war in the region will eventually exhaust themselves if left alone to do so. If we continue to intervene we will lengthen and worsen the conflicts. Our involvement should be limited to assistance to Egypt and Jordan, both of whom share our broader strategic interest in ending conflict. The rest including Turkey and Iran have agendas that are antithetical to Western and Israeli interests.
Jeb Bush and others have said that the Pentagon needs more money to be able to confront the threats they perceive the US faces. Shouldn’t the US be able to defend itself with the Pentagon’s $499 billion base budget and the additional $51.9 billion Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget?
As previously mentioned, there is an abundance of resources and money, but neither the realistic thinking, the structure nor the vision to employ these resources effectively.
Many people say that OCO is being used as a “slush fund” of sorts to pay for things that should be in the Pentagon’s base budget. What are your thoughts about OCO?
OCO should be scrapped ASAP. It’s welfare for the defense industries.
Do you think that Congress and the military are doing enough to weed out wasteful spending at the Pentagon?
Despite vociferous claims to the contrary, nothing of consequence is being done.
http://rightondefense.org/
This
past weekend Right on Defense sent national security expert, decorated
combat veteran, noted author and television commentator Col. Douglas
Macgregor (Ret.) five questions about the state of the United States’
armed forces, current US operations in Iraq and Syria, and the size of
the Pentagon’s budget. Many thanks to Col. Macgregor for responding to
our request. - See more at:
http://rightondefense.org/#sthash.rmRSXFEb.dpuf
his
past weekend Right on Defense sent national security expert, decorated
combat veteran, noted author and television commentator Col. Douglas Macgregor
(Ret.) five questions about the state of the United States’ armed
forces, current US operations in Iraq and Syria, and the size of the
Pentagon’s budget. Many thanks to Col. Macgregor for responding to our
request.
Right on Defense’s questions are in bold.
- See more at: http://rightondefense.org/#sthash.rmRSXFEb.dpuf
Right on Defense’s questions are in bold.
- See more at: http://rightondefense.org/#sthash.rmRSXFEb.dpuf
his
past weekend Right on Defense sent national security expert, decorated
combat veteran, noted author and television commentator Col. Douglas Macgregor
(Ret.) five questions about the state of the United States’ armed
forces, current US operations in Iraq and Syria, and the size of the
Pentagon’s budget. Many thanks to Col. Macgregor for responding to our
request.
Right on Defense’s questions are in bold.
- See more at: http://rightondefense.org/#sthash.rmRSXFEb.dpuf
Right on Defense’s questions are in bold.
- See more at: http://rightondefense.org/#sthash.rmRSXFEb.dpuf
his
past weekend Right on Defense sent national security expert, decorated
combat veteran, noted author and television commentator Col. Douglas Macgregor
(Ret.) five questions about the state of the United States’ armed
forces, current US operations in Iraq and Syria, and the size of the
Pentagon’s budget. Many thanks to Col. Macgregor for responding to our
request.
Right on Defense’s questions are in bold.
- See more at: http://rightondefense.org/#sthash.rmRSXFEb.dpuf
Right on Defense’s questions are in bold.
- See more at: http://rightondefense.org/#sthash.rmRSXFEb.dpuf
February 24, 2015 by
This past weekend Right on Defense sent national security expert,
decorated combat veteran, noted author and television commentator Col. Douglas Macgregor
(Ret.) five questions about the state of the United States’ armed
forces, current US operations in Iraq and Syria, and the size of the
Pentagon’s budget. Many thanks to Col. Macgregor for responding to our
request.
Right on Defense’s questions are in bold.
What
are the real threats the United States faces today and is our military,
in its current state, able to confront these threats?
1. China is too corrupt, too centrally managed, and most of its people have too little buying power for the PRC to remain economically healthy. As a result, China’s capacity to directly threaten its neighbors with military action is greatly exaggerated. China continues to view Japan as its principle threat. To the extent that Washington can it should mediate disputes and support freedom of access to the global commons, but otherwise avoid involvement in disputes between China and its neighbors.
2. Russia confronts serious internal decay, institutionalized corruption and permanent threats from Islamists in the South and tension with Japan in NE Asia. However, thanks to its reactionary leadership, Russia is likely to menace the peoples of Eastern and Northern Europe for the next two decades. Like Poland in 1920, Ukraine refuses to die. Fortunately, unlike the Arabs, the Ukrainians are not asking us to fight for them. This means only a change in Moscow’s leadership can produce a reasonable territorial settlement with Kiev that acknowledges Ukraine’s independence. Until that happens, the US should support the freedom and independence of the peoples of Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States with economic and military assistance, but otherwise avoid direct military involvement.
3. In the ME Sunni and Shia are locked in a struggle that is likely to last for decades. ISIS is a critical part of this struggle. In addition, the dysfunctional character of the world’s Muslim states and societies guarantees unrelenting violence until exhaustion and conflict produce change. To the extent the US is able, the US should avoid involvement in this regional violence.
4. Today, Mexico (along with much of Central America and Venezuela) qualifies as a failed states. The flow of criminality and human traffic from Mexico into the United States presents an existential threat to the American Republic. It is vital that we commit military resources to the security of our southern borders and littoral waters.
5. Long-term, the United States must develop armed forces to deter or defeat capable opponents, not light constabulary ground and air forces designed to bludgeon hapless Arabs, Afghans and Africans.
Bottom Line: The dysfunctional societies of Latin America present the greatest security threat to the United States. In the near-term ignoring the metastasizing cancer of criminality and corruption spreading into the US from Latin America could kill the American Republic.
In the long-term we cannot predict what nation-state or alliance of nation-states may attempt to dominate the Eurasian Land Mass and the “global commons.” We can only conclude that such a development is possible in 10, 15 or 20 years and begin preparing for it now without necessarily bankrupting ourselves in the process. To do that we need institutions and leadership we currently lack in national security.
How would you reform the military so that it is best able to confront these threats?
First, today, we have a president and SECDEF that must referee four independent services with conflicting agendas. Our defense structure is simply an anachronism left over from WW II. Its principle function is to redistribute income to districts, states, politicians and industrialists, not to effectively defend the United States. We need new leadership to address this critical issue and there is none for the moment on the horizon.
Second, in the absence of a national military strategy based on a rational defense budget the various services are operating independently. Each service seeks to justify itself and subsidize itself in perpetuity avoiding any change that might alter the status quo. Without a national defense staff that has the operational responsibility and authority to assist the President, the Secretary of Defense with command of the armed forces, the development of a coherent national defense strategy and the implementation of a rational defense budget tied to real national security interests this condition will not change.
Third, there is no human capital strategy to provide a national defense staff with the talent it needs to function effectively. There is also no real human capital strategy beyond the service academies to staff the armed forces with the leadership they need. Promotions to senior rank are a hit or miss proposition depending on personalities and political preferences. Enlisted ranks are treated with abject neglect on the assumption that more qualified enlisted men will always show up to do the job. There is scant evidence to support this assumption, but it prevails inside the uniformed leadership nonetheless.
What are your thoughts about current US military operations in Iraq and Syria?
These operations are unnecessary and largely counterproductive. The forces at war in the region will eventually exhaust themselves if left alone to do so. If we continue to intervene we will lengthen and worsen the conflicts. Our involvement should be limited to assistance to Egypt and Jordan, both of whom share our broader strategic interest in ending conflict. The rest including Turkey and Iran have agendas that are antithetical to Western and Israeli interests.
Jeb Bush and others have said that the Pentagon needs more money to be able to confront the threats they perceive the US faces. Shouldn’t the US be able to defend itself with the Pentagon’s $499 billion base budget and the additional $51.9 billion Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget?
As previously mentioned, there is an abundance of resources and money, but neither the realistic thinking, the structure nor the vision to employ these resources effectively.
Many people say that OCO is being used as a “slush fund” of sorts to pay for things that should be in the Pentagon’s base budget. What are your thoughts about OCO?
OCO should be scrapped ASAP. It’s welfare for the defense industries.
Do you think that Congress and the military are doing enough to weed out wasteful spending at the Pentagon?
- See more at: http://rightondefense.org/#sthash.rmRSXFEb.dpufRight on Defense’s questions are in bold.
What
are the real threats the United States faces today and is our military,
in its current state, able to confront these threats? 1. China is too corrupt, too centrally managed, and most of its people have too little buying power for the PRC to remain economically healthy. As a result, China’s capacity to directly threaten its neighbors with military action is greatly exaggerated. China continues to view Japan as its principle threat. To the extent that Washington can it should mediate disputes and support freedom of access to the global commons, but otherwise avoid involvement in disputes between China and its neighbors.
2. Russia confronts serious internal decay, institutionalized corruption and permanent threats from Islamists in the South and tension with Japan in NE Asia. However, thanks to its reactionary leadership, Russia is likely to menace the peoples of Eastern and Northern Europe for the next two decades. Like Poland in 1920, Ukraine refuses to die. Fortunately, unlike the Arabs, the Ukrainians are not asking us to fight for them. This means only a change in Moscow’s leadership can produce a reasonable territorial settlement with Kiev that acknowledges Ukraine’s independence. Until that happens, the US should support the freedom and independence of the peoples of Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States with economic and military assistance, but otherwise avoid direct military involvement.
3. In the ME Sunni and Shia are locked in a struggle that is likely to last for decades. ISIS is a critical part of this struggle. In addition, the dysfunctional character of the world’s Muslim states and societies guarantees unrelenting violence until exhaustion and conflict produce change. To the extent the US is able, the US should avoid involvement in this regional violence.
4. Today, Mexico (along with much of Central America and Venezuela) qualifies as a failed states. The flow of criminality and human traffic from Mexico into the United States presents an existential threat to the American Republic. It is vital that we commit military resources to the security of our southern borders and littoral waters.
5. Long-term, the United States must develop armed forces to deter or defeat capable opponents, not light constabulary ground and air forces designed to bludgeon hapless Arabs, Afghans and Africans.
Bottom Line: The dysfunctional societies of Latin America present the greatest security threat to the United States. In the near-term ignoring the metastasizing cancer of criminality and corruption spreading into the US from Latin America could kill the American Republic.
In the long-term we cannot predict what nation-state or alliance of nation-states may attempt to dominate the Eurasian Land Mass and the “global commons.” We can only conclude that such a development is possible in 10, 15 or 20 years and begin preparing for it now without necessarily bankrupting ourselves in the process. To do that we need institutions and leadership we currently lack in national security.
How would you reform the military so that it is best able to confront these threats?
First, today, we have a president and SECDEF that must referee four independent services with conflicting agendas. Our defense structure is simply an anachronism left over from WW II. Its principle function is to redistribute income to districts, states, politicians and industrialists, not to effectively defend the United States. We need new leadership to address this critical issue and there is none for the moment on the horizon.
Second, in the absence of a national military strategy based on a rational defense budget the various services are operating independently. Each service seeks to justify itself and subsidize itself in perpetuity avoiding any change that might alter the status quo. Without a national defense staff that has the operational responsibility and authority to assist the President, the Secretary of Defense with command of the armed forces, the development of a coherent national defense strategy and the implementation of a rational defense budget tied to real national security interests this condition will not change.
Third, there is no human capital strategy to provide a national defense staff with the talent it needs to function effectively. There is also no real human capital strategy beyond the service academies to staff the armed forces with the leadership they need. Promotions to senior rank are a hit or miss proposition depending on personalities and political preferences. Enlisted ranks are treated with abject neglect on the assumption that more qualified enlisted men will always show up to do the job. There is scant evidence to support this assumption, but it prevails inside the uniformed leadership nonetheless.
What are your thoughts about current US military operations in Iraq and Syria?
These operations are unnecessary and largely counterproductive. The forces at war in the region will eventually exhaust themselves if left alone to do so. If we continue to intervene we will lengthen and worsen the conflicts. Our involvement should be limited to assistance to Egypt and Jordan, both of whom share our broader strategic interest in ending conflict. The rest including Turkey and Iran have agendas that are antithetical to Western and Israeli interests.
Jeb Bush and others have said that the Pentagon needs more money to be able to confront the threats they perceive the US faces. Shouldn’t the US be able to defend itself with the Pentagon’s $499 billion base budget and the additional $51.9 billion Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget?
As previously mentioned, there is an abundance of resources and money, but neither the realistic thinking, the structure nor the vision to employ these resources effectively.
Many people say that OCO is being used as a “slush fund” of sorts to pay for things that should be in the Pentagon’s base budget. What are your thoughts about OCO?
OCO should be scrapped ASAP. It’s welfare for the defense industries.
Do you think that Congress and the military are doing enough to weed out wasteful spending at the Pentagon?
February 24, 2015 by
This past weekend Right on Defense sent national security expert,
decorated combat veteran, noted author and television commentator Col. Douglas Macgregor
(Ret.) five questions about the state of the United States’ armed
forces, current US operations in Iraq and Syria, and the size of the
Pentagon’s budget. Many thanks to Col. Macgregor for responding to our
request.
Right on Defense’s questions are in bold.
What
are the real threats the United States faces today and is our military,
in its current state, able to confront these threats?
1. China is too corrupt, too centrally managed, and most of its people have too little buying power for the PRC to remain economically healthy. As a result, China’s capacity to directly threaten its neighbors with military action is greatly exaggerated. China continues to view Japan as its principle threat. To the extent that Washington can it should mediate disputes and support freedom of access to the global commons, but otherwise avoid involvement in disputes between China and its neighbors.
2. Russia confronts serious internal decay, institutionalized corruption and permanent threats from Islamists in the South and tension with Japan in NE Asia. However, thanks to its reactionary leadership, Russia is likely to menace the peoples of Eastern and Northern Europe for the next two decades. Like Poland in 1920, Ukraine refuses to die. Fortunately, unlike the Arabs, the Ukrainians are not asking us to fight for them. This means only a change in Moscow’s leadership can produce a reasonable territorial settlement with Kiev that acknowledges Ukraine’s independence. Until that happens, the US should support the freedom and independence of the peoples of Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States with economic and military assistance, but otherwise avoid direct military involvement.
3. In the ME Sunni and Shia are locked in a struggle that is likely to last for decades. ISIS is a critical part of this struggle. In addition, the dysfunctional character of the world’s Muslim states and societies guarantees unrelenting violence until exhaustion and conflict produce change. To the extent the US is able, the US should avoid involvement in this regional violence.
4. Today, Mexico (along with much of Central America and Venezuela) qualifies as a failed states. The flow of criminality and human traffic from Mexico into the United States presents an existential threat to the American Republic. It is vital that we commit military resources to the security of our southern borders and littoral waters.
5. Long-term, the United States must develop armed forces to deter or defeat capable opponents, not light constabulary ground and air forces designed to bludgeon hapless Arabs, Afghans and Africans.
Bottom Line: The dysfunctional societies of Latin America present the greatest security threat to the United States. In the near-term ignoring the metastasizing cancer of criminality and corruption spreading into the US from Latin America could kill the American Republic.
In the long-term we cannot predict what nation-state or alliance of nation-states may attempt to dominate the Eurasian Land Mass and the “global commons.” We can only conclude that such a development is possible in 10, 15 or 20 years and begin preparing for it now without necessarily bankrupting ourselves in the process. To do that we need institutions and leadership we currently lack in national security.
How would you reform the military so that it is best able to confront these threats?
First, today, we have a president and SECDEF that must referee four independent services with conflicting agendas. Our defense structure is simply an anachronism left over from WW II. Its principle function is to redistribute income to districts, states, politicians and industrialists, not to effectively defend the United States. We need new leadership to address this critical issue and there is none for the moment on the horizon.
Second, in the absence of a national military strategy based on a rational defense budget the various services are operating independently. Each service seeks to justify itself and subsidize itself in perpetuity avoiding any change that might alter the status quo. Without a national defense staff that has the operational responsibility and authority to assist the President, the Secretary of Defense with command of the armed forces, the development of a coherent national defense strategy and the implementation of a rational defense budget tied to real national security interests this condition will not change.
Third, there is no human capital strategy to provide a national defense staff with the talent it needs to function effectively. There is also no real human capital strategy beyond the service academies to staff the armed forces with the leadership they need. Promotions to senior rank are a hit or miss proposition depending on personalities and political preferences. Enlisted ranks are treated with abject neglect on the assumption that more qualified enlisted men will always show up to do the job. There is scant evidence to support this assumption, but it prevails inside the uniformed leadership nonetheless.
What are your thoughts about current US military operations in Iraq and Syria?
These operations are unnecessary and largely counterproductive. The forces at war in the region will eventually exhaust themselves if left alone to do so. If we continue to intervene we will lengthen and worsen the conflicts. Our involvement should be limited to assistance to Egypt and Jordan, both of whom share our broader strategic interest in ending conflict. The rest including Turkey and Iran have agendas that are antithetical to Western and Israeli interests.
Jeb Bush and others have said that the Pentagon needs more money to be able to confront the threats they perceive the US faces. Shouldn’t the US be able to defend itself with the Pentagon’s $499 billion base budget and the additional $51.9 billion Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget?
As previously mentioned, there is an abundance of resources and money, but neither the realistic thinking, the structure nor the vision to employ these resources effectively.
Many people say that OCO is being used as a “slush fund” of sorts to pay for things that should be in the Pentagon’s base budget. What are your thoughts about OCO?
OCO should be scrapped ASAP. It’s welfare for the defense industries.
Do you think that Congress and the military are doing enough to weed out wasteful spending at the Pentagon?
- See more at: http://rightondefense.org/#sthash.rmRSXFEb.dpufRight on Defense’s questions are in bold.
What
are the real threats the United States faces today and is our military,
in its current state, able to confront these threats? 1. China is too corrupt, too centrally managed, and most of its people have too little buying power for the PRC to remain economically healthy. As a result, China’s capacity to directly threaten its neighbors with military action is greatly exaggerated. China continues to view Japan as its principle threat. To the extent that Washington can it should mediate disputes and support freedom of access to the global commons, but otherwise avoid involvement in disputes between China and its neighbors.
2. Russia confronts serious internal decay, institutionalized corruption and permanent threats from Islamists in the South and tension with Japan in NE Asia. However, thanks to its reactionary leadership, Russia is likely to menace the peoples of Eastern and Northern Europe for the next two decades. Like Poland in 1920, Ukraine refuses to die. Fortunately, unlike the Arabs, the Ukrainians are not asking us to fight for them. This means only a change in Moscow’s leadership can produce a reasonable territorial settlement with Kiev that acknowledges Ukraine’s independence. Until that happens, the US should support the freedom and independence of the peoples of Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States with economic and military assistance, but otherwise avoid direct military involvement.
3. In the ME Sunni and Shia are locked in a struggle that is likely to last for decades. ISIS is a critical part of this struggle. In addition, the dysfunctional character of the world’s Muslim states and societies guarantees unrelenting violence until exhaustion and conflict produce change. To the extent the US is able, the US should avoid involvement in this regional violence.
4. Today, Mexico (along with much of Central America and Venezuela) qualifies as a failed states. The flow of criminality and human traffic from Mexico into the United States presents an existential threat to the American Republic. It is vital that we commit military resources to the security of our southern borders and littoral waters.
5. Long-term, the United States must develop armed forces to deter or defeat capable opponents, not light constabulary ground and air forces designed to bludgeon hapless Arabs, Afghans and Africans.
Bottom Line: The dysfunctional societies of Latin America present the greatest security threat to the United States. In the near-term ignoring the metastasizing cancer of criminality and corruption spreading into the US from Latin America could kill the American Republic.
In the long-term we cannot predict what nation-state or alliance of nation-states may attempt to dominate the Eurasian Land Mass and the “global commons.” We can only conclude that such a development is possible in 10, 15 or 20 years and begin preparing for it now without necessarily bankrupting ourselves in the process. To do that we need institutions and leadership we currently lack in national security.
How would you reform the military so that it is best able to confront these threats?
First, today, we have a president and SECDEF that must referee four independent services with conflicting agendas. Our defense structure is simply an anachronism left over from WW II. Its principle function is to redistribute income to districts, states, politicians and industrialists, not to effectively defend the United States. We need new leadership to address this critical issue and there is none for the moment on the horizon.
Second, in the absence of a national military strategy based on a rational defense budget the various services are operating independently. Each service seeks to justify itself and subsidize itself in perpetuity avoiding any change that might alter the status quo. Without a national defense staff that has the operational responsibility and authority to assist the President, the Secretary of Defense with command of the armed forces, the development of a coherent national defense strategy and the implementation of a rational defense budget tied to real national security interests this condition will not change.
Third, there is no human capital strategy to provide a national defense staff with the talent it needs to function effectively. There is also no real human capital strategy beyond the service academies to staff the armed forces with the leadership they need. Promotions to senior rank are a hit or miss proposition depending on personalities and political preferences. Enlisted ranks are treated with abject neglect on the assumption that more qualified enlisted men will always show up to do the job. There is scant evidence to support this assumption, but it prevails inside the uniformed leadership nonetheless.
What are your thoughts about current US military operations in Iraq and Syria?
These operations are unnecessary and largely counterproductive. The forces at war in the region will eventually exhaust themselves if left alone to do so. If we continue to intervene we will lengthen and worsen the conflicts. Our involvement should be limited to assistance to Egypt and Jordan, both of whom share our broader strategic interest in ending conflict. The rest including Turkey and Iran have agendas that are antithetical to Western and Israeli interests.
Jeb Bush and others have said that the Pentagon needs more money to be able to confront the threats they perceive the US faces. Shouldn’t the US be able to defend itself with the Pentagon’s $499 billion base budget and the additional $51.9 billion Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget?
As previously mentioned, there is an abundance of resources and money, but neither the realistic thinking, the structure nor the vision to employ these resources effectively.
Many people say that OCO is being used as a “slush fund” of sorts to pay for things that should be in the Pentagon’s base budget. What are your thoughts about OCO?
OCO should be scrapped ASAP. It’s welfare for the defense industries.
Do you think that Congress and the military are doing enough to weed out wasteful spending at the Pentagon?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment