Trump has to clean the Department of Defense and his staff

September 25, 2018
Michal Krupa

Trump needs to purge and remove senior commanders from the Department of Defense, and most key figures from his personnel responsible for national security. If he did, he could replace them with people who are really loyal and support the strategic agenda of President Trump, expounded during the presidency campaign - underlines with the portal Kresy.pl, Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel in the United States army, military planner, author and deputy head of the company consulting company Burke-Macgregor, LLC.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl):

During the meeting in the White House, Polish President Andrzej Duda suggested that the United States should consider establishing a permanent base in Poland, which he called "Fort Trump". President Trump even pointed out that the Polish side would be willing to pay billions of dollars to achieve this goal. Many Poles are very critical of such an idea. Last year, General Sławomir Wojciechowski called the idea of creating permanent American bases in Poland "nonsense". He pointed out that it is not in the interest of Poland and the West to escalate tension with Russia. As a former military commander, how do you perceive the concept of an enlarged and permanent US presence in Eastern Europe?

Douglas Macgregor:

The problem with imitating what has been done in Germany during the Cold War is that the way the war was conducted has fundamentally changed. Large garrisons full of US troops will be attacked by precisely guided ground-to-surface missiles in the first minutes of the Russian attack. Personally, I think that all current and future bases in Europe should be transformed into advanced operational bases. They would be manned by a small number of American soldiers and airmen, and American forces routinely should routinely use them for the rapid deployment of forces as part of the exercise. My recommendation on this matter is included on  breakingdefense.com .

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl): 

Did the sentence of Senator Richard Lugar, who claimed that after the end of the Cold War of NATO, should either "go beyond its borders or withdraw from business" is a sufficient justification for the Alliance's continued existence? It seems that the Alliance is really looking for a new mission for itself.

Douglas Macgregor:

No. When the interests justifying the existence of an alliance change or cease to exist, then the alliance is falling apart. I referred to this problem in my latest book , Margin of Victory . The problem with NATO is that not everyone shares the views of the American and Polish views on the Russian threat to Central and Eastern Europe. For example, Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece see Russia as a potential ally in a potential future war with Islamist Turkey, which remains a NATO member. Italy, Spain, Portugal and France focus on their interests in North Africa and not in Central and Eastern Europe. The British armed forces are too small to make anything significant. Norway and Denmark are concentrated in a comprehensive manner in the North Sea and in the area between Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. Thus, a new security system must be created that will take into account the security interests of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Germany and the Czech Republic, and will replace NATO. The independence of Ukraine is a permanent strategic goal for these countries, as well as for the United States. Washington can support this more promising strategy, but the president must take the initiative. Washington is suffering from bureaucratic sclerosis and is sticking to the Cold War past.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl): 

In a recent lecture you mentioned that the United States was able to win World War II with fewer four-star generals and more soldiers, while today the armed forces have fewer soldiers and more four-star generals. Do you think that this is the result of a more interventionist foreign policy, or rather a highly careerist and bureaucratic culture prevailing in the Pentagon?

Douglas Macgregor:

You are right. US armed forces are at the end of a long period of bureaucratic expansion, caused by conflicts with weak opponents in marginal areas, without strategic importance for Americans, which also resulted in unreasonably high spending on the old structure from World War II. Worse, the unspecified and endless nature of military operations destroyed responsibility in the ranks of senior officers. This period is just about to end. However, the huge expansion of the administration, which has progressed during the Cold War and in the last 27 years, remains a ballast. Reducing the number of four-star generals and admirals (currently 38) is key to restoring professionalism and unity of command / unity of effort. A more reasonable number would be at most 10 or 12, assuming we would also reduce the number of regional combat commands. It should be remembered that in 1943, when we had 8.2 million people in the army and in the military corps, we had only four four-star generals: Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower and Arnold.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl): 

Is the current US national security strategy right to label China and Russia as "competitors"?

Douglas Macgregor:

Yes. It's best to use the term competitor because conflict is never inevitable. As President Trump argues, there are common areas to be explored and, if possible, used for cooperation. Our strategic interest is to prevent the emergence of an alliance that could potentially dominate the Eurasian area.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl):

We see that some in Trump's administration are pushing for a more hostile attitude towards Iran. Is this approach in the interest of the United States?

Douglas Macgregor:

The idea of provoking a war with Iran is stupid and unnecessary. Iran is not a serious threat to the United States, and because of the nature of society and culture, Iran has the potential to become a strategic partner. A more serious potential enemy in the Middle East is Islamist Turkey. The Sunni Turks have a long history of conflict with the West and a strong war tradition, unlike in Iran.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl):

Many US authors and commentators say US policy in Syria is a direct result of the great influence of Israeli and Saudi lobbyists in Washington. Do you agree with this statement? Is this the right assessment?

Douglas Macgregor:

Yes. There is enormous pressure on Washington by both states to make their enemies also enemies of America. This is not a new problem. Great Britain managed to make enemies of America from Germany and Austria in 1917. The Americans later regretted this and removed Woodrow Wilson and Democrats from power after the First World War. Fortunately, so far, President Trump rightly resisted the pressure to start a conflict with Iran on behalf of the two countries.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl): 

How do you assess President Trump's foreign policy after almost two years of office and in the light of a recent article in the New York Times by an official who claims to be part of a Trump administration group that undermines the president's agenda, for example in striving for detente with Russia? Can we expect dramatic changes in politics and / or staff after the supplementary elections in November?

Douglas Macgregor:

Most of all, we can expect changes. Of course, for the change to take place, President Trump has to purge and remove senior commanders from the Department of Defense and most key figures from his personnel responsible for national security. If he did, he could replace them with people who are truly loyal and support the strategic agenda of President Trump during the presidency campaign. This is the only way to regain control over your agenda and to effectively rule.

Thank you for the conversation.

Interviewed by Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl)

Translated from:
https://kresy.pl/publicystyka/trump-musi-oczyscic-departament-obrony-i-swoj-personel/

Mr. President, Leave Syria

BreakingDefense.com
September 24, 2018

No one knows precisely what happened inside the White House that resulted in President Trump’s sudden about-face on Syria. One day he was planning to extricate American ground troops from Syria; then he wasn't. Regardless, whoever is urging the president to leave a small contingent of 2,000 lightly armed soldiers and Marines in a remote corner of Syria is doing the president and the nation a grave disservice.  

 By DOUG MACGREGOR

No one knows precisely what happened inside the White House that resulted in President Trump’s sudden about-face on Syria. One day he was planning to extricate American ground troops from Syria; then he wasn’t. Regardless, whoever is urging the president to leave a small contingent of 2,000 lightly armed soldiers and Marines in a remote corner of Syria is doing the president and the nation a grave disservice.

President Ronald Reagan committed 2,400 Marines to Beirut, Lebanon as part of an international peacekeeping mission on the advice of his Secretary of State George Schultz. Then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger opposed the mission as open-ended and with no reasonable chance of success, but Reagan followed Schultz’s recommendation.

As Weinberger warned, the small U.S. military presence had no strategic impact on the escalating violence in Beirut. The Marines operated under ludicrous rules of engagement that prohibited them from firing their weapons unless they were taken under direct fire and, even then, only with a weapon similar to the one used against them. In short order, the escalating violence confined the lightly equipped Marine infantrymen to their compound.

At 6:20 a.m. on October 23, 1983 the mission changed. A suicide bomber drove a truck into the Marine compound and detonated a bomb producing a blast equal to 12,000 pounds of dynamite. The blast destroyed the building and killed 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers.

Weinberger was furious and frustrated. When Reagan called him to the White House, Weinberger summed up the position of the Marines to the president in very succinct terms: “They’re in a position of extraordinary danger. They have no mission. They have no capability of carrying out a mission, and they’re terribly vulnerable.”

According to Weinberger, President Reagan said, “Yes, Cap. You were right. I was wrong. Now, we’ve got to get our men out of there.” Despite the usual push back with bluster and bravado—“Americans don’t cut and run,” and “Marines never quit”—from the usual suspects inside the Beltway who’ve never pulled a trigger in battle in their lives, Reagan withdrew the Marines.

As the White House wrestles with the Washington Swamp — a growing group of interventionists inside and outside of the White House—President Trump should consider adopting one of two courses of action in Syria. 

1.    Transform the weak U.S. military presence in Syria into a more capable and survivable force of at least 5,000 U.S. troops including tanks, tracked armored fighting vehicles, self-propelled artillery and air defense forces.

2.    Withdraw the force of 2,000-plus light troops currently on the ground in Syria.

Keep in mind, that option one is — at best — a stop-gap measure to protect American lives and nothing more. Short of a massive American military intervention on the scale of Desert Storm, Washington’s actions will make no impact on Syria. Nothing Washington does in Syria will change the reality that Israel is involved in a permanent state-of-undeclared-war with Iran, Iran’s proxies and, increasingly, Islamist Turkey. Moscow comprehends this reality and has acknowledged Israel’s National Security Interests. As a result, Moscow has both warned off Iran and stood aside while Israel has launched more than 200 strikes against Iranian targets in Syria over the last 18 months.

Moscow’s readiness to act decisively against Islamists of all strikes is a good thing, but given Turkey’s defection to the anti-Western/anti-Israeli camp, there will always be a stray Sunni Islamist element present in the region to justify prolonging American military engagement. But staying in the region to chase the residue of ISIS and al Qaeda is pointless. Turkey and the regional Arab states will allow the few surviving Islamist fighters to escape and disperse rather than let them be destroyed.

President Trump should follow his gut instinct and disengage American forces from Syria. President Putin promised to end the Syrian Civil War with the “total annihilation of terrorists in Syria.” President Trump should let him keep his promise.

As President Reagan discovered the hard way in 1983, open-ended peacekeeping or peace enforcement missions are halfway houses that appeal to dithering politicians, but such policies do not ignite passion or commitment among Americans. American voters dislike imprecise and indefinite policies that put American lives at risk casually. According to the latest polls, 62 percent of Americans oppose military intervention in Syria.

After 1991, Washington was stupid and embraced the Neocons’ unipolar moment. As President Trump routinely reminds his supporters, the outcome was a series of strategic disasters for the American people. If the president’s four star generals have not figured it out, at least the American people have concluded that using American military power to breathe new life into the comatose body of the perpetually failed states that litter the Eastern hemisphere is a huge waste of time.

Option two is the right course of action. It’s the option President Trump’s base voted for in 2016.

Extricating American soldiers and Marines from volatile quagmires like Syria (and Afghanistan) will only intensify the president’s popular appeal in the midterms when his base must mobilize and vote to support for the America First agenda in Congress.

Doug Macgregor, a member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors  is a decorated combat veteran, PhD and the author of five books. His latest is Margin of Victory from Naval Institute Press, 2016.

"President Trump's New Pax Americana" - Col. Douglas Macgregor Speaks at RPI Media & War Conference

Do we have any reason at all to hope for a less militaristic foreign policy under President Trump? Col. Macgregor has seen war up close and he's had enough of the US empire. In his Media & War speech he offers a way out of the neocon militarism that dominates Washington.

https://youtu.be/gLHjPUHXevE

Could the Army Lose a War to Russia or China?

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/could-army-lose-war-russia-or-china-30732

 

A great power war would not be easy for Washington to wage. Here is why. 

 

The new Russian battalions “are characterized as highly integrated, extremely powerful, and exceptionally mobile,” the authors explained, noting they were composed of “of a tank company, three mechanized infantry companies, an anti-tank company, two to three batteries of artillery (self-propelled guns and multiple launch rocket), and two air defense batteries.” Chinese ground forces, likewise, have reformed their formations and upgraded their warfighting doctrine.

 

On February 7, Vice Chief of Staff for the Army Gen. Daniel Allyn stated that only three of fifty-eight combat brigades in the U.S. Army were sufficiently trained for wartime deployment, blaming the condition on sequestration. It is not the lack of money, however, that is behind the army’s inability to maintain ready forces. Rather, it is the obsolete force structure the army has maintained since World War II. Fortunately, modern thinking and a new organization for the army could reverse this trend—without requiring an increase in the budget.

 

(This first appeared last year.)

 

Just four years earlier, then Army chief of staff Gen. Ray Odierno claimed that the United States only had two trained army brigades, also blaming the lack of readiness on sequestration. The army is by no means under a cash crunch with an annual budget of $148 billion.

 

It is more, by itself, than the entire defense budgets for Russia, Germany and Japan combined. Sequestration is not what is making the U.S. Army inadequately ready. It is how the money is spent and the way the service is organized that makes the difference. Russia and China have both recognized the changing nature of war and have abandoned the formations born during World War II. Their armies have materially improved as a result.

 

Beginning in 2010, Russia’s ground forces began eliminating the division structure it had used since the battle of Stalingrad in favor of smaller, more lethal combined arms formations. An analysis of Russia’s reformation in the U.S. Army’s Infantry magazine last year warned that “in Eastern Europe, Russia has been employing an emergent version of hybrid warfare that is highly integrated, synchronized, and devastatingly effective.”

 

The new Russian battalions “are characterized as highly integrated, extremely powerful, and exceptionally mobile,” the authors explained, noting they were composed of “of a tank company, three mechanized infantry companies, an anti-tank company, two to three batteries of artillery (self-propelled guns and multiple launch rocket), and two air defense batteries.” Chinese ground forces, likewise, have reformed their formations and upgraded their warfighting doctrine.

 

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) ground forces began reorganizing their main fighting formations more than a decade ago to take advantage of advances in the technology of war. They moved away from masses of infantry troops to armored, mobile all-arms formations. Like the Russians, they are mostly eliminating the division structure in preference for smaller, more lethal and survivable brigade combat groups. The Department of Defense (DoD) soberly recognizes these trends and their potential implications.

 

Recommended: What Will the Sixth-Generation Jet Fighter Look Like?

Recommended: Imagine a U.S. Air Force That Never Built the B-52 Bomber

Recommended: Russia's Next Big Military Sale - To Mexico?

 

Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. ground forces still retained a robust conventional training focus and had a clear ground advantage over Russia and China. In the years since, however, a reorientation on becoming masters of counterinsurgency tactics has resulted in a significant deterioration in conventional fighting skills. More importantly, the United States lost a decade when it could have modernized, reorganized, and improved the army. The advantage America once had over Russia and China has been eroded. If changes are not made, the U.S. Army could soon fall behind them. Fortunately, there is help on the horizon.

 

In 2015, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) established The National Commission on the Future of the Army and charged them by 2016 to make an assessment of the size and force structure of the future army. One of its key recommendations was that “Congress should require the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff to oversee the modeling of alternative Army design and operational concepts—including the Reconnaissance Strike Group (RSG).” The RSG is an element of a larger army-wide transformation model designed by retired U.S. Army Col. Douglas Macgregor.

 

The RSG is a six-thousand-person all-arms, all-effects battle group that is “designed to lead change by exploiting new, but proven technologies in a joint, integrated operational context,” according to Macgregor’s online briefing. The Senate Armed Services Committee adopted the recommendation of the Army Commission and the 2017 NDAA ordered the creation of an RSG Office to model and assess the effectiveness of the new construct.

 

The RSG is organized within a comprehensive operational construct that synthesizes maneuver, strike, ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) and sustainment capabilities. Unlike current army formations, the RSG is a self-contained organization that is an all-arms, mobile armored combat formation commanded by a one-star general that has substantial striking power and greater survivability than current force units.