Thursday, November 7, 2013

MTM Banner

Upcoming AFA Mitchell Institute Forum: The Department of Defense in an Era of Constrained Budgets: Smaller and Less Capable is Not the Only Option 

ARLINGTON, Va. – The Mitchell Institute will discuss a concept known as the Macgregor Transformation Model--an approach that promises a reduction in the overall size of the Department of Defense; a substantial reduction in operating costs; and an increase in combat capability. 

WHO: Retired Navy Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, retired Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula, and retired Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor. 

WHAT: Discussion of operational innovation in a constrained budget environment.  

WHY: As sequestration erodes military readiness, eliminates weapon systems, and reduces personnel, the Services need to consider organizational change.  Preserving the status quo with fewer assets will result in significantly reduced combat capability - a risky proposition given the burgeoning array of challenges America faces around the globe. Our panel will discuss an alternate path forward through the lens of the Macgregor Transformation Model (MTM) - an approach that allows for a reduction in the overall size of the Department of Defense; affords a substantial reduction in operating costs; and yields an increase in combat capability.
 
WHEN: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.  

WHERE: Capitol Hill Club      300 First St SE      Washington, D.C. 20003  
All Mitchell Hours are free to the public.

To register for this event, please go to http://19novembermitchellhour.eventbrite.com/. For additional information, contact Doug Birkey at dbirkey@afa.org or 703-247-5804.  

ABOUT THE MITCHELL INSTITUTE FOR AIRPOWER STUDIES: The Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies is an independent, non-profit research, studies, and analysis organization founded by the Air Force Association. It takes its name from America’s most famous and arguably greatest airman, Brig. Gen. William Mitchell. The Institute seeks to carry on, in the modern day, General Mitchell’s tireless and dedicated effort to expand airpower thinking and increase public awareness of the need for this unique military instrument. For more information, visit http://www.afa.org/mitchellinstitute.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Special Conference 19 November 2013

The Macgregor Transformation Model (MTM) is growing in support on Capital Hill as well as the top ranks of our military as a way to construct a better U.S. military force despite the necessary cuts to balance America's federal budget. MTM is a way forward through the defense down-cycle so excellence is improved on regardless of whether budgets are up or down--creating efficiencies by smart reorganization and force structure can be design not cost-driven.


Learn more about MTM by attending a special conference at the Capital Hill Club, on 19 November, from 0800 to 0900!

Print Press and TV/internet Journalists are Welcome!

For more details email us:

NSA Snooping



October 31, 2013 - 07:20 PM

By George Jackson 

Macgregor interview October 29, 2013

The White House has been in hot water over more leaked NSA reports indicating the U.S. spied on foreign allies. A Wall Street Journal report says President Obama didn't know about the size and scope of the surveillance programs.

Col. Douglas Macgregor (U.S. Army, ret.), executive vice president of the Burke-Macgregor Group, discussed that and other topics with Capital Insider.


Monday, October 21, 2013

Upcoming Events -- November 12, 2013

Upcoming Events

EPS Bernard L. Schwartz Symposium:
Jobs, Investment, and Rebuilding America: Economic and National Security Issues

November 12, 2013
Hyatt Regency Washington on Captiol Hill
While Congress fiddles, America burns. Jobs remain scarce, foreclosures rampant, mortgages under water, pensions fragile, wages too low. Our infrastructure remains in decay. And we are still not meeting the economic or national security challenges that we have inherited from a decade of frustrating global failures. On Tuesday, November 12, Economists for Peace and Security will present a symposium on these issues – and why they should trump today's disastrous preoccupations with budget balance, spending cuts, sequestration and the debt ceiling.

The symposium’s keynote address will be delivered by Dr. Jason Furman, Chair, Council of Economic Advisers. There will be three panels, with participation from many of America's most distinguished policy economists, journalists, and security specialists.

Please join us for this important symposium. To register for this free event, email registration@epsusa.org.
Schedule of Events:
8:30am Registration & Breakfast

9:00am Welcoming Remarks
  • James K. Galbraith, Economists for Peace and Security

9:15 – 10:05 Session One - A Jobs-Investment-Security Agenda
Chair: Michael Lind
  • Allen Sinai,  Economic Performance in Perspective
  • Michael Tomasky, the State of the Middle Class Now
  • Sherle Schwenninger,  Jobs and Investment
  • Ron Unz, Raising the Minimum Wage
Comments by Greg Ip (invited)
10:05 – 10:45 Keynote:
  • Jason Furman, Chair, Council of Economic Advisers

10:45 – 11:35 Session Two - US Security Policy After Syria
Chair:  Richard Kaufman
  • Heather Hurlburt, The Implications of the Syrian Bargain
  • Winslow Wheeler,  An Unaffordable Defense Budget
  • Peter Galbraith, Lessons for Future Diplomacy
  • Carl Conetta,  US Grand Strategy Now
  • Colonel Douglas MacGregor,  The Uses of the Military in the World Now

11:35 – 12:25 Session Three:  The Economic and Financial Risks and Dangers 
Chair: Richard Parker
  • Stan Collender,  The Budget and Spending Cuts
  • Bill Black, Out-of-Control Banks and Non-Regulation
  • Bruce Bartlett, Tax Reform
  • Josh Bivens,  Wages and Incomes  (invited)
  • Yanis Varoufakis,  Europe
Comments by David Leonhardt (invited)

12:25 – 12:30
Closing Comments:  James Galbraith
This event is free, please register in advance.
To register for this event email registration@epsusa.org.

Monday, September 16, 2013

MARCHING INTO UNCERTAIN FUTURE REQUIRES LEADERSHIP

 

By DOUGLAS MACGREGOR SPECIAL TO THE U-T 12:01 a.m. Sept. 15, 2013
 
President Barack Obama’s plea to bomb Syria fell on deaf ears. In 1975, it was “No more Vietnams.” Today, it’s “No more Iraqs.”
The American public attitude is reinforced by the absence of an existential military threat to the United States and the demand for jobs and economic growth instead of military spending. Moreover, for the first time in decades, the public pressure on American political and military leaders to formulate strategic aims worth fighting and dying for before American blood and treasure are sacrificed is enormous and growing.
Regrettably, the growing demand for a new and less belligerent foreign policy has not been matched by coherent strategic guidance from the president and the secretary of defense to the military. As a result, the U.S. armed forces are adrift, floating on a sea of strategic uncertainty.
In the absence of a viable national military strategy and vision from above, the service chiefs are left to figure things out on their own. Most of the time, they are focused on retaining dwindling World War II/Cold War “capabilities” — Marine amphibious forces, Army airborne forces, and increasingly vulnerable surface combatants like the littoral combat ship along with dubious forward presence missions that change nothing of importance ashore.
Cultivating long-term, integrative warfighting structures with vital capabilities the nation will need for the future, let alone the human capital to support them, is a very distant fourth or fifth in priority.
Sadly, Chuck Hagel, the secretary of defense, has failed to provide the leadership the armed forces need to ensure Americans master the future, not relive the past. Instead, Hagel has been cast by the four-stars in the Pentagon in the role of the man on the register at the end of the checkout line in the supermarket; he takes 5 percent off whatever comes down the conveyor belt.
Savvy investors hedge their positions against unpredictable market movement, but there is no evidence to date that Hagel is searching for a range of possible hedges to mitigate the obvious decline in American economic and military power. Making the individual services smaller isn’t change. It’s disastrous, but nobody inside the Washington, D.C., beltway including Hagel seems capable of making the hard choices when the pain occurs on their watch.
Hagel, of course, is not unique. Washington’s top executives (military, government or civilian) reach the top because they were repeatedly chosen by others who put loyalty to the system and conformity to the status quo above competence, imagination and creativity.
The National Defense Panel exemplifies the problem. They, too, are a group of “safe hands,” people chosen for their readiness to preserve, not to change the status quo.
So the defense mess is not entirely Hagel’s fault. Inside a society where Americans are brainwashed into believing that everyone, everywhere is the same, that in Stanley Kubrick’s words from “Full Metal Jacket,” “Inside every Vietnamese is an American waiting to get out,” facts seldom matter. Perhaps, this is why the American public only recently turned against the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, constraining Washington’s self-absorbed interventionists — Obama, McCain, Graham, Kerry and a host of others — from dragging us into Syria
With the exception of those Americans whose jobs inside the defense industry are at stake, very few politicians of either party are interested in what kinds of military forces emerge from the defense cuts or who mans the forces American taxes support. And why should they care?
Demi Moore has conclusively proven that women can do everything men can do, and gender is, in Marxist terms, simply an “artificial construct.” Drones obviate the need for the lethality that springs from disciplined, physically and psychologically hardened men inside highly trained combat units that kill effectively. For the moment, Hollywood has won the argument and anyone who dares to disagree on the basis of documented combat experience is dismissed out of hand as a misogynous dinosaur. Emotion trumps reason at every turn.
Tragically, the only antidote to Washington’s shameless self-interest, self-deluding behavior and unbridled emotion is future war against a capable enemy with the ability to destroy us, something we have not seen since Korea in 1953, a war Americans in or out of uniform did not want or expect to fight. Whether we survive it is an open question. Until then, in Saul Bellow’s words, “A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”
U.S. Army Col. (Ret.) Douglas Macgregor is a decorated combat veteran, Ph.D., author and executive vice president of Burke-Macgregor Group in Reston, Va.
 

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

The US military is preparing for the wrong future

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/us-military-preparing-for-wrong-future


When it comes to military reform, China appears to be doing it a lot better than the United States



US army 1LT Matthew Hernandez looks down the Korengal Valley from a mountaintop outpost 24 October 2008 in the Kunar Province of eastern Afghanistan. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images
 

In the years after World War I, British military strategist Captain B H Liddell Hart advocated a new fighting concept that solved the problem of the static, set-piece nature of that conflict that resulted in the pointlessly slaughter of millions. He advocated for a force of coordinated armored, infantry, and air power fighting in mobile formations, operating under the "indirect method".

Unfortunately, key leaders in London and Paris rejected his theories because they had "won" the Great War and didn't feel the need to change. Less than two decades later, a combined British and French field army would be swept off the continent and into the English Channel in a lightning war by a German army that had listened to and incorporated some of Captain Liddell Hart's key concepts. Unless significant changes are made, the modern-day US army could be half-way to suffering a similar fate.

In an article published today by the Armed Forces Journal in Washington DC, I argue that the US army's generals, as a group, have lost the ability to effectively function at the high level required of those upon whom we place the responsibility for safeguarding our nation. Titled "Purge the Generals: What it will take to fix the army", the article details how our senior military leaders have amassed an unprecedented record of failure in major organizational, acquisition and strategic efforts over the past 20 years. 

The worst part is that senior leaders are likely to repeat the mistakes of the past by readying the US army for the wrong future; one in which the US could suffer an otherwise avoidable military defeat.

The global strategic situation has undergone considerable change in the past five years. Beginning in late 2007, the US economy suffered its most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression; recovery has been slow in coming and tepid since its arrival. With the conclusion of the eight year war in Iraq and the sun setting on the 12 year bleed in Afghanistan, the US is being forced to reduce both domestic and defense budgets. Whether anyone wants to scale back the armed forces or not, reductions are coming. The question, then, is how those cuts are to be made.

According to the 8 July edition of the Army Times, senior leaders have announced they will reduce the US army from the current level of approximately 535,000 down to 490,000. The unequivocal result: a smaller and less capable army. Many military leaders warn that these cuts will have a hollowing effect "putting our national security at risk", (pdf) as General Odierno told a Congressional panel in February 2013, and imply there are no other alternatives.

That is not correct. 

In 1997, then-lieutenant colonel Douglas A Macgregor published Breaking the Phalanx: a New Design for Landpower in the 21st Century describing a military transformation that would result in a smaller, less expensive force which would produce greater combat capability than the larger formations it would replace. Unfortunately, US officials rejected those new ideas, opting instead for incremental changes, which left the field army little changed from the version that won Desert Storm in 1991. One nation, however, did not reject Macgregor's ideas.

In 1999 two colonels from the Chinese people's liberation army (PLA) published a strategic analysis called Unrestricted Warfare. In this essay, they discussed the changing military environment and ways China could modernize its force for future war. Regarding force design and operating methods, they wrote: "In his book, 'Break the [Phalanx] (sic),' [Macgregor] advocated simultaneously abandoning the systems of divisions and brigades and replacing them with … battle groups of about 5,000 men each… [The book recommends the adoption of] building-block methods according to wartime needs and put into practice mission-style group organization." 

These views apparently heavily influenced PLA modernization theories, as one year later Breaking the Phalanx was translated into Chinese. A decade after that, the US army's Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) reported the PLA had incorporated many of Macgregor's concepts. In the SSI's 2011 study Chinese Lessons from Other People's Wars (pdf), the author noted 

The PLA entered the 21st century in the midst of a transformation from essentially an infantry based force into one designed around combined arms mech­anized operations. A decade into the new century, the PLA is redesigning its forces into battle groups, using modular force structures and logistics to sup­port operations in high altitude and complex terrains, conduct out of area operations, and develop the core for its vision of a hardened and network-centric army.

Macgregor has recently updated his concept to account for the past decade of US war experience. Whereas current army plans call for reducing the force to 490,000, the Macgregor Transformation Model (MTM) can produce an army with as few as 420,000 troops that actually has greater combat power than the force of 535,000 had before the reduction, but cost more than $10bn a year less. The MTM would also produce a more strategically responsive army, and perhaps most importantly, could be sustained at this high level of performance even in the era of constrained budgets. The US military leaders continue to reject MTM, while the Chinese have embraced it and are years into the transformation.

Before the United States shares a fate with 1940 Great Britain and falls victim to an ignored reformer's ideas, we must reorganize the US army into a stronger force while there is yet time. Logic affirms the reasonableness of such action. Budgets demand it.

The opinions expressed here are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the US Army.