Recon Strike Group 1792

The Little Army That Won Big

In 1792 President George Washington and Secretary of War Henry Knox invented a new kind of army to fight Indians in the west.  They called it the Legion of the United States. 

by Brandon Quintin

http://douglasmacgregor.com/072MHQP181000LEGIONARC.pdf

Donald Trump Meets the End of the Empire

Trump knows that the American Empire is crumbling. What is he going to do about it?

NationalInterest.org
October 24, 2018
 by Douglas Macgregor

Last week, President Donald Trump directed his cabinet secretaries to cut 5 percent from their budgets for the next fiscal year, signaling a potential a 2.2 percent cut in defense spending. Trump specifically mentioned the defense budget saying, “I made deals with the devil in order to get that done because we had to improve our military. Our military was depleted. It was in bad shape.”

Translation: Get ready. “America first” in foreign and defense policy is about to begin. Defense cuts are on the way.

The cuts aren’t coming as the result of a dispassionate Eisenhower-style strategic defense review or because current defense funds are being squandered on equipment and forces we don’t need. They are coming because the international system has changed and the U.S. government is sliding deeper into debt .
The British waited until 1946 when their debt to GDP ratio reached 256 percent to admit that the Empire was a liability , not an asset; an illusion of power mortgaged to national vanity. Trump is smarter. He knows the American Empire is over.

In Asia, the two Korean States are disarming the Joint Security Area (JSA) in the Demilitarized Zone that separates North Korea from the Republic of Korea (South Korea). In fact, Seoul announced on October 23 that the two Koreas will cooperate in rolling out “practical measures” for denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, cease all exercises aimed at each other, and establish a no-fly zone on both sides of the border as of November 1. Meanwhile, Seoul has declined to accede to Washington’s demand that Seoul increase its contribution of 960 billion won (USD $846 million) to the cost of stationing U.S. forces on the peninsula by 50 percent.

Last week in Singapore, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) plus ASEAN’s eight Partners including Japan, Australia, India, New Zealand, Russia and the Republic of Korea held wide-ranging discussions. South Korean defense minister Jeong Kyeong-doo and his Chinese counterpart, Wei Fenghe, agreed to set up additional hotlines between their respective air forces. Japanese defense minister Takeshi Iwaya and his Chinese counterpart also agreed to build closer relations between their countries’ defense ministries. During the talks, the Japanese defense chief reportedly urged China to refrain from changing the status quo in the South China Sea.

On the economic front, President Moon Jae-in’s spokesman says Seoul doesn’t require the United States’ approval before lifting its sanctions on North Korea. In Tokyo, concerns about Beijing’s maritime assertiveness persist, but China is Japan’s biggest trading partner. It’s no surprise that Japan is working to create a China-Japan-South Korea free-trade pact .

In Asia, the more deeply the constellation of Asian economic and security interests is studied, the more dated and superfluous the U.S. regional military presence turns out to be. Beijing wants to secure its position as a global power, but Beijing is scrupulously avoiding conflict with its Asian neighbors in favor of doing business with them instead.

The argument for a large and intrusive American military presence in Asia does not hold up to closer scrutiny. The pursuit of security and dollar savings in national defense dictates the withdrawal of U.S. Forces from the Korean Peninsula and Japan. Frankly, President Trump knew this to be true from his first meeting with Chinese president Xi Jinping.

Of course, the pursuit of savings and security will not end with the inevitable withdrawals from Asia. Afghanistan and other commitments are on the list for liquidation.

The lines that separate the allegedly “legitimate” Afghan political leaders, the Taliban they claim to be fighting, and the drug lords are hopelessly blurred. Removing U.S. forces and the contractors that support them will not only save the United States roughly $60 billion a year , the regional powers—Iran, Russia, Pakistan and India—that surround Afghanistan will be compelled to take ownership of a region they’ve helped to destabilize. That, too, is in Washington’s interest.

In the Near East, Erdogan’s clandestine assistance to the Islamic State in the early stages of development combined with the massive arrests and imprisonment of any real or potential political rivals—Kemalist secularists, pro-Western Turks, Kurdish nationalists, or Christian missionaries—should have already precipitated the evacuation of all U.S. forces from Turkish soil. However, Erdogan’s readiness to work with Iran to counter Saudi Arabia and Israel, with Russia to obstruct the United States, and with Muslim criminal cartels in the Balkans to undermine European stability now makes the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Turkey imperative.

America’s senior military leaders will fight these developments and any decision that President Trump makes to eliminate gratuitous overseas military garrisons. When it comes to sharp turns in strategy or decisions about how to organize the American Military for a new warfighting paradigm, let alone a new world, senior military leaders always prefer to “wait and see.”

Still, President Trump’s instincts on national military strategy are correct. Whether the generals and admirals like it or not, the U.S. Armed Forces will be compelled to reorganize and “right-size” for the United States’ real security needs without the inefficiencies and massive overhead in the current force structure. Future withdrawals from overseas garrisons will facilitate this process.

Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor is a decorated combat veteran, a PhD, and the author of five books. His latest is Margin of Victory , Naval Institute Press, 2016.

The Hard Question with BQ

IS THIS THE OCTOBER SURPRISE? | Colonel Douglas Macgregor, John Gizzi, and David Pietrusza

https://soundcloud.com/thehardquestion/1843bq3

The Only Way Donald Trump can Truly Put America First

If the last two decades have taught the American people anything, conflict anywhere in the world is by no means a threat to peace everywhere. We must reorder our priorities if America’s national interests are going to be advanced.

by Douglas Macgregor

Intentionally or not, President Donald Trump filled many of his top national security and foreign-policy positions with Neo-Wilsonian, Bush-Obama era Liberal Interventionists; an action that became a source of endless frustration for the president. On issues ranging from preventing transgender people from serving in the armed forces to disengaging U.S. forces from Afghanistan and Syria, Trump’s own national-security team has actively obstructed the president’s defense- and foreign-policy agenda.

President Trump always wanted to disengage U.S. forces from overseas commitments that in his view had no direct relation to American national security. Trump also rejected the alleged permanence of the postwar liberal order; an order that was dissolving when Clinton was in office. Instead, Trump sought to enhance American influence with economic strength by focusing on trade, job creation; enforcing the rule of law, immigration and border security.

On the economic front, President Trump broke through the opposition, reinvigorated America’s stagnant economy and began changing the Cold War trade arrangements that favored foreign competitors and harmed American workers and businesses for decades. In Northeast Asia, he has defused the Korean Conflict and at this point it appears that the Korean Peninsula will no longer figure prominently in the U.S. national military strategy.

However, President Trump’s attempt to secure American borders, especially America’s southern border has met with failure. The failure is tragic because violence inside Mexico has reached horrific dimensions.

The rule of law has collapsed. Mexicans of all ages are being killed so frequently that the number of homicides in 2018 will likely exceed last year’s total of 29,168. According to Mexican authorities, drug-trafficking gangs pay around 1.27 billion pesos (some $100 million) a month in bribes to municipal police officers nationwide.

To this depressing picture must be added the growing connections between Mexican drug cartels like Los Zetas and Islamist terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda making Mexico’s use of the United States as a relief valve for its poor and discontented masses extremely dangerous.

Criminal elements in Mexico are equipped with the latest surveillance and communications technology. They can easily maneuver to locations along the border where the U.S. police presence is minimal or non-existent. Adding more police to the thousands already on the border won’t help. Worst of all, in any future war the metastasizing nexus of criminality and terrorism south of the Rio Grande will create a second front for U.S. forces.

Given the sophisticated threat, the only way to effectively secure America’s border with Mexico is to commit the regular army to patrol and defend all but the legal crossing points with a mix of air and ground forces, at least until an effective barrier system is in place. In addition, Washington and Mexico City should consider combined military action inside Mexico against transnational criminal organizations for the benefit of both nations.

So why have neither the Secretary of Defense nor the Joint Chiefs urged such action? One reason may be the American military’s oppressive atmosphere of political correctness; a climate in which strategic discourse is constrained by fear of being called a bigot or racist for suggesting action to secure America’s borders.

There are other reasons. Defending America’s borders, a mission the regular Army performed for over one hundred years between 1846 and 1948, isn’t likely to justify more manpower or force structure. As a result, the border mission does not appeal to serving officers the way it appealed to Patton, Eisenhower, Truscott, Harmon and practically every Army general officer who fought in World War II.

Clinging to the Cold War past is far more attractive. In fact, active and retired Army four-star generals have registered their indignation at the president’s actions to alter the U.S. military’s overseas presence, an expensive legacy of the Cold War security system.

Gen. Robert Abrams, the Army four-star nominated to be the next U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) commander, recently criticized President Trump’s decision to suspend joint military exercises between the United States and the Republic of Korea. He has argued that President Trump’s decision is undermining combat readiness by creating an ostensibly unwanted atmosphere of détente. In 2017, retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey went even further by insisting that President Trump was a “serious threat to U.S. national security.”

Coming from the leader of the failed war on drugs McCaffrey’s statement is rich, but his comments and those of Abrams speak volumes. Thinking and behavior of this kind is harmful because it skews the way senior officers in the armed forces think about warfare. In the international system war is always possible, but managing the risk of war involves much more than reacting to events with escalating threats.

For instance, sailing a large surface fleet into the South China Sea with the goal of “warning China” is hardly good risk management. It’s particularly ill-advised in an area where the Navy’s warships are vulnerable to a broad range of Chinese surface-to-surface missiles, loitering munitions, and submarine-launched weapons linked to an array of space and terrestrial-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.

Accidents happen. An unwanted incident that results in American losses in the South China Sea would signal weakness, not strength, which is the true purpose of naval power. Sooner or later, U.S. naval losses in the South China Sea would invite military aggression against the United States in other regions. Put more bluntly, dragging the United States into a war with China involving territorial disputes on behalf of the Philippines, Communist Vietnam, or Taiwan is stupid.

Why is the Department of Defense on this path? Part of the reason is because the thirty-eight four-star generals on active duty in the armed forces tend to view contemporary conflict through the wrong lens, the distorting lens of World War II and the Cold War. After all, nuclear weapons may have eliminated total war, but war below the nuclear threshold persists.

Armed conflict for regional power and influence are inevitable in many parts of the world, not just in the South China Sea. Such conflicts inevitably overlap with the competition for energy, water, food, and mineral resources. But these conflicts do not necessarily demand American participation.

If the last twenty-seven years have taught the American people anything, conflict anywhere in the world is by no means a threat to peace everywhere, least of all to the United States. Peace is divisible; conflicts regardless of their causes are overwhelmingly local or regional, not global in significance. This is why it so important for American political and military leaders to first, formulate strategic aims that truly justify military action, before American blood and treasure are put at risk.

These points explain why the military inertia in strategic thinking that tries to intimidate China on China’s doorstep is worse than foolish. It’s downright dangerous when senior military leaders erroneously conclude that U.S. military control of the South China Sea, roughly eight thousand miles from U.S. shores, is a vital strategic interest of the United States, but securing America’s southern border is not.

The good news is the president can fix this problem because it’s a cultural and intellectual problem—not a fiscal one. Fixing it means reaching down and appointing new senior civilian and military leaders to the Defense Department who are not hostage to the policies of the past.

Retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, U.S. Army, is a decorated combat veteran, a has a doctorate and he is the author of five books. His latest, Margin of Victory, is available from Naval Institute Press.

Image: Reuters

 

https://nationalinterest.org/print/feature/only-way-donald-trump-can-truly-put-america-first-33111 

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