The Soul of the Army

No less an authority than George Washington believed, "discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak and esteem to all." More than all the new uniforms, UAV's or F-22s the Pentagon could buy, it depends on discipline for success. It is the glue that holds units together during tough training and deadly combat. This is why it is so disheartening to see signs of shakey discipline in the ranks.

After Michael Hastings's controversial article in Rolling Stone Magazine showing General Stanley McChrystal and his staff in an unflattering light led to the general's dismissal he has apparently become the reporter of refuge for disgruntled officers. His latest work alleges that Lt. Colonel Shawn Stroud illegally ordered Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes to use psychological operations techniques against selected politicians in an effort to "brain wash" them into supporting funding and troop increases.

A little bit of research seems to indicate that the incident boils down to a dispute over bureaucratic labels, organizational charts and an Army officer who should know better than to talk to anyone from Rolling Stone. Upon further questioning from the New York Times Holmes conceded that what he was asked to do was, "pretty innocuous."

Is this how warriors in war time behave? Is it too much to ask that military professionals handle disagreements like adults behind closed doors instead of slinking off to all too willing to give the Army another black eye? Discipline in the ranks is at least as important for Lt. Colonels as it is for Privates so before acting maybe Holmes should have asked himself, "What would George Washington do?"

What Time is it in Afghanistan?: Part IV

Have 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden receded so far from the public consciousness that even good news about the fight in Afghanistan is not an important story? I suppose if our forces were being pushed out of Kandahar and Helmand province and suffering high casualties the media would be compelled to cover it. It seems the media has put itself in a box after years of decrying Operation Enduring Freedom as doomed to failure while George W. Bush was President they. Now with President Obama in the White House the far left has cooled the rhetoric but instead of trying to cover what is actually happening they have mostly ignored Afghanistan except to remind us that the Karzai government is corrupt and unreliable.

The truth seems to be that the surge of troops into Kandahar and Helmand has been quietly clearing the Taliban out of their strongholds in southern Afghanistan. As always it remains to be seen if these tactical victories can be translated into a strategic victory. Aside from the questions about the Afghan government, the biggest stumbling blocks are the sanctuaries in Pakistan and the half-hearted cooperation of the Pakistan government. Time still is not on our side, but perhaps our troops recent victories have bought them the time they need.

Owning the Night

For a twenty years the United States military has prided itself on owning the night. The Pentagon has invested considerable resources to field various kinds of night vision equipment for ground troops, pilots and surveillance. However, aside from the specialized sniper rifles the Army and Marine Corps has not paid a lot of attention to muzzle flash suppression. The muzzle designs of infantry weapons offer some level of performance, but given the amount of night fighting the Army and Marines have engaged in over the last ten years, dedicated muzzle suppression technology seems like an obvious area to address.

A recent Military.com article quoted an Army weapons procurement officer pointing out that the enemy's ability to shoot back suffers when they cannot see where shots are coming from.  You don't say?  One would assume our troops have been providing feedback on ways to improve night fighting capabilities for years so why has it taken so long to see action on this?

This blog is not intended as a complaint department, but I want the best for our troops and it seems that too many changes and improvements get swamped by bureaucratic inertia.  One can look at the continuing drama regarding the new camouflage patterns. (see some of my previous posts for more on camo issue.)  A common thread running through these issues seems to be to focus on big ticket technology at the expense of lower technology items needed by infantry squads.

Ten Years in the Abyss

The ongoing violence in Egypt's major city reminds us that authoritarian leaders and regimes are better at putting down rebellions.  Although it remains to be seen how the situation will shake out in Egypt, the Muslim World is replete with examples of dictators crushing uprisings including Saddam's Iraq, the Taliban's Afghanistan Iran, and Syria.

The United States and its few allies have been combating a much more organized and dangerous form of violence for ten years: Militant Islamism.  This is a coordinated effort by many thousands of Muslims who believe Islam commands them to rid the world of all infidels or everyone who does not believe as they do.  This is not a political position that can be assuaged, bartered or compromised away as Western rulers want to believe.

What does this say about our long-term chances for success? As the film "Apocalypse Now" noted "Good does not always triumph over evil." The implication is that the forces of evil are willing and able to go to any lengths to prevail in the end and reasonable democratic leaders will eventually turn away from the abyss out of fear of becoming like the enemy. But was Rambo right? To win a war does one have to become war?  Current events in Lebanon, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran do not bode well for Western hopes of a peace or even coexistence.  We seem to be fighting to not lose while our enemy is fighting for total victory whether that comes in the next year or in the next century.

Book Review: "Decision Points" by George W. Bush

 President Bush's book is not a traditional political memoir. It does not exhaustively chronicle his entire eight years in office, but instead discusses and explains the key decisions of his presidency. Supreme Court appointments, 9/11 and the War on Terror make up the central topics. "Decision Points" tackles these topics in Bush fashion: straight forward and unadorned. His simple prose may annoy the literary set, but the more practical minded will appreciate the refreshingly unaffected style.

The best chapter is the one that describes the surge of troops and change of strategy in Iraq near the end of 2006.  President Bush recounts the pressure he was under by the public and Democrat and Republican congressmen to withdraw troops and essentially admit defeat.  Bush makes it clear that he never gave up on the dedication of the troops or the aspirations of millions of Iraqis who who were struggling to build a better country.  His courageous decision and the Iraqi's ability to follow-through on their promises to help is an aspiring story of good triumphing over evil.

Those hoping for juicy White House gossip or the revelation of secret information will be disappointed. The war is ongoing so President Bush is restrained from releasing much new information, but the ultimate insider's account of a president at war is still compelling reading,

New Sniper Rifle for Troops in Afghanistan

The XM2010 Enhance Sniper Rifle will soon find its way into the hands of Army and Marine Corps snipers in Afghanistan. This is reportedly in response to recent data that shows the enemy are engaging the troops more frequently and from greater ranges than in the past.

A better rifle is a good thing, but it continues to annoy me that weapons and equipment seem to take an unacceptably long time to reach our troops. This latest example is defensive procurement as though the expansive, mountainous terrain of Afghanistan only recently revealed itself as a sniper's paradise. Why be on the defensive and wait and react to what the enemy is doing?

The troops should have long ago been given the weapons, training and initiative to go out and relentlessly hunt the enemy. In effect they have to beat the enemy at their own game because patrols that often serve as juicy targets for IEDs are not going to win the war.

(I have to point out that President Obama has made it pretty clear he is not really interested in winning, but only in turning the fight over to the Afghans.)

Why Are Small Ticket Items Too Expensive?

Not too long ago I wrote about the disappointment of the new XM25 grenade launcher.  The tragedy is two fold: one, the weapon was to be a replacement for the M16/M4 and two, it was to fire standard rifle ammunition as well as the programmable explosive rounds. While the weapon is undoubtably an advance, it is more of a baby step than a leap forward as it will not replace any rifles and there will probably only be about four issued to each platoon.

High costs were cited as part of the reason the rifle/grenade launcher design was dropped and why the launcher is to be issued in small numbers. This is disturbing as there is money for billion dollar F-22s and submarines. Just a couple of days ago a new multi-million dollar littoral combat ship was commissioned. All of these big ticket items are great additions to our military, but then certainly money can be found for an all new weapon for every infantryman.