The Citizen and the Citizen Military – What Lies Ahead?

Military pay raises have been minimal, recruiting has been a challenge in the services. How do we acquire, train and retain what we need? Reserves and National Guard involve long term multiple deployments with no assurance of a future for those who return. 

What is the mix of technology and manpower required to fight today’s wars? The following are 3 perspectives from experts: Can YOU answer the Citizen's Question at the end of this article?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

PERSPECTIVE 1 – From a Military Man

Mark Seip a senior Navy fellow at the Atlantic Council recently noted the cultural and conception gap that exists between America and it volunteer armed forces:

“From the military side, many of us feel that we are unique to our generation in our calling; that we rose above the self-absorbed stereotype often associated with both Gen Xers and Millennials to protect our nation. We accept significant time away from our families, often subpar working conditions compared to our civilian counterparts, and average pay in relation to the skills we possess in order to wear the uniform. Moreover, as our nation’s warrior corps we assume a level of risk since time immemorial, that our occupation entails a distinct possibility of loss of life. Our service therefore requires a level of confidence and self-assurance to do our jobs and take the risks required.

Second, the widening gap is a function of exposure, both in numbers and in proximity. As Fallows points out, 2.5 million served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. To provide context, according to an NPR study 8.7 million served in some capacity in Vietnam. Furthermore, during Vietnam the majority of the generation at that time had fathers and mothers who served in some capacity either in WWII, Korea or both. Today, however, the actual number and/or the tangential family tie to the military is lower, reinforcing the distance between those in service and the rest of the nation.”

The Military/Civilian Gap 

PERSPECTIVE 2 - From a Military Contractor

Eric Prince, the former CEO of Black Water continues to insist that private security employees working for the U.S. government in warzones should be tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, instead of the civilian criminal justice system.

"It’s quite different for a jury that is 7,000 miles away from the warzone, looking at a split-second decision made seven years earlier in a warzone, minutes after a large car bomb goes off." Prince said he hopes the guards' convictions can be successfully appealed. "The last chapter is not written yet."

Although he quit the business, Prince still sees a future for the private security business.

"The world is a much more dangerous place, there is more radicalism, more countries that are melting down or approaching that state." At the same time, the Pentagon is under growing pressure to cut spending and the cost of the all-volunteer force keeps rising, Prince said.

"The U.S. military has mastered the most expensive way to wage war, with a heavy expensive footprint." Over the long run, the military might have to rely more on contractors, as it will become tougher to recruit service members. Prince cited recent statistics that 70 percent of the eligible population of prospective troops is unsuitable to serve in the military for various reasons such as obesity, lack of a high school education, drug use, criminal records or even excessive tattoos. In some cases, Prince said, it might make more sense to hire contractors.”

 Eric Prince on Future Wars

PERSPECTIVE 3 – From a Military Analyst

“DEFENSE ONE” Notes:

“The film “American Sniper” about legendary Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle broke box office records this holiday season when the picture earned a million dollars in five days on only a handful of screens. It is time we grappled with America’s actual wars and their real-time, life and death consequences, once again with as much dedication as we line up to watch them play out on the big screen.

The military [has been] fighting a war. Or wars. But we, as a country, have not. In USA Today's list of its most read articles of 2014, neither the war in Afghanistan nor the simmering fight in Iraq – to which U.S. troops [were] headed back – cleared the top 10. The same was true for Yahoo's List of its most searched stories. No Iraq or Afghanistan in sight.

It is nearly inconceivable but somehow true that in the 2013 government shutdown, death benefits for the families of those killed in action fighting for the United States also shut off.” 

Shutdown Prevents Death Benefits for Families of 4 Fallen Soldiers

Citizen's question: Could or should we reinstate the draft?

The US Army's Future Mission is Vague, Leaving Industry with Little Direction

                                                              Photo "Go Army. com"

As an Army Veteran, and having worked in Aerospace over 3 decades to support  Army programs, I found the below article by John Keller, Editor in Chief, "Military & Aerospace Electronics" magazine an objective and disturbing piece.  Note the references to mission vacuum and lack of civilian leadership in Washington D.C.

John highlights that as the nation is struggling with stagnated politics the services are hampered by a lack of hard information to plan ahead.

Mr. Keller introduces a historical perspective and an excellent view of the hard issues, challenges and uncertainty that the Army and industry in its supporting role are facing today.

"MILITARY AND AEROSPACE ELECTRONICS":

"A variety of factors are gathering into a potential perfect storm  that could threaten the U.S. Army's future mission, the continuing  relevance of the oldest American military service, and how the defense industry can move forward to support the Army's needs.

Some of these factors are well-known: sequestration, dim prospects  for budget growth, and substantial technology research and development  that for most practical purposes has come nearly to a dead-stop.

Perhaps most serious, however, is how top military and civilian  leadership define the Army's role moving into the future, the top  threats the Army will evolve to meet, and the very relevance of a large  standing Army in an era when large-scale, big-iron military land battles  appear to be part of the past.

Here's where we are today: U.S. military forces are finishing their  exit from Iraq, where they have operated for more than a decade. Their  final exit from Afghanistan is but a few years off, or less. When  operations on Southwest Asia are completed, where does the Army go from  there?

The Army has had a clear set of missions since  the U.S. entered World War II in 1941. Although the close of the Second  World War in 1945 saw a rapid drawdown in U.S. military power, the  strengthening Soviet Union was on everyone's mind.

Less than five years after World War II ended, North Korea invaded  South Korea, which created another sudden and dire mission for the Army.  That mission grew from containing North Korean forces to containing  Communism around the world, which continued until the fall of the Berlin  Wall in 1990. One year later, Iraq invaded Kuwait, which gave rise to  Operation Desert Shield, and eventually the military ouster of Iraqi  forces from Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm, in which the Army played a  central role.

For the next decade, keeping an eye on a contained-but-restless Iraqi  military, on ethnic strife in what then was Yugoslavia, and on other  simmering hot spots throughout the world held the Army's attention and  helped define its mission.

Today things are different. Counter-insurgency operations are nearing  an end in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia does not pose the immediate  military threat that did its predecessors of the Soviet Union, and  Europe has been relatively quiet.

Still, trouble spots persist in areas like Syria and Iran, but with  no open conflict yet involving U.S. Army forces. There is no immediate  and dire threat in these areas, and hence no clear Army mission-at least  not yet.

So how does the Army move forward? Counter-insurgency, certainly. Special Forces capability, of  course. But what's the role of the large Army infrastructure involving  large combat infantry units, main battle tanks, armored fighting vehicles, and other organizations designed for large ground conflicts?

I'm not sure there is a role, and I'm not convinced that the top Army  leadership today knows what its role in the future will be, either.  Maybe the Army is at a moment of transition, and leaders will get a  handle on the Army's core mission sometime soon. With the civilian  leadership vacuum we have in Washington, I'm not sure the Army will be  able to do so. If Army leaders are unable to define the Army's long-term  mission clearly, then the defense industry will have no idea how to  proceed, other than to guess.

These factors were on display just below the surface last month at  the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA). What was striking in exhibits  was a lack of direction in where we go from here. It was as though the  industry were pointing out to the Army officers walking the aisles how  far technology has led us to this moment, yet pleading for direction on  where the industry should go from here."

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-24/issue-11/news/trends/the-army-s-future-mission-is-vague-leaving-industry-with-little-direction.html

                                                                                              

About the Author:

 John  Keller is editor-in-chief of Military & Aerospace Electronics  magazine, which provides extensive coverage and analysis of enabling  electronic and optoelectronic technologies in military, space, and commercial aviation applications. A member of the Military & Aerospace Electronics staff since the magazine's founding in 1989, Mr. Keller took over as chief editor in 1995.

Sequestration from the Top Down or From the Bottom Up?

Sequestration requires across-the-board cuts of $85 billion — $43 billion for the Defense Department, $29 billion for non defense agencies and $13 billion for Medicare and other social programs — by Sept. 30. Defense reductions will affect about two-thirds of the Pentagon's $648 billion 2013 budget. Military personnel accounts are protected.

The uncertainty has lasted for weeks and months, as agencies, technically, do not have to make the required cuts until  September 30,2013.  Although the longer they wait, the more pronounced the cuts will have to be toward the end of the fiscal year.

Assuming the major weapons systems battles will be fought and the smoke will clear by default on those that are not affordable, the next largest target in the agency cuts will be manpower -- military, civil service and contractors. 

From what we are reading, the major issue is whether or not the cuts will occur at the top of the hierarchy where the brass (corporate big boys, civil servants the generals/admirals) sit or from the bottom – enlisted men and their benefits and small business.  

Below are 3 different perspectives on this issue for your reading enjoyment, courtesy of our stymied Congress whose budgetary laziness has created the Sequestration Drama. We suggest you choose the one you favor and advise your congressman of your choice. 

THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT ("POGO")

".............for the first time in the more than 200 years that the U.S. has had a standing military, there are fewer than five enlisted personnel for every officer. In other words, today’s military is the most top-heavy  force in U.S. history.

Former Secretary of Defense Gates remarks on this issue per POGO:

"In  his August 2010 speech on Efficiency Initiatives, Gates referred to  these perks as “the overhead and accoutrements that go with” senior  positions, be they military or civilian, within DoD. In an interview  with Newsweek, Gates bemoaned these accoutrements and entourages that  surround generals and admirals, which he believes are indicative of a  military leadership that is “suffering from an inflated sense of  entitlement and a distorted sense of priorities"

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/11/todays-military-the-most-top-heavy-force-in-us-history.html

"DOD BUZZ"

"The head of the U.S. Defense Department vowed to cut 20 percent of some areas of the military bureaucracy in a move estimated to save as much as $2 billion.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made  the announcement while speaking to troops during a trip to Naval Air  Station Jacksonville, Fla.

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little  in a statement e-mailed later in the day said the reductions would  affect the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff and the  Military Service Headquarters over a five-year period beginning in 2015.  They will occur whether or not lawmakers agree on a plan to avoid  automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, he said.
 
“These headquarters reductions should be pursued now,  regardless of future fiscal circumstances,” Little said. “These cuts  will be implemented even if Congress lifts sequester-level budget caps.”

Little didn’t specify how many personnel would be affected. The move may eliminate more than 4,000 jobs, according to an unofficial headcount of those areas. That’s less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the Pentagon’s 2.1 million active-duty troops and civilian employees.

What’s more, the Pentagon bureaucracy has only increased since 2010, when  former Defense Secretary Bob Gates made a similar pledge, raising  questions about whether Hagel — or any defense secretary — can succeed  in thinning the ranks of the military’s top-brass and senior civilians.

The number of positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the  Joint Staff and the combatant commands increased 24 percent, to 21,952  in 2012 from 17,765 in 2010, according to a graphic accompanying a  recent analysis by Marcus Weisgerber, a reporter for Defense News.

More than half of the overall increase came from the Joint Staff, which  simply absorbed positions from Joint Forces Command after Gates ordered  the latter to be shuttered in 2010, according to the analysis.

Hagel’s announcement is based on a strategic review of spending priorities in  the wake of across-the-board budget reductions, Little said.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/07/17/like-predecessors-hagel-vows-to-cut-military-fat/

The Defense Department faces $500 billion in automatic cuts over the next decade."

"WASHINGTON TECHNOLOGY"

"The Small Business Administration reported that the federal government again missed the mark for small business contracting during  fiscal 2012, but the gap has narrowed for primes.

Overall, $89.9 billion in government contracts went to small businesses last year, that’s 22.25 percent of all contracts, according to the SBA report. The goal for small businesses is 23 percent. In fiscal 2011, 21.65 percent of contracts went to small businesses.

There also are goals for various sub-categories of small businesses:

• Women-owned: 4 percent or $16.2 billion (goal 4 percent)
• Small disadvantaged: 8 percent or $32.3 billion (goal 5 percent)
• Service disabled, veteran-owned: 3.03 percent or $12.3 billion (goal 3 percent)
• HUBZone: 2.01 percent or $8.1 billion (goal 3 percent)

The annual SBA report also tracks small business contracting goals. The gap between goal and achievement is greater there.

Overall, 33.6 percent of subcontracts went to small businesses, with  the goal being 36 percent; however, women-owned small businesses  surpassed their 5 percent goal with 5.6 percent achieved. Small disadvantaged businesses also were over their 5 percent goal with 5.1  percent.

But service-disabled, veteran-owned businesses fell short with 1.8  percent versus a goal of 3 percent, as did HUBZone, which had 1.3  percent of subcontracts against a goal of 3 percent.

SBA’s annual release of its small business goals isn’t without critics. The American Small Business League criticized the report saying it was “completely false and totally unsupported by the facts.”

The group claims that SBA miscalculated the actual federal  acquisition budget, and according to ASBL, small businesses only  received 8.2 percent of prime contracts.

In addition, the group claims that a significant number of large businesses are receiving small business contracts."