Barack Obama has selected a number of first-rate minds for his National Security Team; retaining Secretary Robert Gates was a good idea.
Secretary Gates has brought stability to the Department of Defense. Respectful of the Senior Military Leaders, he has held both the civilian and military leadership accountable. He has shown the door to the Secretary of the Army over his failure to grasp the seriousness of Walter Reed; and the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of the Staff of the Air Force over the failure to accept accountability for the failure to safeguard nuclear weapons. Secretary Gates, unlike his predecessor is not overly impressed by high tech weapons designed for high intensity warfare and instead has focused the DoD on rapidly getting the weapons needed for the current fight to the troops on the front lines.
The rest of the President-elects selections for National Security positions are outstanding. What will be interesting is the relationship between the National Security Adviser—General (Retired) James Jones and Hillary Clinton. Both understand the political process; both understand the government; but my bet is Jones will have more access and credibility with Obama—as he is an experienced Bureaucratic infighter (I do not say this to demean his ability, but given his long years of service in the USMC—he has acquired a good understanding of how a bureaucracy works.)
The Army is showing the strains. Things are not as rosy as they appear. The essential problem for the Army—is the war requires not only the Army to fight the war, but also to support the war. The coming surge in Afghanistan will further strain the Army supports troops—the question is whether the Army can meet all the requirements while taking care of its soldiers and their families.
I wonder if the Future Combat System will survive the budget wars. Under development for a number of years, while some of the network aspects have found it to the field, thus far no vehicles have been delivered to the troops. The real question is not the time, but whether it is the right weapons system and is it a weapons system we can afford?
The days of the Fighter Mafia dominating the Air Force appear to be numbered. The appointment of General Schwartz a special operator transporter has sent the fighter mafia in to fits of fear. What is more telling is the SecDef may have already decided the fate of building more F-22—no more will be built. What else is causing nervousness among the fighter and bomber mafia is the fact that in the future they will be replaced by 18 year pimpled faced video geeks flying UAV from the ground thousands of miles away (I doubt if the Air Force will ever give up Commissioned Officers flying aircraft—although in the Army uses enlisted soldiers to fly their UAVs!) Moreover according to my engineer friends that UAV can do things that manned fighter and bombers could never do because they are manned.
I have to wonder if the Navy knows what it wants. The killing of the DD-1000 appears that either they can’t decide or they can get more bang for their bucks from continuing to build the Burke Class destroyers.
With the last of the Nimitz Class soon to be commissioned—CVN-77 George H. W. Bush and the CVN-78 Ford soon to be under construction—I wonder if the days of the large aircraft carriers are numbered? Given the fact that UAV can do much of what large expensive manned fighter-bombers do, I wonder if the future will see smaller, less crew intensive carrier? Time will tell.
The USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle long under development, over-budget, and from news reports under performing appears to be on the chopping block in the coming budget wars. Not sure the USMC has a plan if it is cancelled, but whatever they do it must be prudent and quick from development to delivery to the MEFs.
I am sure you all have noted that this post has focused largely on hardware and the cost. The SecDef recently lamented that we are developing the wrong weapons, which cost more than they should, and take years to develop. I realize we can’t turn the hands of time back to WWII when the P-51 was developed in under six months from concept to first flight. But clearly there is something wrong. The movie Pentagon Wars while not very accurate, I think did portray the convoluted nature of weapons developments in the U. S. military. The Army began developing the Comanche in the late 1980’s—when it was canceled some fifteen years later it still was not in the hands of Army Aviation. Clearly we must do better—but part of the problem is the convoluted acquisition regulations which govern weapons systems development and the fact that each of the services competes for their slice of the budget.
There is growing sentiment for giving the Combatant Commanders more voice in the budget process and ending the service strangle holds on the weapons development and budget process. This will not happen without a major rewrite of Title 10 and this will not happen unless there is Congressional leadership in doing so. I don’t see this on the horizon—although clearly we need a National Security Act for the 21st Century. For those wondering the last National Security Act was in 1947, with major rewrite in 1986 commonly called Goldwater-Nichols.
This will be my last post of the year. To all I wish a Happy New Year, may 2009 bring you and your families the best. For all our Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and DoD Civilians serving overseas our thoughts and prayers are with you and your families.
I especially extend my wishes to the members of the 3rd BCT 1st Cavalry Division my wishes for a safe deployment. One of the members is a young Captain whom I recruited for VMI and who is a graduate of the Class of 2004.
