Following WWII, America has been seen as a militarily strong
nation – the lion in the jungle, if you will. Until WWII, our military
experienced sharp drawn-downs in the aftermath of military action. Conscription
was the primary means to build up enough manpower to wage a war. When confrontations
were realized, soldiers often found themselves not armed with sufficient modern
weapons or even trained in tactics applicable to the situation. Following the
Revolutionary war, there was heated debate on whether there should even be a
standing army.
Until the end of the Vietnam war, we always seemed to be
fighting a current war with the past war equipment and tactics. Today, warfare
has evolved to be a very complex matter involving high-tech and expensive
weapons, situation and environment specific tactics, and intense situation
specific training. We no longer stand rank-and-file in front of each other on a
battlefield and charge in a conflict where the outcome is more a matter of
attrition than tactics (also known as linear warfare). Today we have un-manned
drones that make surgical strikes to take out individual targets and
bunker-busting guided bombs.
Unfortunately, the one constant in our military strength
remains politics. In our country, the “Hawks” believe we should have a strong,
well trained and equipped military at all times, while the “Doves” would rather
eliminate the military or reduce it to a part-time national guard force with
minimal weapons.
Bill Clinton drew down the military and closed bases. Some
of this action may have made sense at the time, but may also have been
shortsighted on his part in light of what transpired in the aftermath of 9/11.
The reality, however, is that we could not have fought a war in Afghanistan
with the weapons and tactics used in Vietnam.
Despite the initial quick success with airpower in removing
the Taliban and Al Qaida fighters, along with their administration, from
Afghanistan, we eventually had to put “boots on the ground” in an attempt to
keep them out. This presented yet another challenge. The full-time forces had
been drawn down to inadequate numbers. A decision had to be made to either
re-institute the draft or use Reserve and National Guard troops. Suddenly,
Guard troops were no longer guaranteed a worst-case scenario of working in
times of national disasters and riots. Dentists, lawyers, and grocery clerks
were now outfitted with loaded weapons and sent half a world away to fight a
war in repeated deployments. They were no longer “weekend warriors”.
Somewhere deep in the Pentagon there is a group of war-wise
military leaders that is supposed to be able to predict where and how the next
war or wars will be fought. Since there are always dozens of armed conflicts
going on at any time, I’m pretty sure they aren’t saying we won’t be involved. Why,
then has Obama’s Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decided to draw down the
military to pre-WWII levels?
North Korea has over a million men in a standing army, and
more than eight million reserves. China has some 2.25 million people under arms
and another 7.5 million in reserve. Even Iran keeps some 500, 000 troops active
and can muster an additional 2 million for duty. Hagel wants to put our active
troop level at 440,000.
Granted, we no longer line up across from each other and fire weapons until the last man standing wins. But our secDef also wants to scrap perfectly good and serviceable weapons systems and not fund new or replacement weapons.
One of the targets for elimination is the venerable A-10
aka. The Warthog. This weapon system – calling it an airplane is like calling
Niagara Falls a faucet leak – is literally a cannon with an airframe built
around it. Originally intended for use in the steep river gorges of Vietnam
where other jets flew too fast to make effective surgical strikes, it proved invaluable
in both Iraq wars as a highly successful tank killer.
Today, soldiers on the ground are equipped with the M4
rifle. This is a re-hashed version of the Vietnam-era M16. Troops have been
reduced to – at their own expense – buying aftermarket parts to make the rifle
work reliably. Of course, the weapon of choice for our enemies and potential
enemies is the low-cost ultra-reliable AK47. It too dates to the Vietnam-era
but has been proven to be reliable under almost any adverse condition – dirt,
mud, ice, or underwater. While there are currently many far better weapons than
the M4 available, the search for a replacement has been scrapped.
I cannot dispute that there could be better oversight of
spending by the Armed Services, and old-boy networks, nepotism, and outright
corruption probably still exist in military procurement. We can’t afford to
emasculate our military might. A toothless lion is vulnerable to attacks from
smaller and much weaker creatures. It will eventually die of starvation or be
consumed by hyenas.