Merit Promotions? Wow. Military May Be Adopting 20th Century Management Practices

Military Times reports "The officer promotion system is quietly getting a massive overhaul":

Congress is poised to pass the most sweeping reforms to the military’s officer promotion system in almost four decades, a move that would end years of intense debate inside the Pentagon to bring the personnel system in line with many private-sector employment practices.

The changes would have a far-reaching impact on the culture of the officer corps and change the incentives for how individual officers manage their own careers.

“These are the most significant reforms we’ve seen since the late 1970s — if not longer,” said Brad Carson, who served as the Pentagon’s top personnel official during President Barack Obama’s administration.

“And this isn’t just about cyber jobs or signal or the JAG corps. This can be applied to any person in any job.”

Sounds like what happens in the rest of the world - the cream rises to the top - instead of getting frustrated with the "system" that sometimes holds talent back and drives it out of the services.

So, good!

Short Version of the Hearing on Recent United States Navy Incidents at Sea: "We need ships and more people"

Let me sum up Recent United States Navy Incidents at Sea Hearing by United States Senate Commitee on Armed Services. "We need more ships and people."

It is the job of Congress.

"The Congress shall have Power To ...provide and maintain a Navy.... ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 13, U.S. Constitution.

See SecNav Spencer:

All of these efforts rest on a foundation of sufficient and predictable funding to sustain our readiness. As I stated in my confirmation hearing, the Navy-Marine Corps team, their families, and their civilian teammates have never failed our Nation, and they never will. However, I believe that we are failing them through such actions as the Budget Control Act and repeated continuing resolutions. This imbalance must be rectified.

See CNO Richardson:

I have testified several times about the “triple whammy” - the corrosive confluence of high operational tempo constrained funding levels, and budget uncertainty. Although warfighting capabilities of ships have dramatically increased in the last century, the size and scope of U.S. responsibilities around the world have also increased, and the Navy is feeling the strains of consistently high operational tempo. Added to this challenge, eight years of continuing resolutions and the Budget Control Act have impacted the ability to plan and schedule training, ship maintenance, and modernization.

We had a discussion on these recent incidents with David Larter:



There's a discussion of "can do-ism" beginning about 25:27. My apologies for the "breaking up" on my part, but the answer is spot on as is Sal's follow-on.

World Peace Through Green Tape?

I guess the current administration has decided to help the goal of world peace through executive action. How? It seems intent on wrapping up national defense in environmental and cultural green tape. With enough tape, the mighty engines of war fighting will grind to a halt. And peace will break out all over.

One bit of this nonsense about the new "climate change" mandate for military planners, weapons acquisition persons, training commands, etc is covered by my radio co-host CDR Salamander  here:

We are moving to full Soviet clown show where political cargo cults are being forced on military planning - not because military professionals see it as important, but because The Party demands it.

I wonder if we could get a study of the fiscal and preparedness impact this sort of "environmental symbolism" has and will cost us.

I'm sure a number of underemployed/unemployed attorneys stand ready, however, to assist with the preparation of all the environmental impact statements (EIS) that will be needed for Marines and soldiers digging foxholes and prepping firing positions in both training and combat.

I wonder if each mortar round fired needs its own EIS or if a series of such firings can be covered by a blanket EIS. I also wonder if EISs need to be filed to cover incoming rounds?

Pretty sure there are a number of currently unemployed archaeologists who can help perform "cultural resource investigations" that will be needed to make sure such digging doesn't disturb historically sensitive things:

Section 106 of the NHPA requires all Federal agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC or Commission), to take into account, prior to authorizing an undertaking (, the effect of the undertaking on cultural resources listed or eligible for the National Register (historic properties). The agency must also afford the Council an opportunity to comment on the undertaking.

I guess we should be asking potential enemies to provide environmental impact statements concerning their potential attacks on the U.S. - I'm sure the Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese and Russians will be happy to comply with descriptions of what a several megaton weapon might do the the U.S. environment. Perhaps,  pending those filings, we can get an "international court" to issue an injunction on wars brought by such states. Wasn't something like that done after Russia invaded the Ukraine? No - well, I'm sure that was oversight.

It might prove a little tougher to get those nasty "non-state" actors to comply though . . .

Speaking of which, has anyone seen the ISIS "cultural resource" filings on the destruction of ancient sites?  I'm pretty sure we didn't get one from the Taliban before they blew up those Buddha things.

Of course, that was 2001, so the NYT et al can blame Bush.

Not so sure about the environmental impact statements this climate conscious administration must have prepared for Libya, covering withdrawal from Iraq and our reentering Iraq, and the impact on climate change of drawing "red lines" while watching Syria implode. Perhaps the Executive Branch has put those some place off line.

Ah, those wars of choice.

Among other distractions, there is the irony of Opening All Military Occupations, Positions to Women and then having a debate on whether women should be required to register for the draft like their male counterparts.

Culture wars of choice.

The Danger of Ignoring Opinions Which Challenge Your World View

It's probably absurd for a small time blogger like me to link to the mighty Instapundit, but this Ed Driscoll post is important "Sharyl Atkisson: Obama Won't Read Intelligence on Groups He Doesn't Consider Terrorists" is important because of what it reveals about the problems that can be caused by not occasionally taking a look at things you might find disagreeable (and probably much more about the ego which, once committed to a cause or course, cannot be swayed by evidence that might challenge the correctness of that path). No I won't quote the post here, but you really should read the whole thing.

One really good aspect of military planning is that, if done properly, it requires the commander to sort through a problem and carefully weigh risks and possible outcomes before committing to a course of action.

A key element of this planning process is gaining - to the extent possible - a good understanding of the current situation - an "assessment." The function of this process is to make sure that "what is" is not overtaken by "what I wish it was." or, as set out in the following manual:

First, assessment must determine “where we are.” The assessment process must examine the data received and determine, in relation to the desired effects, the current status of the operation and the operational environment. This is the most basic and fundamental question that assessment must answer. The second fundamental issue that assessment must address is “so what and why” (i.e., what does the data mean and what is its significance)? To answer this question, the assessment team will examine the measure of effectiveness indicators, both individually and in relation to each other. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, assessment must begin to address the “what’s next?” Assessment must combine the analysis of the “where we are”and the “so what” and develop thoughtful, logical guidance for the command’s planning efforts.

 "Data received" includes intelligence about the enemy force, the human terrain, the physical terrain and one's own personnel and equipment availability and status.

Now, it is entirely possible for the Commander in Chief to determine that he or she is perfectly satisfied with the state of things as they are and not see a need to commit any assets to changing the status quo or to affect a change in direction.

If based on a thorough understanding of the risks of that path (and recognizing that the "law of unintended consequences" is always in play), then the executive can be held to account for his or her choices. "What happens if I do nothing?" "What happens if if I withdraw troops?" "What happens if I add more troops?" are legitimate questions.

Most field commanders are not in a position to pose questions about the political ramifications of such choices - although one can hope that even political leadership can ask "What is the right thing to do?" without political overtones - but with careful weighing of national security interests.

What happens when an executive is not inclined to look at realistic assessments of "how things are" or "how this coud turn out" or if those in the assessment chain begin to shade the information that they are sending up? What happens if you ignore intelligence reports that you have decided in advance you don't agree with?

Probably not much good.

That being said here's a guide for commnders:

Commander's Handbook for Assessment Planning and Execution

The focus of this publication generally is on-going operations and the progress made to achieving a desired end state. Lack of clarity of what that end state should be can lead to a lot of waste in people, equipment and other tools of implementing national policy.

Killing ISIS?

NYTimes map

Robert W. Merry at The National Interest writes, "America Must Destroy ISIS":

. . . ISIS represents an ominous threat to U.S. security if it is allowed to establish itself permanently as a state or quasistate in the heart of the Middle East. It’s easy to bemoan the tragic American foreign-policy folly of the past eleven years that has destabilized this crucial region and paved the way for this horrendous turn of events. But that doesn’t obviate the reality that those events now pose a serious threat to regional stability and the safety of the West and America.

Okay, suppose Mr. Merry has a case that we need to "bell the cat", but his answer of exactly how to accomplish the destruction of ISIS is . . . well, mouse-like:

 . . .[O]nce the decks have been cleared and a policy devised that is both coherent and comprehensive, the United States must move not just to thwart the ISIS menace, but to destroy it. It isn’t clear what that will take, but whatever it takes must be brought to bear.

Robin Simcox at the Foreign Affairs website has suggestions in, "Go Big or Go Home: Iraq Needs U.S. Ground Troops More Than Ever:

The U.S. government has set entirely understandable political goals for Iraq, but it has almost certainly chosen the wrong strategy for achieving them. Since the Iraqi city of Mosul fell to the extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in June, U.S. President Barack Obama has insisted that Iraq needs an inclusive government capable of winning support among not only the country’s Shia majority but also its Sunni minority. Obama also declared that the formation of such a government must precede any attempt to defeat ISIS. Washington’s current military intervention reflects that analysis: until Baghdad agrees to Washington’s political vision, the United States has declared that it will commit only to conducting limited air strikes -- that is to say, air strikes that are sufficient to halt the extremists’ progress but not to defeat them.

Washington’s strategy is backward. Any diplomatic leverage in Iraq would come from demonstrating that it can defeat ISIS. In other words, if the United States wants to influence the political situation in Iraq, it must first make itself an indispensable military player there.

If there is a consistent pattern in U.S. policy toward Iraq over the past several decades, it is that Washington can achieve significant diplomatic gains only if it is prepared to make significant military investments.
***
If Obama’s diplomatic goals are as significant as he claims, his military ambitions ought to match them. The United States should actively assume responsibility for decisively defeating ISIS. Needless to say, limited air strikes outside the northern Iraqi city of Erbil will not be sufficient to the task. Instead, the U.S. military should be actively ordered to attack ISIS positions in strongholds such as Mosul. The Iraqi air force has launched such attacks, but the United States’ military precision is greatly needed -- ISIS can be overthrown only if the Sunni civilian population agrees to support the mission, and that will happen only if civilian casualties are kept low.

Given their vast experience and world-class capabilities, U.S. special forces should be deployed to Iraq so that they can conduct counterterrorism operations, gather intelligence, and advise Iraqi forces. Washington should also extend military assistance to the Kurds in northern Iraq, and offer to provide their militias with the heavy military equipment they need to properly defend themselves. (Given that the Kurdish government is not a sovereign state, the provision of these arms may need to be organized by the CIA or other covert agencies rather than by the Pentagon.)

This mission would require a long-term commitment; in the absence of sustained attention and military force, terrorist networks tend to regenerate. It’s true that the mission would put the lives of U.S. troops in danger. But it’s the only military strategy that could accomplish a significant military goal -- namely, the decisive defeat of ISIS, a group that over the last decade has presented a clear threat to the West.

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Margaret Keith/Released

At the same site, Michael O"Hanlon offers up How to Win in Iraq: Why Air Strikes Might Not be Enough:

Although the president has been correct to use only limited airpower so far (even while warning that U.S. involvement in Iraq could last for months), he needs to avoid any sense of complacency that he can limit the United States’ role to modest actions taken several thousand feet up in the air. For now, the United States’ only realistic goal in Iraq is to prevent further ISIS advances. But ultimately, the collective aim of the United States, Iraq, and others in the region should be to fully push back the radical and brutal group, which is committed to the creation of a caliphate throughout much of the broader Middle East and even parts of Europe, and is willing to employ brutal tactics to achieve its aims. This group simply cannot be allowed to remain in power in large sections of Iraq and Syria indefinitely.
***
But then we come back to the difficult questions. After containing ISIS, the United States will need to consider what comes next -- how to help form a suitable government in Baghdad and assist it in expelling ISIS from cities such as Fallujah, Mosul, Ramadi, and Tikrit, where its legions have by now largely infiltrated civilian populations. And here, Obama needs to be fair to his critics and avoid suggesting that those in favor of doing more want to return to the Iraq mission of 2003–2011. In fact, there are many options in between an all-out use of U.S. combat forces and the limited measures employed in recent days.

The history of using limited airpower in wars like this one shows that a few pinpricks from the sky rarely make a difference on the ground.
***
One option is to deploy a significant number of special operations teams, well above the very modest number that may be in in the theater now as part of the detachments of several hundred U.S. planners sent to Iraq over the last month. But how many? If there are 10,000 dedicated ISIS fighters that U.S. and Iraqi units must ultimately remove from the battlefield, experience in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that the U.S. and Iraqi units will need to conduct perhaps several thousand raids informed by good intelligence. Ideally, the United States would strike hard, fast, and early in any operation so that the enemy does not have time to adjust. To do that, it would need up to several dozen in-country commando teams (or those based in neighboring countries in some cases), making for a grand total of 1,000 to 5,000 U.S. troops. In all likelihood, such a mission would last perhaps several months at peak intensity. However, the United States need not take the lead on most such operations and need not continue them indefinitely.

The other option involves a type of military unit, developed in recent years in Afghanistan, called a Security Force Assistance Team. This is a small team of 10­–20 U.S. soldiers who are embedded at the small-unit level within indigenous forces. Since elements of the Iraqi army have, in some cases, already dissolved, such advisory teams -- which live with and deploy into the field with their counterparts -- could be crucial for rebuilding good tactics, unit cohesion, confidence in the leadership, and tenacity, as well as designating targets for air strikes. Assuming that such teams might be deployed with most of Iraq’s army battalions, and assuming roughly ten battalions per division, there could be a need for up to 100 such U.S. teams. Again, these would need to stay in Iraq for a period of several months to perhaps one or two years.

Foreign Policy's website has its doubters about the "commitment" of this administration to keeps U.S. troops out of combat in Iraq against ISIS, as set out in Gordon Lubold's "Obama Pledge to Keep Troops Out of Combat May Fall Flat":

James Dubik, a retired Army three-star general who commanded U.S. forces in Mosul, said it's hard to square the administration's words when it comes to defining the U.S. mission there without accepting that U.S. forces are in combat. "Pretty narrow splitting of hairs," he said in an email.

I suspect someone will have to tell those folks on the ground in Iraq and the pilots flying missions over the country that it's not "combat" if the Administration says it isn't.

But there is that other thing that this Administration keeps forgetting - telling the other side that you are not really going to go to war with them or stay the course if you do get involved just allows the "bad guys" the comfort of knowing that you are, as the Chinese used to refer to the U.S. back in the Cold War days, a "paper tiger" whose words are ". . . full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." Or to go back to the Foreign Policy piece:

Breen, who left the Army in 2006 and believes fighting IS is in the nation's security interests, said the White House is sending dual messages while trying to avoid acknowledging that American military personnel are operating in a war zone.

"Attempting to convey to the American people that this is an operation that is limited in its goals and limited in its scope, unfortunately conveys something to [IS] and others in the region that is not helpful," he said.

As we say in the South, "it's time to fish or cut bait" for this Administration.

They have the tools if they need them.

USNS Robert E. Peary (T-AKE 5), left, conducts a vertical replenishment with USS Bataan (LHD 5). USS Roosevelt (DDG 80) is in the background. Bataan is the flagship for the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and, with the embarked 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (22nd MEU), is deployed in support of maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class RJ Stratchko/Released)

UPDATE: The side of the fight Cut funding to ISIS and ISIS: World’s scariest terrorist group also the richest.