On Rumsfeld
I won't knock the decision to relieve SECDEF Rumsfeld. And as you know I am not particularly a fan of the administration either. But...
So many people are outwardly hailing the decision, blaming Rumsfeld for countless operational SNAFUs in Iraq. I'm no admirer of his, nor a firm believer in his command abilities. But there often seems to be much confusion about what the SECDEF's job actually is and what the Pentagon actually does. Many are blaming Rumsfeld for problems running the war. But operations in Iraq aren't run by Rumsfeld. They aren't even run by the Pentagon. They are run by CENTCOM in Tampa, FL.
Since the DoD reorganization in the early 1990s, combat operations have run through the Unified Combatand Commands, by a 4 star general or admiral who is ultimately responsible for the combat operations in his or her geographical area and reports directly to the Commander In Chief. The chain of command runs to each of those Generals in each geographical location - The Pacific, Europe, The Middle East, South America, and North America. The SECDEF, then, acts generally as an intermediary or an observing authority on the operational end. Any choices on troops force levels, for example, are determined by the combatant commanders (Generals) on the ground based on what is needed for the mission and what resources and capabilities the Pentagon has to give them. While they are doing this, those in the Pentagon are busy raising the force, training the force, and putting together think-tanks of field grade and flag officers to generate OPLANs for future conflicts. In a nutshell: the Unified Combatant Commands run the wars in the present, the Pentagon raises and equips the military for the future.
While there have been plenty of planning and operational SNAFUs, people often don't realize what SECDEF Rumsfeld has really accomplished in his actual job. He is personally responsible for what has essentially been a revolution in the affairs of the Department of Defense - DoD Transformation - which will allow the US Military to do what it wasn't originally designed to do: respond to terrorism. Important examples of his masterwork include: The reorganization of Army Divisions into highly responsive Brigade Combat Teams, the creation and strengthening of new combatant commands such as Special Operations Command and the up-and-coming Unified Medical Command (which will be crucial for the success of the vastly increased amount of humanitarian and civil-relief missions that the military is now taking part in). Not to mention that he is also wholly responsible for the new Rapid Fielding Initiative, which allows new equipment to be tested quickly, on the ground and in the conflict and gets needed equipment (eg. advanced body armor, stryker vehicles, &c) where it needs to be as soon as it is battle ready. Before him, the military did not have anything close to that capability.
It is because of Rumsfeld that the Armed Forces are positioned to respond to a multitude of asymmetric threats that they did not have the capability to defend against only 6 years ago. Just remember that as you cheer his resignation.
An interesting conversation below:
First to the under-armoring of troops. The truth of the matter is that any time we enter a conflict, the military that we fight with is the military that built many years before. We try to do our best to predict what kind of conflict we will be fighting in the future. But it does not always work out. We took a military that was designed for force-on-force cold-war-type conflict into an asymmetric conflict. Every unit entering the conflict was equipped with the resources that unit was designed to be equipped with. When they got to the ground they found themselves being tasked by the COMBATANT COMMANDERS (not Rumsfeld, who is an administrator, not a General) to do missions they were not designed to handle. They were working with what they had. Some, for example, did not have the necessary armor on their Humvees. It was because of this fact, the necessity for these units to be able to adapt their resources to new and varied missions, that Rumsfeld created the RAPID FIELDING INITIATIVE. This initiative's purpose was to allow new equipment to be fielded quickly in response to the ever varying needs of the units on the ground. So the under-armoring of troops was a legacy of the Cold War Military that we went into Iraq with, not of Rumsfeld. The Rapid Fielding Initiative, however, is certainly a legacy of his.
Other massive changes that have been made include:
The complete and utter reorganization of the Army from Divisions to highly versatile and responsive Brigade Combat Teams. The full equipping and manning of Special Operations Command and charging them with all assymmetric warfare and counterterrorism planning and analysis. The full implementation of Network Centric Warfare, and the creation of the Global Information Grid - which, for example, give Battalion Commanders on the ground access to intelligence, information, and communications resources that used to be available only at the level of Army Divisions or Corps.
Or what about the creation of the Army's Battle Command Knowledge System, a "lesson's learned" resource which allows the Army to collect, analyze and incorporate the lessons from its operations and training into its doctrine and operating procedures in a matter of HOURS rather than months or years.
Or how about the planned creation of a Unified Medical Command which, as I mentioned, will crucial for the success of the vastly increased number of humanitarian and civil-relief missions that the military now takes part in (eg. Katrina, the Tsunami, Subsaharan Africa, Eastern Europe, &c).
These are just a few examples...
Further on under-armoring of troops
And you might ask, why didn't they just get the armor they needed before they went, or why when they found out that they needed it didn't they get it right away?
The answer to that is that we have a set amount of resources, for a military that was procured many years ago. It is the responsibility of commanders on the ground to use wisely the resources that they are given. That is why we give them officer commissions and pay for their education. To think.
Thankfully many do. And thankfully, many in the Pentagon do to. They realized that there has to be a way to get newly procured equipment to the ground quickly. To learn what critical deficiencies existed in the tables of organization and equipment (the list of what equipment is authorized to each unit), modify the TOE, contact the supply manufacturers, generate new supplies from the factory and ship it directly to those units that are most in need of it in a matter of weeks or months. So they created RFI. Keep in mind that they could not do this before. No military in the history of the world has had that ability. It is quite a logistical feat that they have been able to do this.
posted by Sean @ 5:50 PM
Exactly how has the military changed to respond to these new challenges? I guess I don't see what you're claiming reflected on the nightly news.
I also seem to recall our clueless president hailing Rumsfeld's decision to send in reduced troop levels, the logic being that with our advanced technologies, less troops could control more territory. Much to the consternation of various generals and military advisers. Ring any bells?
Oh, and one more thing - the under-armoring of troops...seems like a Rumsfeld legacy too.
Yeah, he sure accomplished a lot in 6 years. If by accomplish you mean putting a lot of young men and women's lives at risk with nary a second thought.