scottblog

The rent is the company’s source of revenue, a portion is dedicated to maintenance and operations, and a large portion is put in a special account and reinvested in new construction or renovations. Remember, “privatized” housing is no longer “Government” housing of a few years ago. Soldiers receive BAH and rent the houses from the company not the government. There is no legislative language, or stipulation in any regulation that states that rent must equal BAH. The Army’s privatized housing oversight agency (RCI) says the Army housing regulation doesn’t apply and that rent must equal BAH. Further, they insist that its DOD policy that BAH equals rent. That’s not exactly what’s stated in documents readily available to the public.

A search of the internet leads to only one official document on the DOD policy on rent and BAH. In a 2001 GAO report on privatized housing, there is a footnote that states “DOD policy issued in September 1998 stated that privatization projects should be designed so that the members’ housing allowances will fully cover the costs of rent and utilities, thus resulting in no out-of-pocket costs for members living in privatized housing.” This is a far cry from BAH equals rent. It’s more like rent can’t exceed BAH. It also infers that rent could be less than BAH.

In fact, the policy wasn’t incorporated into the requests for qualification (RFQ) documents that led to the companies being awarded contracts. Those documents state that rent must not exceed BAH. The same type of language can be found in many other documents and in the legislation related the development and implementation of the DOD Military Privatized Housing Initiative programs such as RCI. The legislation even allows for the military to supplement BAH in order to cover the rent if the rental rate exceeds BAH. That implies that there was an expectation of a scalable rental rate. The Army also did not specify a rent formulation method, or provide guidelines for renting RCI privatized houses to service members in the RFQs. Whatever the germination of the idea, the rent equals BAH policy has enabled or prompted private companies to engage in what could be considered unfair practices against military members.

There is even an Army regulation (Chapter 15, AR 210-50) that covers how the Army manages rental property to include contractual agreements with private companies. The regulation states that rental rates are based on what amounts to size and condition of the housing. The rates are linked to a survey of private rentals on the local economy. Army RCI representatives say that Army Regulation 210-50 doesn’t apply to privatized housing. Yet, AR 210-50, Chapter 14, it specifically states that RCI housing is private housing and that Soldiers may choose to rent it. Many of the RCI contracted companies’ have documents on their websites that state that they base their housing assignment policies on the AR but do not specify whether they mean government housing or rental property. In practice it’s managed and assigned like government housing rather than rental property, and that’s exactly how the RCI limited partnerships are being run.

So how did this whole rent equals and individual Soldier’s BAH thing come into being? There was and probably is a desire on the part of the Army and the Army’s manager’s of the privatized housing program (RCI) to maximize funding of new housing projects. The majority of the rent is reinvested in new construction or renovation on the installation. The rest of the rent is used to pay for the management company’s maintenance and operations. The easiest way to maximize reinvestment capital is to maximize the rent for all housing units. It’s a lot easier to program new housing if rent equals an individual Soldier’s BAH regardless of the size, number of rooms, age, or condition of the home being rented. With Government housing Soldier’s aren’t authorized BAH. If rent equals BAH for everyone and rents were paid by allotment, Soldiers wouldn’t notice the difference. Did anyone even consider the basic unfairness of how then RCI privatized housing rental rates were developed?

During armed conflict, the military and the government’s intelligence assets use their resources to collect information on the enemy in order to achieve victory. The information can be used to disrupt the enemy’s operations, kill their leaders, defeat or destroy their military capability, or any other purpose that gives an advantage to the United States – diplomatic, economic, militarily, or in the information realm. Conflict with another nation commences when “war” has been declared by Congress or the President has ordered the action under the War Powers Act of 1973.

If victory is our objective, the United States must use all means necessary to achieve that goal. This includes intercepting and acting on the information contained in the enemy’s internal communications, and those communications it has with their supporters and sympathizers. Obviously, some of those communications will originate or lead to enemy agents, and saboteurs (i.e. terrorists), and people who might support them within the confines of the United States.

While the information that leads to these various classes of the enemy may not meet the criteria that can be used in a United States court of law, the information may be used to detain enemy spies and saboteurs, and prevent them from doing further harm to the United States. In some cases, it may lead to the detainment of United States citizens without trail or some other measure. Alternatively, the United States should be able to use the information to justify the gathering of legal evidence against enemy supporters and sympathizers who are legal immigrants or United States citizens.

One challenge in what appears to be a fairly straight forward proposition is when a United States citizen is identified as a spy or saboteur via intelligence information versus criminal evidence. Illegal aliens can be detained within the United States or abroad. Although controversial, our executive branch has the authority to detain United States citizens within the United States or abroad also. In criminal cases, citizens and illegal immigrants are protected from being detained without due process - habeus corpeus.

Spies, saboteurs and enemy sympathizers and supporters within the United States may conduct illegal acts that could be prosecuted in a court of law. More importantly, their actions harm the United States. They directly or indirectly endanger our citizens and service members here and abroad. They work against the policies and actions of the United States in the name of the enemy. Preventing United States citizens from engaging in activities that give aid and comfort to the enemy or its agents is a national security issue. In times of war, it can be treasonous.

Intelligence information can lead our law enforcement agencies can lead us to these people. Allowing them to continue to operate against our government while enough viable criminal evidence is gathered could potentially lead to a terrorist act against our citizens or infrastructure, or give the enemy a strategic, operational or tactical advantage. It is in the interest of the United States to stop these efforts immediately in most cases regardless of knowledge gained via criminal evidence or intelligence information.

A criminal investigation can begin when the information is first obtained or when the detention begins. Intelligence information could be used to focus the investigation and provide leads in the effort to obtain criminal evidence. In some cases, the benefits of starting a criminal investigation may out weigh the benefits to national security of detaining a person identified as an enemy of the United States. A failure to obtain enough evidence to convict or charge them with a crime doesn’t negate the validity of the intelligence information that identifies them as a threat to the United States.

In the United States, terrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction are crimes. Accessory to the planning of and the actual act is also a crime. In the on going conflict with Islamist Extremist, acts of terrorism are the enemy’s weapon of choice in direct attacks against the United States, its coalition partners, and our interest worldwide. In other words, the terrorist is a walking, talking, breathing, intelligent weapon system.

To use this analogy in context, if intelligence information identified the location of a bomb within New York City, our citizens would expect the United States government to inform the state and local governments. Further, we would expect our law enforcement agencies to move quickly to seize or neutralize the bomb immediately.

The investigation of how it got there and who was involved could wait until after the immediate threat was neutralized. The same holds true for the terrorists acting the United States in the name of the enemy. They are weapons that must be neutralized immediately. The threat is imminent regardless of the level of planning or if they are actually performing a terrorist act. While we may destroy a bomb, detaining, questioning and attempting to gather evidence and information from a terrorist is a better option than killing (i.e. neutralizing) them on the spot.

Identifying enemy terrorists is a challenge especially when they could already be in the United States. They may only communicate with enemy supporters within the country. Their supporters may be the sole source of communication with the enemy’s chain of command outside the country. The supporters and the terrorists may be United States citizens, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants or any combination of the three. Waiting for them to attack is not going to protect the United States or its citizens.

Defending our country requires proactive measures. The United States has the capability to intercept internal and external communications of virtually any type. If we did not listen to, or read these communications there would little or no hope of catching the terrorists before they attacked. There are too many potential targets of all types in our country. Our law enforcement agencies would have to be extremely lucky to stop terrorist attacks without the information our intelligence agencies are capable of providing.

Perusing communications is a viable method to identifying terrorists. Detaining and isolating terrorists and their supporters once they are identified will save lives. We must all remember that the terrorist and their supporters are enemy agents bent on harming our country. The citizenship of enemy agents should not give them special protections under the law.

Detention of enemy agents, regardless of citizenship, is not a matter for the courts until a criminal case is brought to our judicial system. It is a matter of national security that involves the President, our intelligence agencies and the military. Detention in this context is not an arrest as one would normally understand it. It is a special status that protects our country from the enemy.

Similarly, detention and disposition of prisoners of war is not a matter for the judiciary. Most prisoners of war will never be charged with a crime. The United States military doesn’t collect “evidence” against the enemy or prisoners of war during or after the conduct of combat operations unless there is suspicion that a “war crime” may have been committed. If and when there is evidence, some prisoners may be tried for war crimes. Most of the prisoners of war will most likely be detained for the duration of the war and then repatriated.

The same holds true for enemy agents. They should be detained for the duration. Any crimes these enemy agents commit should be investigated and prosecuted. That’s the purpose of our laws, our law enforcement agencies and courts. Our intelligence agencies and legal system can and should work together toward a common purpose. If and when an enemy agent is investigated for or charged with a crime by a law enforcement agency, our legal system takes precedence.

The use of the power to gather information and detain resides in the Executive Branch, and is inherent in the President’s constitutional responsibility to protect and defend the United States from its enemies. With this power comes the responsibility not to abuse it. It should not become a political tool or a means to gather information that leads to criminal investigations outside the sphere of national security.

The current debate on the issue of using intelligence information and detention as tools in on going battle against Islamic Extremist Terrorism shouldn’t focus on the legality of the methods being used to defeat the enemy. Congress and the President should work together to develop safeguards to ensure the powers of the Executive Branch are not abused.

What does it mean when you say you support the Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines who voluntarily commit their lives to the defense of our country? Are words enough? Is buying yellow ribbons enough? Is sending cards, letters, and packages to deployed members of the military enough? Is saying “thank you” when you see a service member at a store enough?

These gestures may make you feel good and give you a since of pride in your patriotism. They do have a positive impact on many of us in the military, but it is not the deep and true support we need. These efforts, while commendable, are like the cheers from the high school cheerleaders, or the activities of the pep squad. The team doesn’t really notice and it doesn’t have a major impact on the training and readiness of the team.

I am a Soldier. I’ve dedicated myself to serving my country in the United States Army. I didn’t do it to make money, avoid the real world, or grab the brass ring of a 20 year retirement. I do it because it’s a meaningful life. I wake up every morning feeling good about my job. I don’t dread going to work. I don’t actively think about why I feel this way, but I’m pretty sure it’s because I’m serving a democracy dedicated to ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

I don’t think military service is for everyone. Still, I want you to encourage your sons and daughters to serve the United States of America directly in some capacity. I do not expect everyone to serve in the military, but military service should be seen as a revered and respected choice. Discouraging your sons and daughters from thinking about or actually joining the military doesn’t show support.

Your vote in national elections demonstrates your support. I want you to elect Congressmen and women, Senators, and Presidents that understand how to use, and provide for a premier military force. Resources, pay, benefits, and rewards will ensure quality training, quality personnel and bolster the military’s status as a viable profession for our sons and daughters. Your Congressmen and Senators must be able and willing to provide the equipment and resources required to train for and conduct operations in support of our country’s objectives.

We need to recognize the unique contributions of the military to society and our national security. The people who join the military do so for a variety of reasons. Regardless of the reason, they must be viewed as special. We should reward our military personnel for their sacrifices during and after they leave the service. They need sufficient pay based on rank and experience, a generous retirement benefit to include health care, survivor benefits, veterans programs, and any other financial incentives we can afford to provide. This not only recognizes their service, it provides incentives that attracts quality personnel and retains them.

The words you use when discussing the military demonstrates your support. Debate on public policy is a fundamental part of our society, and is one of the key aspects of the Constitution our military personnel are bound by oath to defend. Public comments which disparage the President and our chain of command, encourages the enemy, advocates the enemy’s position, or ignores the efforts of our service men and women harms morale and can impact the success of the mission they are executing.

Military personnel want to be successful. To be successful they must accomplish the missions they are assigned by their leader’s right up to the President of the United States. He’s the only elected leader in our chain of command. The majority of the citizens of the United States elect him to be the Commander in Chief who leads us. The missions he assigns may be dangerous and some of our military personnel may die. Justifying protests by saying you want to prevent the deaths of our brave military personnel doesn’t support us, help us accomplish our missions, or assist us in being successful. Saying you support our troops but not the mission is just like saying you want us to fail.

Sensationalizing the misdeeds of military personnel doesn’t demonstrate your support either. Sensationalizing and over publicizing the criminal acts of a few soldiers during a conflict can give the enemy ammunition for their propaganda efforts. The enemy will use this information against us in the court of world opinion, to recruit people to their cause, and as a justification for their continued resistance. All of which can impact our ability to be successful.

The Army, the Department of Defense, and our government aren’t perfect. Luckily or by the grace of God we have become the dominant military power in our present day world. That doesn’t make us omnipotent. While our technology is impressive, Soldiers are still human and fallible. In the confusion of combat and the uncertain and chaotic environments Soldiers are expected to operate in, it is unrealistic to expect every act and decision to be perfect.

The majority of our Soldiers will do what is legally, morally and ethically right, however, just like in our society, there will always be some true criminals and some who take inappropriate actions in the heat of passion. The professionals in our military will investigate and punish criminal acts committed by military personnel. No leader in the military will wittingly encourage criminal acts, foster abuse of prisoners or native populations, or engage in practices that violate the rules of land warfare. We need you to support us by giving us the benefit of the doubt that we will do the right thing, and punish those that don’t.

The war against Iraq was never the Super Bowl of the Global War on Terror. It was a necessary operation against a despot who posed a real or potential threat to the United States and the region, and had the potential, intent or reason to assist our enemy. What is going on now is a stepping stone on the path to a strategic success against the Islamic Terrorists. With the direct entry of the enemy’s forces into Iraq after our victory, Iraq became and remains a major tactical and operational front in the Global War on Terror.

In April 2003, US and coalition forces defeated the Iraqi Army, removed the Bathist Party and Saddam Hussein from power, and liberated Iraq. We won the battles and achieved our operational objectives. This was an awesome victory. We were victorious in battle and accomplished the mission to oust a vicious dictator and his cronies from power. We won the military engagement against Iraq, and should celebrate it as a great achievement.

A strategic end-state, however, was not achieved. There were still strategic goals and operational requirements left to achieve in Iraq and the region, and a greater Global War on Terrorism to win. Post conflict Iraq had to be stabilized and rebuilt. A stable government had to be developed and put into a position to operate and function as an independent state. Morally and historically, the victor has this responsibility.

The US and its coalition partners may have been naïve in understanding the complexity of the task, but understood they were responsible for this daunting task in a country composed primarily of three antagonistic ethnic groups. One wanted to form a separate country. One wanted vengeance and the power that it, from a population standpoint, expected to have. One wanted the power it lost and would probably never regain without suppressing the others. All three have no great historical or culturally ingrained love for the US or its coalition partners.

Declaring victory and pulling out military forces once the battle was won would have been wrong. The ethnic groups within Iraq would not have come together peacefully to rebuild and form a new government without a massive internal bloodletting. Declaring victory and keeping our forces in Iraq to maintain the peace, facilitate rebuilding of the country and its government, and to limit the influence of surrounding countries was the right thing to do.

Like a majority of the white US citizens in the south after the Civil War, the Sunni’s will probably never embrace the force that occupied their country, changed their way of life, and removed them from a position of privilege. They will and are fighting against it, but can never expect to succeed if we stay the course and work to bring them into the process of governing Iraq. It will take time eliminate the hardliners and integrate the Sunnis back into the governance of the new Iraq.

As complex as it may sound, it’s fairly straight forward. There was and is, however, another problem. The enemy in the Global War on Terror entered the fight. The Islamic Terrorist and states in the region that support or encourage them are the real threat to a speedy strategic victory in Iraq. The hard-line Sunnis compound their problems by encouraging and working with terrorists. They have or are becoming the enemy or supporters of the enemy in the Global War on Terrorism.

The on-going military operations in Iraq are primarily focused on rebuilding Iraq as a country, and fighting against the enemy (and their supporters) in the Global War on Terrorism. Intelligence has uncovered documents and information that indicate that the enemy wants to drive the US and the coalition out of Iraq. They want to use it as a base of operations against the non-Islamic world, increase their capability and resources, and promote their regional aspirations. Preventing the enemy from succeeding in Iraq is critical to the overall Global War on Terrorism, and will be another victory for the US and the coalition.

Understanding that the US and its coalition partners were victorious in the conflict with Saddam’s Iraq is critical to understanding how the fight has changed in Iraq. The enemy wants us to fail to achieve the post-victory strategic end-state in Iraq. Some of the countries in the region, namely Syria and Iran, want the coalition to fail also. Prematurely pulling out the forces fighting our overarching enemy in Iraq and letting the newly formed Iraqi government fend for itself against its internal and external antagonist would not be a victory for the US or the coalition. It would be victory for our enemy, a defeat for the US and the coalition, and a failure to achieve the strategic outcome of our victory against Saddam’s Iraq.

War or military action initiated and conducted within the framework of the Constitution and law are legal. War conducted in accordance with the Law of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention is not illegal or immoral (some people believe that all war is immoral and they have a right to their opinion). The checks and balances within our Constitution are designed to, and should prevent the United States from entering into a war that is not in the best interest of the country, ill advised, or unjustified. Actions within a war can be immoral or illegal. Soldiers who commit, order, or follow orders to commit illegal or immoral actions should be punished.

As long as the President commits troops in accordance with the Constitution and law, Soldiers are obligated to comply. The oath every Soldier takes states that they swear or affirm to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them. That does not mean a Soldier has to agree with the decision, or can't exercise free will. Soldiers can decide not to participate for their own personal reasons. They must be willing to face the consequences of their actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice if they choose to disobey a lawful order. If an act a Soldier is ordered to perform is illegal, immoral or unethical, there is an obligation to question the order, obtain clarification, and, if they still feel it is wrong, not comply.

Given the stated powers of the President in the Constitution and the War Powers Act, it would be extremely difficult for the President to commit Soldiers long term without the support of Congress and the citizens of the United States. To date Congress has not declared War or a national emergency for either GWOT or Iraq. The President has declared a national emergency and Congress supported that action with a joint resolution in support the actions in Iraq. Congress controls the funding. Congress can withdraw that support and force the President to reduce the commitment, or withdraw. I'm pretty sure the Constitution provides for other action if the President commits or continues to commit troops in violation of either the law or his constitutional powers.

If a war is initiated under false pretenses, can it be deemed illegal or immoral if it is executed within the framework of the Constitution and the laws and treaties governing the conduct of war? I would argue that the decision to go to war or commit troops is either right or wrong for the country. Making the decision and knowingly providing false information or misinformation to convince Congress and the citizens of the nation would be immoral and unethical, and/or illegal if provided in sworn testimony. Congress will need to figure that out, and take action in accordance with the Constitution and law, if warranted.

While everyone has their opinions on the issue of GWOT and Iraq, history will be the better judge of whether it was right or wrong for the nation. For me, I will do my duty. I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over me.

Do We Win too Quickly?
25 April 2005

Successfully attack the enemy’s center of gravity and victory will follow. That has essentially been the mantra of militaries around the world throughout history, and for the most part it has served militaries well during armed conflict in support of national objectives. Over the course of the United State’s history, the theory war and military doctrine have been refined; and weapons, communications, intelligence, logistics and a host of other combat support capabilities have systematically improved to the point where conventional armed conflict can be and is quick and decisive. Woe be the country that provokes the United States into armed conflict.

The United States military is without a doubt the most effective military force in the history of the world today. As long as it maintains the symmetrical advantage in conventional weapon systems, information dominance, and doctrine and training, our unequalled capability will result in victory on the conventional battlefield. Just the threat of the using military power holds rouge nations at bay, forces the acceptance of diplomatic solutions to regional and world issues, and facilitates the imposition of the United States’ will on the majority of the world.

In recent cases where United States military has been used to impose the will of the nation, we have been extremely effective and efficient in destroying the enemy’s government infrastructure and military’s will to fight. As demonstrated in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States was able to defeat or impose its will primarily through the use of military force in an unprecedented amount of time, and with an extremely favorable casualty ratio – good for us and bad for them. Unfortunately, in each case we were stuck with what seems to be a long term military commitment to ensure the peace and stability of the region.

Is there an Achilles heel to the speed at which we can achieve our success against an enemy’s conventional forces, remove the leadership of a country, disable their government, and occupy their territory? The speed and precision of our attacks by their very nature reduce the impact of war on the general population, and reduce both our own and the enemy’s casualties. Both are a plus for world opinion, but have a significant impact on post-conventional conflict operations.

As an example, conventional military operations in Iraq were completed so quickly that the majority of the population was not subject to the horrors of war, and a relatively large portion of young military age males with basic military training remained essentially unaffected. The United States defeated the Iraqi Army, overcame the political aims of the Iraqi government, established a tenuous government, but never completely subdued the Iraqi people that supported the ousted government. This ultimately fueled and facilitated the on going struggle for power between a fledging democracy, and those ousted from power and their supporters. To complicate matters, there were uncooperative activists of various ethnic and religious groups, and the theocracy minded Islamic nations and non-state actors that have an interest in opposing democracy or the West in general.

In this chaotic environment, the United States found itself engaged in a Baath Party centric insurgency/resistance fight in addition to facing anti-democratic and anti-Western terrorist movements, and factional infighting between various ethnic and religious populations that direct some violence against the coalition forces. Many of these rival or cooperating organizations had support from the general or their ethnic/religious populations. Many recruited fighters from or were lead by the large number of former Iraqi military members that returned home jobless and disavowed.

The relatively low number of ground troops that were required to conduct the operation, and the enemy combatant “catch and release” phenomenon during the attack both contributed to the post-conventional combat environment. Due to the low number of troops involved and the speed of the operation, the coalition could not impose order as it captured land and population centers, and was unable to detain and isolate enemy soldiers for an extended period of time. Units reportedly disarmed and let deserters go on their way, and captured enemy soldiers and set them free. With the disbandment of the Iraqi Army in early 2003, an even greater number of soldiers became jobless and disillusioned.

The inability or unwillingness to impose order in population centers during and immediately after the conventional combat operation left a power vacuum that fostered civil disobedience. Rather than imposing the will of the United States on the population, in most cases the Iraqi people were left to fend for themselves for a period of time, allowed to loot and vandalize virtually uncontrolled, and avail themselves of weapons and ammunition from stockpiles around the country that were left unguarded. Unrest in the urban population centers was exacerbated by the unreliable and dilapidated power, water and sewer systems; and lack of or minimal sanitation, postal and services.

If these challenges were identified, and solutions resourced (troops or personnel, equipment, funding, etc…) and positioned prior to the start of decisive combat operations and a systematic plan to occupy and administer Iraq was in place, many of the events that occurred could have been avoided. As Colin Powell reportedly said, "you break it, you own it." In other words, once you take down a country’s government, you have responsibility for that country. Inherent in this responsibility is the requirements to rebuild, re-establish law and order, reorganize the government, and maintain and sustain the general health and welfare of the population. Of course this would be much easier if the surrounding nations supported the effort, and the population of the defeated nation was subdued or cooperative.

Subduing a nation’s population through the use of military force has become less attractive as an option to democratic nations due to free world opinion. In today’s world, Americans, Europeans and the people of other free nations around the world balk at the loss of life and hardship that war can inflict on “innocent civilians.” Attacking and destroying key infrastructure such as water supplies, power plants, food distribution systems and other basic requirements of modern civilization result in long term hardship on a population, and are therefore avoided if at all possible. The end result of the use of force to defeat nation today is a quick end to decisive combat operations that decapitates the enemy’s government and defeats the enemy’s military, and a population that has barely felt the true impact of war as it was known in the past.

Unless you just walk away and let the defeated nation fend for it self, the ability to re-establish the defeated nation as a viable national entity in the eyes of the world becomes paramount to success. The victor must not only win the conventional fight between military forces, the victor’s nation must commit the effort and resources required to see it through to the end. The obvious agent to achieve the desired end-state in a chaotic post-conflict environment is the military. The military, specifically the Army, is the only organization in the United States that has the inherent structure, equipment and manpower to take on such a massive undertaking.

Unfortunately, the United States Army has focused on decisive combat operations rather than post-conflict operations. In general, post-conflict planning is barely ankle deep when compared to planning the fight. Of course the unknowns are greater, but in general we know what is required. There must be security from external threats, and law and order. Water, power and sewage must continue to flow. Food must be produced and distributed. A government must be established, and the basic services and regulatory enforcement of law and codes it provides must continue. The list of what the government can and should do can go on and on: banking, currency, phone service, postal service, tax collection, vehicle licensing, etc...

With all the known requirements, we can and should do better. Plans can be developed, synchronized and implemented to reach the desired end-state. Successfully executing all this while fighting an insurgency, insurrection, or internal rebellion against an elusive enemy is difficult to say the least, but it is the only way to ensure the outcome. Pulling out prematurely could lead to a descent into chaos – famine, disease, and subsistence living, an invitation to other nations fill the void, civil war between competing factions within the defeated nation, or any combination of the three.

In war there are no easy solutions. All wars with the aim to remove and replace a countries leadership and government require a significant effort on the part of the attacking country. While the United States’ can defeat a country quickly, it is inevitably faced with an equally challenging requirement to reestablish the country. In other words, quick decisive operations equate to a long term commitment to post-conventional operations in the defeated country with all the challenges that entails.

Whether there is an inverse or more exponential correlation between the time to win a conventional war with our current and future capabilities, and length of post-conventional conflict remains to be seen. The challenge, magnitude and scope of what must be accomplished will not change. As an Army, we can strive to reduce the post-conventional conflict commitment in terms of time, resource, and soldier’s lives through the development of usable doctrine, tactics, techniques and procedures; the development of war games and exercises that focus on post-conventional operations; and the detailed planning post-conventional operations as a part of the total campaign for victory.

War or Something Like It
24 January 2005

Is the United States of America at war, or are we just fooling around? Does war to Americans just mean sending soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines into battle, and then supporting them with letters and acts of good will? As a soldier, I know how much military members appreciate the later, but as an American I am concerned about the approach to war we appear to be taking as a nation. To date the United States has not fully mobilized its military force structure, nor has it turned its collective will and resources to the effort. In order to achieve Victory in the War on Terror, we must decide and act to achieve that aim.

How far will Americans be willing to go to support operations in Iraq or the overall War on Terrorism? If we truly are at war and as a country want to win the war, then the civilian and military leaders, and citizens must make Victory in the War on Terror a number one priority, and focus the country’s collective greatness on achieving Victory. Ask the questions, what am I doing, what is my family doing, what is my city, county, and state doing, and what is my employer doing to contribute to the overall effort?

Is America at war? Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman made the quote "War is Hell” famous. Would he or any other war time leader from the past recognize the United States as a country at war? You could go so far as to say that if there wasn’t coverage in the news, the average American would never know we were at war. Based its relative lack of impact on the lives of most Americans you could say “War is Swell”.

What is the economic impact or mental/physical hardship on the average American? There are no shortages of goods, materials or services. There is no general sacrifice for the common good. Granted, a lot of great Americans are donating, volunteering and supporting the troops, but those activities are vastly different from working and suffering for a common purpose. It's more like a High School Booster Club support the team effort as opposed to a rally cry for Victory.

How can we foster, promote and perpetrate a unity of effort and purpose, and harness the economic power of the America? Wars are expensive, and require significant resources of all types. That’s why this nation sold war bonds, sponsored fund drives, conducted blood drives, and collected scrap metal and material during WWII. The direct economic contribution of an average American to the war effort today is virtually zero. There has been no effort to raise additional funds for the military in the form of taxes, or any other non-deficit increasing method in order for the government to persecute the war. Are the citizens of America really ready, and capable of fully supporting the War on Terror? If so, then Americans must be willing to sacrifice.

Congress and the President have the authority to fully mobilize and/or expand the military if required. Since Congress has not declared war, the President is limited in what he can do without violating the powers he has been given by Congress. The Executive Branch can impose Stop Loss on Active Duty members of the military, call up the Reserves and National Guard for a limited duration of time, and recall retirees to active duty. All of these options are being exercised to a certain degree now, but the limits on the powers of the President are designed to preclude sustaining a long term commitment of military forces to combat operations.

With the current policies, how long can the military continue to function at the current OPTEMPO, and do they need to change? Currently, we are balancing the conflicting demands and priorities of budget, manpower, resources and public support. This leads to compromise, concessions and decisions that can’t satisfy everyone. As long as the current War on Terrorism remains in the current status (i.e. an undeclared war), the ability of the military and the United States to defeat the enemy will remain in limbo.

Declaring war will not preclude debate or discussion of the ends (objectives), ways (campaigns or operations) and means (diplomatic, military, economic or information). I believe it will focus Congress, America, and the world on our commitment to defeat the enemy - in other words, to achieve the aims and objectives of the War on Terror. How far is the United States are willing go to defeat the enemy? Are we willing to sacrifice? Are we willing to do everything as a country to achieve Victory?