Pentagon Prepares to Rethink Focus on Conventional Warfare

The Washington Post ^ | January 26, 2005 | Bradley Graham

[neverdem]

New Emphasis on Insurgencies and Terrorism Is Planned

The Pentagon has drafted terms for an ambitious reshaping of U.S. forces that would put less emphasis on waging conventional warfare and more on dealing with insurgencies, terrorist networks, failed states and other nontraditional threats, according to senior defense officials and others familiar with the confidential planning.

This proposed shift in strategic focus stems partly from a recognition that U.S. forces were inadequately prepared for the insurgency in Iraq and the wider hunt for terrorists around the world. But officials said it also grows out of a heightened perception of other potential threats.

The new thinking has emerged in a classified document being readied for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's signature by the Pentagon's policy branch in coordination with the Joint Staff and service representatives. The document, called the "Terms of Reference," sets the framework for the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which Congress has mandated to compel a comprehensive look at U.S. military strategy at the start of each presidential term.

By giving a higher priority to a larger set of possible security challenges, the initiative goes beyond notions of military transformation the Bush administration has previously touted, the officials said. But with months of internal Pentagon wrangling still ahead over which programs to favor and which to cut, the ultimate result is far from certain.

This intensified push for change comes at a time when the Iraq conflict and war on terrorism have badly taxed the U.S. military, especially the Army, requiring more forces and longer deployments than anticipated and highlighting shortfalls in U.S. capabilities. Recent experience has shown that while the Pentagon remains flush with planes, ships and precision-guided munitions -- all useful in large conventional battles -- it is desperately short of other kinds of troops, weapons and specialized...

[Coop]

May I suggest an alternate title for the liberal Post?

RUMMY WAS RIGHT!

[SunStar]

The new thinking has emerged in a classified document being readied for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's signature by the Pentagon's policy branch in coordination with the Joint Staff and service representatives.

Which is why it is appearing immediately in the Washington Post...

[BenLurkin]

Might neeed to make this thing a little faster -- forty MPH would be about right, IMO.

[Blueflag]

Yawn. This has been in the works ever since Bush got in office.

[oolatec]

Anyone else think it's a bad idea to concentrate more on guerrilla warfare instead of conventional warfare? After all, we do have Iran to worry about... and China... Russia... Can't we concentrate on both without neglecting either? *shrugs*

[blues_guitarist]

Effective alternative to Conventional War in the Middle East:

[Necrovore]

I agree with your point. It would be easier to train a larger unit to be able to break off into smaller pieces to fight smaller conflicts while still maintaining a large enough force to deal with larger enemies.

[Southack]

"Anyone else think it's a bad idea to concentrate more on guerrilla warfare instead of conventional warfare? After all, we do have Iran to worry about... and China... Russia... Can't we concentrate on both without neglecting either? *shrugs*"

All true, but please refrain from instantly drawing conclusions from the liberal Washington Post's articles.

The real military transformation is going to be back to armor, rather than to Pres. Carter's Rapid Deployment Force concept of "lighter and faster."

The public doesn't give any credit for winning battles "lighter and faster." What the public wants are war victories with few friendly casualties.

That means armor, robots, unmanned aircraft, orbital and sub-orbital aircraft, stealth aircraft, and stand-off munitions.

All of which happen to be rather useful against *any* foe, conventional or not.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

Hal G. Moore: The Legacy and Lessons of an American Warrior

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/page_left_column.php?content=show_curr_issue_0904a

http://war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14752&page=1

.

[Poohbah]

The problem is that we need a huge (and hugh) infrastructure to support the present-day heavy ground force.

We need a new "tank." Not necessarily a big, track-laying vehicle with thick slabs of passive armor and a big gun. What we need is a system that provides mobile, protected firepower--by whatever means.

[Tailback]

The Pentagon has drafted terms for an ambitious reshaping of U.S. forces that would put less emphasis on waging conventional warfare and more on dealing with insurgencies, terrorist networks, failed states and other nontraditional threats, according to senior defense officials and others familiar with the confidential planning.

The Pentagon is always fighting the LAST battle. The next threat is China or North Korea, will the Pentagon be ready for that? Of course not, they're never ready for the NEXT battle.

[Southack]

"We need a new "tank." Not necessarily a big, track-laying vehicle with thick slabs of passive armor and a big gun. What we need is a system that provides mobile, protected firepower--by whatever means."

M1C1 Modular Combat Vehicle
(Proposals To Upgrade Mothballed M1 Abrams Tanks Into Active Duty Urban Infantry Support Platforms)

The M1C1 is a modified M1 (or M1A1 or M1A2) Abrams main battle tank platform. It contains nine unique improvements:
1. The 105mm M1 Cannon is replaced with the 20mm GAU-4 (or 30mm GAU-8) Cannon
2. The two M1 tank treads are replaced with four half tracks
3. The 4 man M1 tank crew is downsized to a 3 man M1C1 crew
4. Ammunition storage for 105mm shells is replaced by the integrated GAU-4
5. Two long-range anti-tank missiles (e.g. TOW, HellFire, etc.) are added to the M1C1
6. Two powerful external intercoms are added to communicate with nearby infantry
7. An incoming projectile detection system for locating enemy small arms fire is added
8. An electrically deployable, 387 inch long full body ghilli camouflage system is added
9. Infrared and laser jamming modules are added; laser detection units are added

The M1C1 is designed to be an A-10 infantry support fighter on the ground.

[Poohbah]

That's not what I'm talking about. It's still too dependent on a massive logistics infrastructure.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the links.

[hchutch]

Better idea:
Pull the M163 SP Vulcan out of retirement.

[Prost1]

It needs an acoustic speaker to broadcast music like Donald Sutherland's tank in "Kelly's Heros"...

[datura]

Seems like a make work pork project to me. Here's a link to a video showing one reason to keep the fully gunned M1A2's:

Rifle vs. Tank