Progress Now Action

Here are some specific points from the FP story about the study that deserve additional comment.  Mostly, this is my slight variations on the comments offered by the study group on the poll responses.  FP and CNAS have to measured and diplomatic in their narrative. I can go a little bit further. 

The next step (read to the bottom) is what I can see from a veterans perspective in the wording and responses to the questions.  There are some nuances here of military culture and biases that I think FP and CNAS are missing.

Weaker or Stronger?

"Would you say that the U.S. military today is stronger, weaker, or about the same as it was five years ago?" RESPONSE - 60% say WEAKER.

This is a clear condemnation of the current occupant of the White House and the mis-adminstration's civilian leadership at the Department of Defense.  Robert Gates has a nearly impossible mission as Rummy's replacement, but still having to deal with the vice and the coWH.  His considerable efforts so far have possibly kep this response below a 70% negative judgement.

The next preposterous smear from the WingNuts could run with the line "...this language gives aid and comfort to the enemy."  Not really, because theh rest of the world already recognizes this.  It is only the US public that is kept in the dark by the White House propaganda machine (faux news, the pill-popper, etc.).  FP and CNAS are doing a huge service to America by telling THE TRUTH (image the voice of Robin Wiliams as the Genie).

"The war in Iraq has stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin?" RESPONSE 88% AGREE

Thin is very close to hollow or even implies a perception of at the breaking point, or as us ground forces types say "...where we attack the enemy, or apply our own reserves in the defense."  The coWH has compromised the US element of national power that is the military to a deplorable level.  That puts increasing pressure on the other parts of DIME (Diplomatic, Information and Economic) to protect and influence US interets in the world. 

This is doubly infamous when considering the grotesque amounts of money that have been borrowed against the National Debt and paid out in no-bid contracts so Halliburton can off-shore their HQs.

"Indicate on a scale from 1 to 10 how concerned you are about the health of the military services. (1 = no concern and 10 = extremely concerned)"

 RESPONSES - 5.7 average for the Air Force, 5.9 for the Navy, 7.0 for the Marine Corps and 7.9 for the Army

There is very little surprise here that the ground forces (Army and Marines) show the highest levels of anxiety.  Broader pictures of desperate measures can be seen in the complete data (read to the end...).

"How prepared is the U.S. military to successfully fight a conflict in the following locations today? (1 = unable to execute and 10 - fully prepared)"

RESPONSES - Taiwan Strait = 4.9, North Korea = 4.7, Iran = 4.5 and Syria = 5.1

The belligerence and saber-rattling of the coWH becomes a flashing red-light based on these responses.  This is wisdom based upon real knowledge and experience that consistently seems to evade the vice and the coWH.  Here is another "no confidence" vote.

Torture

The impact of the current occupant of the White House and his mis-administration's torture policies is evident in the responses to this question.  While there is an arguable majority opposed to torture in general, and a near majority specifically uncomfortable with the idea of committing water boarding against a prisoner; this issue is clouded.  I continue to lay blame and accountability in this controversy with the coWH and his "watever ya want boss" legal yes man Alberto Gonzales.

Civilian Leadership 

"Did the civilian leadership set reasonable or unreasonable goals for the military to accomplish in postwar Iraq?"

RESPONSE 74% UNREASONABLE

Here is the confirmation that Rummy, Wolfie and Bremer blew it.  Maybe, history will be able to hold them accountable.  That is, if the G.W. Bush reputation protection and manipulation institute at SMU doesn't hold complete sway over America for the coming eternity.

The Hollow Military

My heart and my gut sink just looking at the alternatives and measures of action presented by the study.  In addition to the contractor/mercenary abuses in Iraq, the proposed means to fill the ranks are atrocious.  The proud and ready all-volunteer military that I served in for 26-years has been reduced to a sign-here (at the highest pay-out possible) force.

Digging Through the Data

Now, for my reactions and analysis of the complete data report.  This is a 10-page listing of all of the questions and responses provided in one of the final download links from the FP website.

I view this in the context of a very important lesson I received more than 10 years ago from a skilled Army Inspector General (IG) officer.  Nearly every year my peer company/battery commanders feared his visit because of the Unit Climate Profile (UCP).  This was a poll of the all of our subordinate unit members not unlike the FP/CNAS product.

He taught me analyze the questions from the view point of the responders and an awareness of who would be the target of a particular leadership or performance question.  Then, and most significantly, I was shown how several questions can be linked together to form a larger picture of the morale and well-being of the unit.  What is good, bad, and needs improvement.

First, it is necessary to take the FP/CNAS survey data as a health and wellness survey of the U.S. Military.  Then, it is more enlightening to consider what it tells of the mood and conclusions of the survey responders who were once my peers and superiors.  There is much more here than Foreign Policy magazine has highlighted for publication, part mystery and part puzzle.

Getting no further than page three I find that the military community is painfully aware of the deplorable treatment of America’s wounded heroes.  This matches up with stark and compelling news reports from New York and Colorado in recent weeks.  In this survey the 1 to 10 rating technique is used, and it is now seen in the full data report that 5 is adequate.  Or in this instance how in-adequate healthcare has been for these deserving populations:

Mentally wounded veterans who are still in the military      4.4

Physically wounded veterans who have left the military     4.1

Mentally wounded veterans who have left the military        3.3 

The next page (4) provides insight into what should be termed “amateurs at the wheel” in regards to the decision to invade Iraq.  From career military people comes a clear indication that the cornerstone of the G.W. Bush Presidency is made of putty.   

Which country do you feel has gained the greatest strategic advantage from the war in Iraq?

19% United States

37% Iran3% Iraq

22% China

13% Russia

4% Other 

With Iran and China showing greater benefit from the “great decider” leading this nation into war with Iraq the issue is open to “why” and for “what purpose.”  Knowing my former comrades-in-arms I can answer the China advantage without question: irritation at the growing trade deficit and Chinese acquisition of dollars by buying Treasury Bonds that fuel the Bush mis-administration’s deficit spending.  The current occupant of the White House has led the single greatest increase in the National Debt, the tax on our children and grandchildren, to the benefit of foreign governments – predominately China and Saudi Arabia.

Defend US interests at home and abroad? 

Well, according to these distinguished survey participants it’s pretty much Iraq/Afghanistan or sorry, nope, can’t support the idea.  80% responded that it is unreasonable to expect that the US military can be successful in another major war somewhere else in the world.

This ties in with linked inferences to military funding.  Among the “we’re stronger” group, good funding (7%) and great civilian leadership (2%) failed to make the cut for ‘why?”  Then an overwhelming majority of the total group 77%, responded that the nation needs to increase defense spending over the next 5-10 years.  I am convinced that these senior military leaders are sending the message that the US military is broken fiscally and in critical material.

The current mis-administration has waged a war in Iraq on the cheap, with little or no intention of replacing what they have broken.  Perhaps the neo-cons are also hard-core consumers.  Only instead of binging at the shopping malls they’ve consumed the US military.

Contractor/Mercenaries

My favorite sub-group of the coWH’s campaign donors, military contractors – mercenaries, appears on page seven.  It is reassuring to see that the survey participants’ conclusions match some of my own: contractors should be driving trucks and cooking, and if the Department of State wants to use them for bodyguards; that’s their risky business.  Keep the contractor/mercenaries out of high-risk, near-combat, missions like security of the Green Zone, guarding DoD convoys, or patrolling Iraqi villages.

Civilian Leadership of the Military

The most significant item I find in this topic area implicates elected civilian leaders.  The grades for the President and the Department of Defense effectively confirm the conservative dominance of the survey group.  But, 66% respond that they believe the elected leaders are either somewhat or very uninformed this is a deplorable situation for the nation. Again, this links back to the initial “stronger” or “weaker” responses.  Where only 2% of the minority 25% opinion believes that civilian leadership/oversight has made the military stronger.  And, 21% of the majority 60% holding the civilian leadership/oversight responsible for a weaker military.

What was Rumsfeld Thinking?

Page eight is the culmination (military types love that word) of the study’s responses.  Here is more evidence that Donald Rumsfeld and his neo-con strap-hangers were off the mark. 

Two of Rummy’s pet projects receive barely a ripple of consideration:  operational – deployable DoD civilians, and the (ballistic) missile defense shield.

In two questions the podium pounding importance of Rummy’s demand to be able to pluck DoD civilians out of their white-collar offices and send them into combat zones is repudiated by the military members of the survey group.  Both questions where “pick two” opportunities that only resulted in 13% or 7% agreement.  Perhaps Rummy really was only trying to break the Civil Service unions.

Finally, the survey brings closure to the Rumsfeld connection with ballistic missile defense.  After presiding over the canceling of the NIKE ZEUS/SENTINEL Program in his first tour as Secretary of Defense in the 1970s, then leading the 1998 Missile Defense Commission, Rummy was finally able to accelerate the Groundbased Midcourse Defense (GMD) program.  Yet, the importance of missile defense to defending the nation in the 21st century only registered 11% support in the survey.

Conclusion

The next Democratic President of the United States is going to need a super-human Secretary of Defense and a lot of support and cooperation in the Congress.  Only 329 days until that work must begin.