Facultative Elements of War: Threat Reconcilement/Civilian Subscription to Military Policy
By Sgt. Terrance Jones
The current base realignment/closure proposal must be analyzed and assessed from a viewpoint that is highly cognizant of threat reconcilement and civilian subscription factors in regards to U.S. military policy, as these factors will play a major role in America?s ability to neutralize many of the military engagement variables that have a high possibility of occurring in the future.
The current base closure proposal aims to facilitate a rapid shift to a more modular configuration at home and abroad. The fact that these shifts are to occur simultaneously has the ability to cause several problems:
The shift to a modular global posture suggests that this is the best way to prepare for and engage in modular warfare. This is not necessarily the case, as the stationary modular configuration/posture that is being proposed and is supposed to guarantee flexibility can be neutralized due to the theoretical decision to expand the interpretation of modular warfare to include stationary military formations during preparatory/ short/long term phases of configurative transition. My point is that modular warfare can be waged more effectively from conventional formations that are not transparent. This increases the number of strategic options and variations available to war planners. To understand what is being proposed here the following point must be clearly understood:
*Modular Warfare Engagement from Conventional Formations
There are many military leaders that will argue that modular warfare suggests mobile, flexible military engagements from formations and forces that require dramatically fewer soldiers than those required for conventional military engagements. Hence, to effectively neutralize asymmetrical threats in the future, a massive realignment of troops is required, as the modular concept does not have the precise continuity and concentric factors needed to form/maintain the combat effective conventional alignment of forces that have preserved the global interests of America for almost 6 decades. I disagree with this assessment.
Using Europe as a model, it is easy to see how strategic mission essentials task can be assigned in varying rates and priorities to prepare for threat variances in the region. These same threat variances will decide the rate and size of future downsizing within the region as well. This allows America to maintain a high state of readiness, while guaranteeing that the tasks of support forces will be taken on be well trained veterans that have extensive experience in the region. Soldiers from this region can be cross trained for security missions and joint military offensive by strategic rotations and cycles which will facilitate a more rapid transition into a force that contains enough forces to maintain a conventional force deterrent in numerical troop strength. This will allow for a continuous yet incremental downsizing (to maintain a dual configurative deterrent in the region) of forces in the region while having the ability to neutralize asymmetrical threats in the region due to the troop experience and knowledge of the region.
*Casualty Projection Analysis
In a day and age when the citizens of America are unwilling to support military engagements where Americans endure minimal casualties, how will our leadership obtain civilian support of American military policies that make the likelihood of exponential increases in casualty projection estimates due to newly adopted modular warfare concept and the costs of implementing a global realignment posture?
It will be extremely difficult to convince Americans to support future military engagements where there is a great risk of increased casualties in addition to the tens of thousands of Americans due to be unemployed due to the current base realignment proposal.
Precedent for Casualty Projection Analysis
Civilian subscription to American military policy will be difficult to obtain just based on the fact that American military forces suffered over 30,000 casualties during the Korean War. The fact that North Korea has already developed several nuclear weapons, increases the chances of flashpoint intervention by China because of the actions that will be necessary to neutralize North Korean aggression in the region.
In this scenario it is clear that American are being alienated at a time when there support will be needed, as we face the possibility of war on multiple fronts.
The cumulative effect of these factors present an environment where a draft/reserve call up will be necessary. This would be extremely unpopular amongst Americans if the current base realignment/closure proposal is allowed to send tens of thousands of Americans to the unemployment line. These factors would be made worse by the fact that