Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: what will be the new organization of the US Army under Obama
verong    11/15/2008 11:04:42 PM
How will the affects of pulling out of Iraq change the threat picture and thus the organization of the US Army under Obama? Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
jastayme3       11/18/2008 8:59:11 AM

How will the affects of pulling out of Iraq change the threat picture and thus the organization of the US Army under Obama?

Sincerely,

Keith

As far as the threat picture goes, it is probably the case that the present Iraqi government will be able to stand up for itself
soon. It's a nice tightrope, exactly when. We need to pull out soon, to allay fears that we intend to stay. But we cannot give the impression that we are willing to abandon our allies. Obama may be more right then many think, though not for the right reasons.
Another reason we have to be out soon is that savage wars of peace are a strain on morale and we need to economize if we are going to have enough energy for the next round.
Al Quida has suffered tremendously, both losing popular support and a considerable amount of it's assets. They won't be able to recover for years.
One of the most important reasons for the War on Terror is "encouraging the others". I think we have done that fairly well by now.
One advantage Obama has is that it is easier for him to preserve face while making the pullout, because he is initiating his own policy rather then changing his mind.
All in all, the threats may have receded to the point where pullout is safe, and in fact we may start to get diminishing returns. In any case how the pullout is made is as important as when. It must not look like a defeat.
 
As far as the army composition, much more cost-cutting will be necessary to make up for reduced defenses. We can safely reduce some armored divisions to a cadre. There won't be another Great Power war for some time, and when it comes it may be that the "heavy cavalry" role will be replaced by another weapons system that will render tanks obsolete. Some of the armor can be penny-packeted with infantry to provide support. The detterant is provided by the navy and air force anyway, both of which are unchallenged. We should retain enough large armor formations to at least have some idea how to do a maneuver war, though.
 There should be more  infantry, and there should be specialized counterinsurgency units, which is something no one has ever really tried formally. There should also be enough airmobility and air transport. We should be able to do punitive actions reasonably well.
 One thing we might consider is the old Prussian trick of concentrating the layoffs disproportionately in the lower ranks and training the remainder a grade higher then their nominal rank. If done right, this will make for a highly superior non-com and officer class and have the effect of making an army able to fairly quickly field far more then the nominal personal level.
 
 
 


 
 
 
Quote    Reply

verong       11/18/2008 2:55:31 PM
Hey there,
 
I was thinking of a couple active armored div. and various versions of the IBCT on active duty (Air Assault, Airborne, Lite infantry), but the problem is that we would have plenty of strategic mobility and very little tactical.
 
Sincerely,
 
Keith
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       11/19/2008 11:52:38 AM

Hey there,

 

I was thinking of a couple active armored div. and various versions of the IBCT on active duty (Air Assault, Airborne, Lite infantry), but the problem is that we would have plenty of strategic mobility and very little tactical.

 

Sincerely,

 

Keith

In small wars, the insurgent almost always has a better "yomp" capacity do his greater knowlege of home turf and his ability to forage effectively. Whereas conventional infantry tends to have to much on their backs.
Unless we intend mounted or bicycle formations the only means of tactical mobility is yomping which could probably be improved, or mechanized which we have plenty of but which is not always as practical in the wilder parts of the earth.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       11/21/2008 12:44:50 PM

Hey there,

 

I was thinking of a couple active armored div. and various versions of the IBCT on active duty (Air Assault, Airborne, Lite infantry), but the problem is that we would have plenty of strategic mobility and very little tactical.

 

Sincerely,

 

Keith


This is certainly not true. Strategic mobility is definitely not plentiful.
 
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       11/21/2008 9:57:15 PM

How will the affects of pulling out of Iraq change the threat picture and thus the organization of the US Army under Obama?

Sincerely,

Keith

Smaller, weaker, less well trained.


Herald
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       11/26/2008 3:13:21 PM
In the short term I anticipate no changes.
 
In the longer term I hope that some of COL MacGregor's ideas are adopted.  I'm talking about his idea of eliminating the division echelon entirely and having robust combined arms brigades commanded by a one-star working for a joint three-star HQ.  The joint HQ could be commanded by any service's General or Admiral.  I think something similar would be to the USMC's advantage as well: eliminate the statutory requirement (laws can be changed) for the three division USMC structure for permanent Marine Expeditionary Brigades.  Some Marines feel the same way themselves.
 
Large armored forces on the division or corps scale may, or may not, be an anachronism but we will need the Abrams/Bradley team in some form for some time to come.  Stryker and light infantry forces are not well suited to lead penetration attacks into built up areas.  Think Mogadishu.
 
Quote    Reply

verong       11/27/2008 2:57:48 PM
yes folks,
 
There is lots of strategic mobility in my future US army but not the current US Army.
I think the Abrams and Bradleys were determined to be to big for urban fighting, and was a RPG magnet. Most of the stories being released by the US Army are from before the time when armored humvees got close to saturation or even body armor for that matter. the result is far fewer sever or life threating injuries from a variety of combat styles.
 
Sincerely,
 
Keith
 
Quote    Reply

verong       11/27/2008 3:21:43 PM



How will the affects of pulling out of Iraq change the threat picture and thus the organization of the US Army under Obama?




Sincerely,




Keith



Smaller, weaker, less well trained.







Herald


Hearld, Why do you say less well trained? 
Sincerely,
Keith 
 
Quote    Reply

verong       11/27/2008 3:26:19 PM

In the short term I anticipate no changes.

 

In the longer term I hope that some of COL MacGregor's ideas are adopted.  I'm talking about his idea of eliminating the division echelon entirely and having robust combined arms brigades commanded by a one-star working for a joint three-star HQ.  The joint HQ could be commanded by any service's General or Admiral.  I think something similar would be to the USMC's advantage as well: eliminate the statutory requirement (laws can be changed) for the three division USMC structure for permanent Marine Expeditionary Brigades.  Some Marines feel the same way themselves.

 

Large armored forces on the division or corps scale may, or may not, be an anachronism but we will need the Abrams/Bradley team in some form for some time to come.  Stryker and light infantry forces are not well suited to lead penetration attacks into built up areas.  Think Mogadishu.

the question is why retain a higher level of rank than needed! I would eliminate the corp instead, but that would mean a massive reduction in number of units which is not likely to happen anytime soon.
Sincerely,
 
Keith

 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       11/27/2008 7:48:44 PM
"the question is why retain a higher level of rank than needed! I would eliminate the corp instead, but that would mean a massive reduction in number of units which is not likely to happen anytime soon." - verong
 
MacGregor envisions the large 5,000 man combined arms combat groups - smaller than a current division, but bigger than a current brigade - as being commanded by a brigadier general with a colonel as his deputy.  If that's the case, the logical next higher command would be a three-star command with a two-star as his deputy. 
 
Under MacGregor's plan the Army's corps are eliminated in their current form.  There are three-star HQs, but they're joint commands, not an Army commands, and could be commanded by any three-star from any service.  A two-star from any service would be his deputy. 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics