Rumsfeld Leaving and the Policy Battles

Saw this on Instapundit and thought it was worth a comment.

The outline is the four policy battles that the new Secretary of Defense is going to have to deal with. Not that it is solely his fight, but he's going to be point man on much of this.

WIFI TROOPS

Rumsfeld became a champion of the idea that the American military had to change itself—from an array of heavy, plodding forces to a reconfigurable collection of lighter, quicker, better-networked units. Every vehicle, every commander, every drone and every grunt would eventually be connected to a wireless Internet for combat, under the doctrine known alternatively as "revolution in military affairs" or "force transformation." By sharing so much information, U.S. forces would be able to make decisions lightning-fast, outmaneuvering and outwitting any foe. Missions that used to take countless thousands of soldiers could be accomplished with a few wired-up troops, the theory went.

Faith in "transformation" is one of the big reasons why Rumsfeld overruled his generals, and cut the invasion force for Iraq by more than half. It explains, in part, why troop levels were kept low, even as the war effort began to unravel. And the guiding star of "transformation" kept research and development funds for a networked military flowing, even as a cash crunch hit the rest of the military.

I don't really agree with the posture on overruling the generals. Of course, that point is debatable. On the other hand the networked troopers is a bit of a overstatement. The military will never be able to make "lightening" decisions. Doesn't work that way. They may be able to make quicker decisions, but like the fighter pilot with all the instrumentation they deal with, there is a case where you get information overload. They'll have to be intelligent in how they do this so that the wired trooper doesn't end up dead because he was distracted by some officer screeching for information.

The transformation idea does bring up another issue though. Rumsfeld literally ran the Pentagon over the generals. That was never done during the Clinton administration and I honestly wonder if Gates will have what it takes to remain the primary actor.

MISSILE MONEY

Before he joined George W. Bush's cabinet, Donald Rumsfeld was a leading advocate for the ballistic missile defense system. Under his watch, spending on the effort grew to $10 billion a year, making it the biggest item in the Pentagon's $70 billion annual budget for new weapons. Interceptors were installed in Alaska, and on ships stationed in the Pacific.

But the main goal of the program remains elusive. There's never been a full-scale, realistic workout of the Alaska system. And it's unclear whether all those billions could even stop a single ballistic missile from striking the United States. North Korea's recent nuclear and missile tests seem to underscore the need for some kind of ballistic protection.

Expensive, and not going to assuage the majority of threats. On the other hand it will be a defense against those rogue nations that are in the process of making military advances that allow them to strike at the US. That is something that hasn't been much of a threat since the end of the cold war.

STAR WARS

So much of what the military does these days—from spying on adversaries to guiding drones to relaying orders—relies on satellites. Since 2001, Rumsfeld has been publicly worrying about a "space Pearl Harbor" that could jeopardize those orbital assets.

He's also been steering tens of billions of Defense Department dollars into beefing up the American space force—including nearly a billion per year on technologies that could be used for weapons in space. But those projects have become notorious in defense circles for missing deadlines and busting budgets.

A bit confusing, since originally the missile defense system was called Star Wars. Well, this is a good use of the money. I don't expect that there will be any large threats in the near future, but this type of development could well preserve our communications assets when the more technologically advanced countries start pushing for near orbit assets.

WHICH FOE?

Perhaps the biggest question facing any new successor in the Pentagon isn't about America's forces, but about our enemies. For years, there have been two camps at war in the Pentagon. One wants to focus on waging the "Long War" against Islamic extremism—spend more on the infantrymen and Marines on the front lines of that struggle. The other thinks that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are anomalies, even distractions; China is the big threat on the horizon, and America needs new fighter planes and destroyers to counter that threat.

Rumsfeld never really picked between the two factions. He kept up spending for next-gen stealth fighters and got Congress to devote nearly a trillion dollars to Afghanistan and Iraq. With new Democratic leaders on the Hill who tend to focus more on ground efforts than weapons sytems, the Pentagon may not have the same flexibility. Sooner or later, it's going to be time for Gates to choose.

Sorry, the near peer foe isn't even in existence. Posturing China as a threat is pretty much blind to where they have gone in the past decade. They need the rest of the world, and the US in particular, more then ever for their economic viability. Personally, I think that the transformation to medium infantry while maintaining some of the heavy is the better use of ground forces. And frankly, special forces are much more effective for what is needed. And the Marines solve more problems than any of the other large number branches. Ok, that's my opinion, but looking at historical man to ability to results factors show the Marines to be closer to the right track.