Tunnel vision or visionary?
Thursday, 8 May 2008 | 65 readers so far
Is the U.S. Army so focused on the here and now that it is failing to stay at the ready for possible future conflicts with conventional armies?
That is the question being asked by NPR’s Guy Raz in his article Army Focus on Counterinsurgency Debated Within.
Col. Sean MacFarland was among the first to successfully apply counterinsurgency doctrine in Iraq in 2006. And yet he was a co-author of the recent internal Army report suggesting that the Army is far too focused on counterinsurgency training. This singular focus, he writes, is weakening the Army.
The report cites field artillery as an example of an area that has suffered from inattention. Since 1775, artillery units have served as the backbone of the U.S. Army. But today, a stunning 90 percent of these units are unqualified to fire artillery accurately — the lowest level in history.
I anticipate very real possibilities of conflict with conventional armies in my lifetime. On the other hand, a career in the Army is only 20 years, so I’m not sure it is that important that many artillerymen are serving as truck drivers in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they need to convert back to artillerymen it won’t take very long.
Nevertheless, the topic is always worth consideration - are we thinking ahead and training our military for the kinds of missions it will be fighting in the short and long term.
1 May 8th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Zendo Deb says:
The army has been trying to field its “future combat system” that includes the aerial drones, remote sensors and non-line-of-sight artillery and rocket response - aimed via electronic links to the drones, forward observers and remote sensors.
The problem is Congress won’t foot the bill for the modernization program… well they are funding some of it, but not the artillery portion.
2 May 9th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Trevor says:
I would have stated it slightly different Deb, by starting with the lead “Congress is the problem.” That seems to be a theme in American life these days.