CLASHING MILITARY CULTURES

[MARIO]

I'm probably making a mistake by posting this, but what the hell...

------------------

CLASHING MILITARY CULTURES
By RALPH PETERS

LAST month, I sat in the of fice of Col. Jon "Dog" Davis, a veteran Marine aviator. While at war, the Corps' pilots had seen a rise in their accident rate. Davis was determined to do something about it.

I wanted to be sympathetic, so I said, "Well, you're flying some very old aircraft."

Davis, a taut, no-nonsense Marine, looked me in the eye and said, "They may be old, but they're good. That's no excuse."

As commander of the Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 1 out in Yuma, Ariz., Davis could have nodded and gone along, blaming the jets and helicopters. But he's a Marine. And Marines don't make excuses. They do their best with what the taxpayers give them. And their best is pretty damn good.

Contrast that with a recent conversation I had with two Air Force generals. I had written columns critical of the platinum-plated F/A-22, the most expensive fighter in history and an aircraft without a mission. So the Air Force decided to lobby me.

Those two generals spun the numbers until the stone-cold truth was buried under a mantra of "air dominance," imaginary combat roles and financial slight-of-hand. Still, I wanted to be fair. I took them seriously and investigated their claims.

Not one thing they said held up under scrutiny.

Morally bankrupt, the Air Force is willing to turn a blind eye to the pressing needs of soldiers and Marines at war in order to get more of its $300-million-apiece junk fighters. With newer, far more costly aircraft than the Marines possess, the Air Force pleads that it just can't defend our country without devouring the nation's defense budget.

Meanwhile, Marine aviators fly combat missions in aging jets and ancient helicopters, doing their best for America — and refusing to beg, lie, cheat or blame their gear.

I had gone out to Yuma to speak to Dog Davis' Marines about future war. The truth is they should have been lecturing to me. There is nothing more inspiring than being around United States Marines (yes, a retired Army officer wrote that). The Corps does more with its limited resources than any other branch of government. The Marines are a bargain rivaled only by our under-funded Coast Guard.

READ THE REST:

www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php

[Sailor]

One point from the column that I'll take issue with:

"Not a single Air Force fighter pilot has lost his life in combat in Iraq."

I'm certain that we lost at least a couple of USAF crews to imported SAMs (French ROLANDs among them) that shouldn't even have been in country, having been produced during the Sanction/Embargo period that the Europeans seem to have ignored.

I KNOW we lost Navy and Marine crews to the damned things, and one of the AF birds was a 2 seat F-15E Strike Eagle.

Otherwise an interesting post. I can vouch for the differences in visitor billeting between Navy, Air Farce and Army. Army visitor billeting is your basic "Motel 6," no frills, but a couple of blocks from the EM and Ossifer's Clubs. Navy billeting is perhaps a bit better, "Holiday Inn" maybe, but lots closer to the Clubs .

Air Farce senior NCO/junior Zero billeting is very close to "Hilton" standards, wet bars in the rooms, club on the grounds, all you're missing is "Paris and Nickie."

As a traveling military courier I got to sample all 3. When I stayed over at Charleston AFB the first time, I thought they had mistaken my Navy Surface Warfare pin for wings (had lots of wingwipers look twice and ask "whatthefuckisthat?") and thought the rank/rate on my flight suit name patch "CTA1" might be Navy speak for Captain (O-3). Nope, I found later that the room I got was in the E-7 / E-9 area - I got it because the E-5 / 6 rooms were full. ;D

It beat the hell out of the Holiday Inn outside the gate where I usually wound up.

[FightingFalcon]

What an absolute piece of shit. I have lost all respect that I had for Ralph Peters, which, up to a few months ago, was a lot. This article, combined with his last, has made me convinced that he is simply nothing more than a moron who lives in the past.

Someone who has served as long as he has should realize that fighter jets aren't developed over-night. The Raptor program began in the mid 1980's while the idea for the plane was developed in the late 70s. The Raptor is JUST NOW being mass produced and beginning the eventual take-over of air superiority from the Eagle. The point of this? You don't just have fighter jets pop out of your ass - they take decades to design and build. If we were to cancel all R & D on fighter jets until our enemies "caught up with us", we'd be on a level playing field. Well guess what? I don't want to be on a level playing field God dammit! I want to destroy and slaughter the enemy. I want as many "unfair advantages" as humanly possible. In Kosovo, we only engaged two aircraft. One we shot in the air and one we shot while it was taking off - that's not good enough. I want to destroy every single enemy jet while it's still parked on the ground, like in OIF.

Col. Peters wrote that the Air Force "dreams of a war with China". Actually, I don't just dream of a war with China, but I long for one. But that's a completely different story. The fact is that Col. Peters would have us use the F-15 while PRC and other nations continue to develop their own planes. The Chinese and Russians have planes just as advanced as ours - they just don't have the money to build them yet. The European Typhoon, on the other hand, is indeed being built and it rivals the Raptor in many ways.

So what happens when the USAF is forced to stop all development and then loses air superiority because of budget cuts? What happens when we can't guarantee the air and our troops are slaughtered on the ground? What is Peters and his ground going to say then? O, maybe we should have developed a better air superiority fighter when we had the chance. NO SHIT ASS-HOLE!

My only comfort is that Peters is out of the military and has no input anymore. Ideas like his aren't just stupid but dangerous. He thinks that just because the USAF is light-years ahead of the enemy now, that we will always be. Furthermore, he thinks that just because we are fighting terrorists now, we always will be. Well, perhaps his memory is quite short because it was the USAF that defended us from the Soviet Union just 15 short years ago. I'd like to hear how he thinks a few million American soldiers were going to stop tens of millions of Soviets.

Peters is a member of a dying crop of Army brats who think the Army will continue to be the most important factor in the battle space. Fine - but don't come crying to us when PRC, Europe or the Russian Federation need to be put down militarily. I'd like to see those very same Marines beat the entire PRC military by themselves. What a joke.

[americanpride]

Inter-service rivalry on a decision-making level thoroughly illustrates the most dangerous problem in America's Armed Forces.

Each service has a specific mission. Each service requires specific and absolute capabilities and enablers to exercise key capacities in order to achieve its mission.

America is in a unique position:

As the world's dominant power, our interest is simply the preservation and/or expansion of our economic, political, and military superiority vis-a-vis other powers, maintaining the security and liberty of our Republic.

Necessarily then, our military objective becomes the identification, isolation, and elimination of any adversaries that challenge our global superiority interest. The method of warfare for our adversaries are as varied as their cultures - we must simultaneously contend with distributed low/high-tech adversaries in protracted campaigns in different environments.

Policy, therefore, has to span the full-spectrum of warfare - land, underground, sea, undersea, air, space, digital/electronic, maximizing the application of our scarce political, economic, and military resources in order to efficiently prosecute warfare against all adversaries. We must be able to dominate the battlespace in every single component of warfare regardless of the opponent.

Therefore, our strategy must be a doctrine of joint warfighting and operational service integration. Those weapon systems, capabilities, and enablers that can achieve a number of missions are superior to those that can only achieve one.

Regardless of the arguments today, the future of the military is integration; of systems, capabilities, missions, and command.

[FightingFalcon]

DarkLordoftheChris said:

Inter-service rivalry on a decision-making level thoroughly illustrates the most dangerous problem in America's Armed Forces.

Each service has a specific mission. Each service requires specific and absolute capabilities and enablers to exercise key capacities in order to achieve its mission.

America is in a unique position:

As the world's dominant power, our interest is simply the preservation and/or expansion of our economic, political, and military superiority vis-a-vis other powers, maintaining the security and liberty of our Republic.

Necessarily then, our military objective becomes the identification, isolation, and elimination of any adversaries that challenge our global superiority interest. The method of warfare for our adversaries are as varied as their cultures - we must simultaneously contend with distributed low/high-tech adversaries in protracted campaigns in different environments.

Policy, therefore, has to span the full-spectrum of warfare - land, underground, sea, undersea, air, space, digital/electronic, maximizing the application of our scarce political, economic, and military resources in order to efficiently prosecute warfare against all adversaries. We must be able to dominate the battlespace in every single component of warfare regardless of the opponent.

Therefore, our strategy must be a doctrine of joint warfighting and operational service integration. Those weapon systems, capabilities, and enablers that can achieve a number of missions are superior to those that can only achieve one.

Regardless of the arguments today, the future of the military is integration; of systems, capabilities, missions, and command.

I agree with you 100% - the only part I don't really agree with you on (although you don't really bring it up) is the importance that each branch will have in the future. Joint operations are absolutely essential to the future of the military but I would argue (naturally) that Information, Electronic and Space Warfare will be the most important factors in the battle space.

However, holding certain branches back simply because of service loyalty is foolish and stupid. Col. Peters is nothing more than a kool-aid drinker of the Army (much as the Republicans and Democrats are kool-aid drinkers of their parties), who doesn't care about the best interests of the military as a whole.

Although it might seem otherwise, I do. That's why I am such a strong advocate of air power. I was a huge advocate of aerospace power before I entered the USAF - it's why I chose that branch. I can see what the future of warfare will bring, and IMHO, relying on ground troops to get the job done while neglecting the aerospace portion of the battle space will simply result in millions of lives foolishly lost - just so the Army can have its way.

Col. Peters only cares about what is in the best interest of the Army - not the US military. I'll be the first to admit that importance of ground power and even, to a lesser extent, naval power. I don't let my service loyalty get in the way of my loyalty to the US Constitution.

[tits]

in Charleston, I must agree, those AF boys have it good!

Sailor said:

Otherwise an interesting post. I can vouch for the differences in visitor billeting between Navy, Air Farce and Army. Army visitor billeting is your basic "Motel 6," no frills, but a couple of blocks from the EM and Ossifer's Clubs. Navy billeting is perhaps a bit better, "Holiday Inn" maybe, but lots closer to the Clubs .

Air Farce senior NCO/junior Zero billeting is very close to "Hilton" standards, wet bars in the rooms, club on the grounds, all you're missing is "Paris and Nickie."

As a traveling military courier I got to sample all 3. When I stayed over at Charleston AFB the first time, I thought they had mistaken my Navy Surface Warfare pin for wings (had lots of wingwipers look twice and ask "whatthefuckisthat?") and thought the rank/rate on my flight suit name patch "CTA1" might be Navy speak for Captain (O-3). Nope, I found later that the room I got was in the E-7 / E-9 area - I got it because the E-5 / 6 rooms were full. ;D

It beat the hell out of the Holiday Inn outside the gate where I usually wound up.

I would occasionally present my GS ID with my orders when pulling an AT or IDTT while still in the USNR. Most times, the BEQ officer would cuss and then ask if there was any room in the Chief or Junior officer quarters. A GS12/13 has more pull than an PO1. Only once did I get a BOQ and was challenged by this LT whe he saw me enter the room in San Diego. Fortunately, he stood down when I presented my GS ID and told him that I was doing double duty by providing toxicology oversight for the Pier 7 environmental overhaul. The truth was that I was. ;D

Are you still travelling?

[americanpride]

FightingFalcon said:

I agree with you 100% - the only part I don't really agree with you on (although you don't really bring it up) is the importance that each branch will have in the future. Joint operations are absolutely essential to the future of the military but I would argue (naturally) that Information, Electronic and Space Warfare will be the most important factors in the battle space.

However, holding certain branches back simply because of service loyalty is foolish and stupid. Col. Peters is nothing more than a kool-aid drinker of the Army (much as the Republicans and Democrats are kool-aid drinkers of their parties), who doesn't care about the best interests of the military as a whole.

Although it might seem otherwise, I do. That's why I am such a strong advocate of air power. I was a huge advocate of aerospace power before I entered the USAF - it's why I chose that branch. I can see what the future of warfare will bring, and IMHO, relying on ground troops to get the job done while neglecting the aerospace portion of the battle space will simply result in millions of lives foolishly lost - just so the Army can have its way.

Col. Peters only cares about what is in the best interest of the Army - not the US military. I'll be the first to admit that importance of ground power and even, to a lesser extent, naval power. I don't let my service loyalty get in the way of my loyalty to the US Constitution.

I personally think that all the services will become increasingly important in the future - especially if our national political policy becomes the advancement of democracy and liberty around the world. I think many more military 'interventions' are in our future.

Necessarily, we must be able to project our power over the sea and through the air, and in time, perhaps through space as well, in order to establish a solid footing in those nations in which we become involved.

No one service will be able to accomplish our objectives.

[FightingFalcon]

DarkLordoftheChris said:

I personally think that all the services will become increasingly important in the future - especially if our national political policy becomes the advancement of democracy and liberty around the world. I think many more military 'interventions' are in our future.

Necessarily, we must be able to project our power over the sea and through the air, and in time, perhaps through space as well, in order to establish a solid footing in those nations in which we become involved.

No one service will be able to accomplish our objectives.

Well, one branch serving the country's objectives is not an historical oddity. Although rare, some countries have relied on one sector of the battle space and have been able to prosper. Great Britain with her Navy, the Imperial Habsburg Army, etc. Perhaps it is now the time for the Air Force to take over as the most important factor in the battle space and solely guarantee our future.

You will soon find that the ability to blow up a building is nothing compared to the ability to destroy an entire country's communications network and electronics grid. We will be able to, literally, send countries back to the Stone Age.

I'd like to see an M-16 do that...

[Sailor]

"Are you still travelling?"

Nah, just commuting between home in Va Beach and work in Chesapeake. I stopped my "Globe Trotting" the day I walked down that ship's brow for the last time. Just the occasional road trip to Florida and Michigan to visit family.

How about you?

[tits]

I miss it so very much!

Say, Krypto, I am going to try and make the Battle of Ormoc Bay reunion with my cousin in October. It is in Boston, what is that about 7 hours to VA Beach.

I am also searching for a place to take my wife this August. We spent time in VA before the 1997 hurricane, do you have any recommendations for a coastal get away?

Sailor said:

"Are you still travelling?"

Nah, just commuting between home in Va Beach and work in Chesapeake. I stopped my "Globe Trotting" the day I walked down that ship's brow for the last time. Just the occasional road trip to Florida and Michigan to visit family.

How about you?

[americanpride]

FightingFalcon said:

You will soon find that the ability to blow up a building is nothing compared to the ability to destroy an entire country's communications network and electronics grid. We will be able to, literally, send countries back to the Stone Age.

Wow. You sound almost like Darth Vader in Episode IV. Almost.

[FightingFalcon]

DarkLordoftheChris said:

Wow. You sound almost like Darth Vader in Episode IV. Almost.

That's what I was going for

The ability to destroy a planet, is insignificant, when compared to the power of the Force.

[MARIO]

FightingFalcon said:

What an absolute piece of shit. I have lost all respect that I had for Ralph Peters, which, up to a few months ago, was a lot. This article, combined with his last, has made me convinced that he is simply nothing more than a moron who lives in the past.

Someone who has served as long as he has should realize that fighter jets aren't developed over-night. The Raptor program began in the mid 1980's while the idea for the plane was developed in the late 70s. The Raptor is JUST NOW being mass produced and beginning the eventual take-over of air superiority from the Eagle. The point of this? You don't just have fighter jets pop out of your ass - they take decades to design and build. If we were to cancel all R & D on fighter jets until our enemies "caught up with us", we'd be on a level playing field. Well guess what? I don't want to be on a level playing field God dammit! I want to destroy and slaughter the enemy. I want as many "unfair advantages" as humanly possible. In Kosovo, we only engaged two aircraft. One we shot in the air and one we shot while it was taking off - that's not good enough. I want to destroy every single enemy jet while it's still parked on the ground, like in OIF.

Col. Peters wrote that the Air Force "dreams of a war with China". Actually, I don't just dream of a war with China, but I long for one. But that's a completely different story. The fact is that Col. Peters would have us use the F-15 while PRC and other nations continue to develop their own planes. The Chinese and Russians have planes just as advanced as ours - they just don't have the money to build them yet. The European Typhoon, on the other hand, is indeed being built and it rivals the Raptor in many ways.

So what happens when the USAF is forced to stop all development and then loses air superiority because of budget cuts? What happens when we can't guarantee the air and our troops are slaughtered on the ground? What is Peters and his ground going to say then? O, maybe we should have developed a better air superiority fighter when we had the chance. NO SHIT ASS-HOLE!

My only comfort is that Peters is out of the military and has no input anymore. Ideas like his aren't just stupid but dangerous. He thinks that just because the USAF is light-years ahead of the enemy now, that we will always be. Furthermore, he thinks that just because we are fighting terrorists now, we always will be. Well, perhaps his memory is quite short because it was the USAF that defended us from the Soviet Union just 15 short years ago. I'd like to hear how he thinks a few million American soldiers were going to stop tens of millions of Soviets.

Peters is a member of a dying crop of Army brats who think the Army will continue to be the most important factor in the battle space. Fine - but don't come crying to us when PRC, Europe or the Russian Federation need to be put down militarily. I'd like to see those very same Marines beat the entire PRC military by themselves. What a joke.

Haha, wow, I knew I was making a mistake by posting this article, James.

Just curious on something, though; you "long for" a war with China?

Is there a reason why??

Later.

[Sailor]

Tits said:

I miss it so very much!

Say, Krypto, I am going to try and make the Battle of Ormoc Bay reunion with my cousin in October. It is in Boston, what is that about 7 hours to VA Beach.

I am also searching for a place to take my wife this August. We spent time in VA before the 1997 hurricane, do you have any recommendations for a coastal get away?

Actually I miss it too Tittus.

I don't really have any recommendations to make, Virginia Beach is pretty much like any ocean side tourist trap nowadays, expensive and crowded.

You might consider the Outter Banks of North Carolina, the Hatteras/Kitty Hawk area. I understand much of it is still pretty nice and not nearly as crowded.

[FightingFalcon]

MARIO said:

Haha, wow, I knew I was making a mistake by posting this article, James.

Just curious on something, though; you "long for" a war with China?

Is there a reason why??

Later.

Because PRC is a Communist nation that threatens our global hegemony. Is any other reason needed?

They are also one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) abuser of civil liberties in the world. Furthermore, we must let them know that we do not approve of their continued aggression towards the Republic of China.

I'm not talking about a full-blown land invasion of PRC but an air campaign would be nice. Simply to "remind" them who the world's ONLY super power is.