At my agency, I observed the hallowing out of our tradecraft expertise, especially after the Berlin Wall fell and we cashed in the "peace dividend." Agencies are dependent on Congress for hiring, as is proper. Our agency went about four years without hiring in the early 1990s. As our expertise retired, we didn't capture their SME, subject matter expertise. Then the agency, a DOD combat support agency, was merged with elements of the IC and we became a four-letter intelligence agency. Being the new kid on the block, merging cultures of eight agencies, all while the world was changing from the predictable Cold War to today's messy situation was challenging enough. We from the DOD felt as though there had been a merger of equals and the IC won. Our agency successfully lobbied to change our name to become a three-letter agency, even if we had to hyphenate part of our name as Geospatial-Intelligence. Believe me, in this game, a three letter acronym matters. And, it is a game. A game of getting promoted to senior, building fiefdoms, going along to get along and retiring to work in the private sector.
All of a sudden, our mapping, charting and geodesy was being contracted out at great levels. Morale suffered. The explicit message was, "Get with the program, or get out." The election of Clinton slowly ushered in some bad changes. We began to take our eye off the ball from our bread and butter, which is GEOINT, and we focused on leadership, Diversity and Inclusion (D and I), later changed to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI).
Young people were hired in with the expectation of immediately being promoted. When they were not promoted, many left. The Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and LGBT issues really changed our agency culture. The election of Donald Trump brought rebellion from the SESes and the rank and file. Many of us did not buy-in, but we knew better than to speak out. The George Floyd incident further set us down the road of radical cultural shift. Senior leaders began to speak of "the murder of George Floyd", before anyone was even charged.
Many of our three-star generals/admirals, serving as our agency heads were disgustingly woke. They'd bring in fellow generals/admirals for conferences or speeches and they were also woke.
The pandemic was the icing on the cake. Those of us who refused to get vaccinated were pariahs. The agency core values are called EARTH. excellence, accountability, respect, teamwork and honesty. Most of the respect was limited to platitudes about the wonders of LGBT, women, minorities, etc. But when it came to labelling those who resisted vaccinations as "antivaxxers", there wasn't the enthusiasm on management's part to discipline those who demeaned us. Allegedly, our agency director referred to the unvaccinated as "Covidiots." At the time, the unvaccinated were the majority, until Biden issued his four mandates in September of 2021. I was incredulous at the things that managers and fellow employees thought they could blatantly say in public, to include putting in writing. I began to speak out, making sure that my own words were not political, pointing out that we are supposed to be non-partisan. I must admit that when I spoke out in the comments section of our IC blogs, I did enjoy seeing heads explode. Instead of refuting my words, I was attacked and called antisemitic, a white supremacist, an election denier, etc. I didn't even mention race, religion or Donald Trump in my rebuttals.
That's part of the problem in today's culture. People emote today and they don't think. Many only repeat what they've been told. They can't refute a logical argument, so they attack.
My long post can be summed up by saying that based on what I saw from my perch after 34 years as a federal employee, I can believe, in fact, I know intuitively, that our military is not ready for a war with a peer competitor. Our nation's foundation is now built on sand. If we continue down this path, disaster awaits us.
I worked in Saint Louis, MO. Bethesda was the Army Map Service location. DC also had the Navy's mapping agency. St. Louis had the Air Force's mapping and charting agency. Those three production sites were consolidated into the Defense Mapping Agency in 1972 with major centers in Bethesda and St. Louis. In 1996, DMA was subsumed into the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, along with several imagery interpretation agencies such as NPIC, elements of DIA and the Central Imagery Office. In 2003 we became the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. The joke among cartographers was that NIMA stood for 'not into maps anymore', and that NGA stood for 'now go away.'
The Sangamore Road location was vacated for a new glass palace in Springfield, VA. The Bethesda location was considered obsolete and not cost effective. In true government fashion, the DNI took over the old Bethesda location (the former DMA/NIMA/NGA HQ campus) and made expensive renovations for some purpose.
Your last paragraph. Baud points to the Russian view as including the notion of social capital, character of the people, etc. Totally absent from our view.
“We haven’t had effective military planning for years. We proceed on political assumptions.”
I never said that, and I do not see how it is inferred from my post. I merely pointed out the facts and let the chips fall where they may. What I wrote was a stand-alone, fact based, assessment and I remain faithful to it.
As far as that concept of “political assumptions”? It is a given that national needs and aspirations drive political decisions. Political decisions drive security concerns. Security concerns drive intelligence gathering and assessments. Intelligence results drive military strategy and therefore military build/ configuration and priorities. None of the that determines if a force is ready to fight and win, TODAY. Why? Because you are dealing with human beings who make decisions not solely based on military needs. It also does not consider the state of the present military. Politics and readiness are part of the problem but not the same. We need to talk apples and apples, not apples and oranges.
The question was “is America ready for war?” That is only part of the question. The real question is “Today”. Can we fight and win Today? Therefore, the issue that I addressed was…. Give a hard look at what we actually know, not what we want, or what we hope will be. So in looking for the factors of whether or not American was ready, I said in my post, as far as factors to be ready….
“Let’s take the easy ones, the obvious ones first.”
And that is what I did. Believe me, subject like this is deadly serious and my intent was not to mislead anyone.
War is a many faceted subject. What do you want to talk about? Intangibles (politics and decision making) or hard numbers ( how many men or armaments available) ?
An explanation/analysis of Strategic Politics and Leadership decision making is a totally different subject area of war than a nation’s current logistical capability to fight. Both areas are important. If you want a hard tangible answer do not look at Leadership and politics because they are not quantifiable. That is the realm of social and cultural intangibles. Logistics is hard science, that is why I chose it as my main point. LTC Davis always talks about the fundamentals in war- fighting. And he is absolutely right. If you do not have the fundamental perquisites to win, you will be defeated. Currently, we are sadly lacking in logistical fundamentals.
In reference to Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Moltke, or anyone else in talking about the reasons for going to war: you are stepping from the battlefield to the god level. To use national leadership or the political realm as a analysis of a country’s ability to win on the field of battle, can and is done. But trying to decipher the inner workings of national decision making is a different matter entirely than looking at logistical viability. “Decision making culture” in a society, is the unquantifiable realm of Eternal Rome and DC. You are trying to read minds. For a precise look at predictability, try to figure out your stockage shortages.
I am not saying that intel analysis of Political leadership is useless or should not be done. The video LTC Davis made was perfectly valid and extremely valuable. Giving credence to Davis’s work: Jack Keene’s words give us a general feel where our current situation is headed. LTC Davis was absolutely right to point this out. Keene works for ISW and therefore he is working with the Kagan/Nulland Neocon element. These people currently drive our national foreign policy. Therefore, Keene is probably giving us an insight of how these people think and what they see in the future. Davis does us a great favor by pointing this out.
Today, based on hard numbers and due to fate and the decisions of the past, we are now in an uncertain state of military readiness That is reality. Is America ready to fight a major war? Materially/logistically, no. And as far the capability or competence of our senior leadership, past performance does not give confidence as a predictor of future success.
And what will our Political Leadership do in the future? Who knows? But, LTC Davis’s concerns are valid.
I regarded the various comments from professionals as complementary, rather than conflicting. As you say, Davis' monologue was totally valid as a stand alone assessment of military readiness on the apples to apples level--as was your comment/response to Davis. Davis hints at the further dimensions. The Swiss colonel's assessment gets us to an explanation for why America has stumbled from disaster to disaster. Davis' point comes down to something like the guy with a hammer, which has been the Neocon way of using the military. Baud's analysis of Russian thinking gets us beyond that into the realm of what is the job to be done, do we have the tools for that job, is it a job that we really need to get involved with, and where does that job lead us and leave us?
The U.S. might also be fighting the ‘last war’ which was ‘lost’ due to public opinion lack of support. So the propaganda is designed to manufacture support and they are believing their own sh--.
"We haven’t had effective military planning for years. We proceed on political assumptions. [Again: sic. Should = “We need to proceed …”?]
There is no purpose to military planning without a political objective (and assumptions)."
Military planning should be prevalent at all times. Anticipating hostilities, considerations of friends vs. foes etc. doesn't have to rely on the political planning or assumptions as dependencies. Looking around the globe at potential 'hotspots' or similar should be a key part of US military planning. Providing analysis, perspective, options in case events unfold that call for some kind of interdiction.
This Russia / Ukraine thingy seems reactive and our hegemony allows us to "live large" while getting depantsed. Lack of critical thinking skills and "gaming" out scenarios in my opinion. DEI training courses must have gotten in the way.
Interesting the no fly zone. I wonder who got a clue in NATO this would be a Turkey Shoot?
Supposedly Ukraine is going to get longer range missiles that can attack into Russia, and may be as far as Moscow. Per Alexander Mercoulis of the Duran. May be tomohawk cruise missiles.
True, but my gut feeling is the U.S. will break the agreement if they see an advantage. The advantage may even just be some positive media for the Ukraine is winning or hitting back narrative.
I listened to Mercouris on that long range missile thing. OTOH, it doesn't make a whole lotta sense--the Russians have become very good at swatting this stuff down. OTOH, I wonder whether the idea would be to somehow lure the Russians into a premature big arrow offensive that could result in heavy casualties, costing Putin public support. My guess is that the Russians have long since gamed this out and would respond instead with heavy and less restricted attacks of their own.
Perhaps cya is the wrong way to put it--to put blame on Ukraine for escalatory acts that in reality nato was complicit in. Missile attacks in Russia--guidance is almost certainly done by nato.
The Ukrainian conflict was inherently asymmetrical. The West wanted to turn it into a symmetrical conflict, proclaiming that Ukraine’s capabilities could be enough to topple Russia. But this was clearly wishful thinking from the outset, and its sole purpose was to justify non-compliance with the Minsk Agreements. Russian strategists have turned it into an asymmetrical conflict.
Ukraine’s problem in this conflict is that it has no rational relationship with the notion of victory. By comparison, the Palestinians, who are aware of their quantitative inferiority, have switched to a way of thinking that gives the simple act of resisting a sense of victory. This is the asymmetrical nature of the conflict that Israel has never managed to understand in 75 years, and which it is reduced to overcoming through tactical superiority rather than strategic finesse. In Ukraine, it is the same phenomenon. By clinging to a notion of victory linked to the recovery of territory, Ukraine has locked itself into a logic that can only lead to defeat.
It is dismaying yes - Galston must be another cold warrior type, still stuck in the Cold War mind set, black/white, West vs Soviets, democracy vs tyranny. He’s been writing in the Journal for a long long time and obviously “hasn’t learned a thing.”
I dropped by subscription to the WSJ when they went full never Trump. Whatever anyone may say about Trump, and there's lots to be said, the never Trump position was always a refusal to learn--about America.
Yes. On a superficial level they appear to be applying reason to the problem--but without reference to the actual reality of the situation. Almost total disconnect.
They live in a land of make believe. It’s all pretend. Juvenile. Then they insist we participate in their insanity. The old saying applies, “never try to argue with a crazy person.” You wind up going crazy yourself trying to make sense of and refute their arguments. Unfortunately, we suffer the real world consequences of their delusions.
At my agency, I observed the hallowing out of our tradecraft expertise, especially after the Berlin Wall fell and we cashed in the "peace dividend." Agencies are dependent on Congress for hiring, as is proper. Our agency went about four years without hiring in the early 1990s. As our expertise retired, we didn't capture their SME, subject matter expertise. Then the agency, a DOD combat support agency, was merged with elements of the IC and we became a four-letter intelligence agency. Being the new kid on the block, merging cultures of eight agencies, all while the world was changing from the predictable Cold War to today's messy situation was challenging enough. We from the DOD felt as though there had been a merger of equals and the IC won. Our agency successfully lobbied to change our name to become a three-letter agency, even if we had to hyphenate part of our name as Geospatial-Intelligence. Believe me, in this game, a three letter acronym matters. And, it is a game. A game of getting promoted to senior, building fiefdoms, going along to get along and retiring to work in the private sector.
All of a sudden, our mapping, charting and geodesy was being contracted out at great levels. Morale suffered. The explicit message was, "Get with the program, or get out." The election of Clinton slowly ushered in some bad changes. We began to take our eye off the ball from our bread and butter, which is GEOINT, and we focused on leadership, Diversity and Inclusion (D and I), later changed to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI).
Young people were hired in with the expectation of immediately being promoted. When they were not promoted, many left. The Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and LGBT issues really changed our agency culture. The election of Donald Trump brought rebellion from the SESes and the rank and file. Many of us did not buy-in, but we knew better than to speak out. The George Floyd incident further set us down the road of radical cultural shift. Senior leaders began to speak of "the murder of George Floyd", before anyone was even charged.
Many of our three-star generals/admirals, serving as our agency heads were disgustingly woke. They'd bring in fellow generals/admirals for conferences or speeches and they were also woke.
The pandemic was the icing on the cake. Those of us who refused to get vaccinated were pariahs. The agency core values are called EARTH. excellence, accountability, respect, teamwork and honesty. Most of the respect was limited to platitudes about the wonders of LGBT, women, minorities, etc. But when it came to labelling those who resisted vaccinations as "antivaxxers", there wasn't the enthusiasm on management's part to discipline those who demeaned us. Allegedly, our agency director referred to the unvaccinated as "Covidiots." At the time, the unvaccinated were the majority, until Biden issued his four mandates in September of 2021. I was incredulous at the things that managers and fellow employees thought they could blatantly say in public, to include putting in writing. I began to speak out, making sure that my own words were not political, pointing out that we are supposed to be non-partisan. I must admit that when I spoke out in the comments section of our IC blogs, I did enjoy seeing heads explode. Instead of refuting my words, I was attacked and called antisemitic, a white supremacist, an election denier, etc. I didn't even mention race, religion or Donald Trump in my rebuttals.
That's part of the problem in today's culture. People emote today and they don't think. Many only repeat what they've been told. They can't refute a logical argument, so they attack.
My long post can be summed up by saying that based on what I saw from my perch after 34 years as a federal employee, I can believe, in fact, I know intuitively, that our military is not ready for a war with a peer competitor. Our nation's foundation is now built on sand. If we continue down this path, disaster awaits us.
We're you working on Sangamore Rd in Bethesda?
I have a relative that worked there for about 10 years until around 2010.
I worked in Saint Louis, MO. Bethesda was the Army Map Service location. DC also had the Navy's mapping agency. St. Louis had the Air Force's mapping and charting agency. Those three production sites were consolidated into the Defense Mapping Agency in 1972 with major centers in Bethesda and St. Louis. In 1996, DMA was subsumed into the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, along with several imagery interpretation agencies such as NPIC, elements of DIA and the Central Imagery Office. In 2003 we became the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. The joke among cartographers was that NIMA stood for 'not into maps anymore', and that NGA stood for 'now go away.'
The Sangamore Road location was vacated for a new glass palace in Springfield, VA. The Bethesda location was considered obsolete and not cost effective. In true government fashion, the DNI took over the old Bethesda location (the former DMA/NIMA/NGA HQ campus) and made expensive renovations for some purpose.
Your last paragraph. Baud points to the Russian view as including the notion of social capital, character of the people, etc. Totally absent from our view.
As I'm sure you know by now, I take my faith seriously. Everyone who has ears should listen to, and take heed of, Jesus' parables.
Sir,
I guess I am duty bound to clarify,
“We haven’t had effective military planning for years. We proceed on political assumptions.”
I never said that, and I do not see how it is inferred from my post. I merely pointed out the facts and let the chips fall where they may. What I wrote was a stand-alone, fact based, assessment and I remain faithful to it.
As far as that concept of “political assumptions”? It is a given that national needs and aspirations drive political decisions. Political decisions drive security concerns. Security concerns drive intelligence gathering and assessments. Intelligence results drive military strategy and therefore military build/ configuration and priorities. None of the that determines if a force is ready to fight and win, TODAY. Why? Because you are dealing with human beings who make decisions not solely based on military needs. It also does not consider the state of the present military. Politics and readiness are part of the problem but not the same. We need to talk apples and apples, not apples and oranges.
The question was “is America ready for war?” That is only part of the question. The real question is “Today”. Can we fight and win Today? Therefore, the issue that I addressed was…. Give a hard look at what we actually know, not what we want, or what we hope will be. So in looking for the factors of whether or not American was ready, I said in my post, as far as factors to be ready….
“Let’s take the easy ones, the obvious ones first.”
And that is what I did. Believe me, subject like this is deadly serious and my intent was not to mislead anyone.
War is a many faceted subject. What do you want to talk about? Intangibles (politics and decision making) or hard numbers ( how many men or armaments available) ?
An explanation/analysis of Strategic Politics and Leadership decision making is a totally different subject area of war than a nation’s current logistical capability to fight. Both areas are important. If you want a hard tangible answer do not look at Leadership and politics because they are not quantifiable. That is the realm of social and cultural intangibles. Logistics is hard science, that is why I chose it as my main point. LTC Davis always talks about the fundamentals in war- fighting. And he is absolutely right. If you do not have the fundamental perquisites to win, you will be defeated. Currently, we are sadly lacking in logistical fundamentals.
In reference to Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Moltke, or anyone else in talking about the reasons for going to war: you are stepping from the battlefield to the god level. To use national leadership or the political realm as a analysis of a country’s ability to win on the field of battle, can and is done. But trying to decipher the inner workings of national decision making is a different matter entirely than looking at logistical viability. “Decision making culture” in a society, is the unquantifiable realm of Eternal Rome and DC. You are trying to read minds. For a precise look at predictability, try to figure out your stockage shortages.
I am not saying that intel analysis of Political leadership is useless or should not be done. The video LTC Davis made was perfectly valid and extremely valuable. Giving credence to Davis’s work: Jack Keene’s words give us a general feel where our current situation is headed. LTC Davis was absolutely right to point this out. Keene works for ISW and therefore he is working with the Kagan/Nulland Neocon element. These people currently drive our national foreign policy. Therefore, Keene is probably giving us an insight of how these people think and what they see in the future. Davis does us a great favor by pointing this out.
Today, based on hard numbers and due to fate and the decisions of the past, we are now in an uncertain state of military readiness That is reality. Is America ready to fight a major war? Materially/logistically, no. And as far the capability or competence of our senior leadership, past performance does not give confidence as a predictor of future success.
And what will our Political Leadership do in the future? Who knows? But, LTC Davis’s concerns are valid.
I regarded the various comments from professionals as complementary, rather than conflicting. As you say, Davis' monologue was totally valid as a stand alone assessment of military readiness on the apples to apples level--as was your comment/response to Davis. Davis hints at the further dimensions. The Swiss colonel's assessment gets us to an explanation for why America has stumbled from disaster to disaster. Davis' point comes down to something like the guy with a hammer, which has been the Neocon way of using the military. Baud's analysis of Russian thinking gets us beyond that into the realm of what is the job to be done, do we have the tools for that job, is it a job that we really need to get involved with, and where does that job lead us and leave us?
Again, thanks for your comments.
The U.S. might also be fighting the ‘last war’ which was ‘lost’ due to public opinion lack of support. So the propaganda is designed to manufacture support and they are believing their own sh--.
"We haven’t had effective military planning for years. We proceed on political assumptions. [Again: sic. Should = “We need to proceed …”?]
There is no purpose to military planning without a political objective (and assumptions)."
Military planning should be prevalent at all times. Anticipating hostilities, considerations of friends vs. foes etc. doesn't have to rely on the political planning or assumptions as dependencies. Looking around the globe at potential 'hotspots' or similar should be a key part of US military planning. Providing analysis, perspective, options in case events unfold that call for some kind of interdiction.
This Russia / Ukraine thingy seems reactive and our hegemony allows us to "live large" while getting depantsed. Lack of critical thinking skills and "gaming" out scenarios in my opinion. DEI training courses must have gotten in the way.
Great except on the Russian way of war.
Supposedly Ukraine expected this:
- International aid and arms supplies,
- International sanctions,
- NATO intervention,
- Creation of a no-fly zone.
Interesting the no fly zone. I wonder who got a clue in NATO this would be a Turkey Shoot?
Supposedly Ukraine is going to get longer range missiles that can attack into Russia, and may be as far as Moscow. Per Alexander Mercoulis of the Duran. May be tomohawk cruise missiles.
See Simplicius's latest substack. These kinds of missiles may go against the "gentleman's" agreement supposedly in place since late 2021.
True, but my gut feeling is the U.S. will break the agreement if they see an advantage. The advantage may even just be some positive media for the Ukraine is winning or hitting back narrative.
Like the Minsk agreement. Agreed.
Yeah, that no-fly zone--crazy!
I listened to Mercouris on that long range missile thing. OTOH, it doesn't make a whole lotta sense--the Russians have become very good at swatting this stuff down. OTOH, I wonder whether the idea would be to somehow lure the Russians into a premature big arrow offensive that could result in heavy casualties, costing Putin public support. My guess is that the Russians have long since gamed this out and would respond instead with heavy and less restricted attacks of their own.
From reading Simplicius there are unofficial rules with the Cia. No attacks within Russia, and Russia won’t target Western people within Ukraine.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/under-the-radar-major-cia-revelations
Or the Whitehouse thinks threatening long range missiles will get Russia to achieve a ceasefire.
Events in Ukraine are getting stranger and stranger.
And the Biden Administration more and more desperate in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Consider an alternative to Simplicius' view. Perhaps that article is simply self serving CIA CYA BS.
Agree on the cia cya,
I’m just not sure for what.
Perhaps cya is the wrong way to put it--to put blame on Ukraine for escalatory acts that in reality nato was complicit in. Missile attacks in Russia--guidance is almost certainly done by nato.
Baud:
The Ukrainian conflict was inherently asymmetrical. The West wanted to turn it into a symmetrical conflict, proclaiming that Ukraine’s capabilities could be enough to topple Russia. But this was clearly wishful thinking from the outset, and its sole purpose was to justify non-compliance with the Minsk Agreements. Russian strategists have turned it into an asymmetrical conflict.
Ukraine’s problem in this conflict is that it has no rational relationship with the notion of victory. By comparison, the Palestinians, who are aware of their quantitative inferiority, have switched to a way of thinking that gives the simple act of resisting a sense of victory. This is the asymmetrical nature of the conflict that Israel has never managed to understand in 75 years, and which it is reduced to overcoming through tactical superiority rather than strategic finesse. In Ukraine, it is the same phenomenon. By clinging to a notion of victory linked to the recovery of territory, Ukraine has locked itself into a logic that can only lead to defeat.
why is it this seems so clear-cut common sense and our Intel community / Neocon's don't get it? Hegemony?
The entrenched authoritarian regime occupying The Imperial City posses both ignorance and arrogance.
It is dismaying yes - Galston must be another cold warrior type, still stuck in the Cold War mind set, black/white, West vs Soviets, democracy vs tyranny. He’s been writing in the Journal for a long long time and obviously “hasn’t learned a thing.”
I dropped by subscription to the WSJ when they went full never Trump. Whatever anyone may say about Trump, and there's lots to be said, the never Trump position was always a refusal to learn--about America.
Yes, well said.
Yes. On a superficial level they appear to be applying reason to the problem--but without reference to the actual reality of the situation. Almost total disconnect.
They live in a land of make believe. It’s all pretend. Juvenile. Then they insist we participate in their insanity. The old saying applies, “never try to argue with a crazy person.” You wind up going crazy yourself trying to make sense of and refute their arguments. Unfortunately, we suffer the real world consequences of their delusions.
All very true.