Around the Pentagon, the budget cutters have put away their knives and are reaching for axes. In times like these, every service naturally circles the wagons around its share of the budget pie. The stress is so great that otherwise smart people take incredibly silly stands. Last week, for instance, the former chief of naval operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, published a paper that calls for cutting the Army in half and leaving the Navy’s budget untouched. He sums up the logic for this advice in a few simple words: “The force we propose accepts risk in the burden we are placing on our Army and Marine Corps.”
Good grief. The Army has a tough time justifying its existence--win or lose. That seems to be a fact of life.
But this proposal is ridiculous. Enemies couldn't break our ground forces in two wars over the last decade, but one of our own admirals wants a shot at it. Thanks.
I know, the Navy likes to say that 80% of the world's people live within 300 miles of a coast, as a justification for their role. That's an interesting fact, but quite irrelevant. If I may be so bold, 100% of the world's people live on the land.
Which is my main point of contention with Air-Sea Battle. I have no problem with the idea that we need to be able to pierce China's anti-access forces to operate close to China. But what do we do when we pierce that shield? Sail around broadcasting, "Here we are and there's nothing you can do about it!"? Presumably, we should have a point for wanting to operate near China, no? (Oh, and that paper I note there was rejected, so I'm reworking it into a shorter article for another try elsewhere.)
Not even the Air Force tries to argue that since all people breathe air, their service must get the priority.
As a virtual island nation, we need a powerful Navy to get our ground power overseas and keep them supplied and supported.
And since we haven't fought without air superiority since about 1943, I'd hate to start now.
But ground forces--whether Army or Marine Corps--are not luxuries. Ultimately, planes have to land some time, ships have to have a home port somewhere, and people--all of them--live on the land. Only in Budget World is it possible to say gutting the ground forces is an acceptable risk for the nation to take.
Look, we need a good Navy and a good Air Force. And it is no disrespect to these services to note that long before there was air power, armies decided wars. And without the ability to exploit control of the seas to project ground power ashore, navies haven't been decisive on their own.
I've said before that in some future crisis when someone has the guts to remind us that we go to war with the ground forces we have and not the ground forces we wish we had, remember that the future ground forces we will have is the result of decisions we make today about the ground forces we wish to have.
