Tooth versus Tail

One major factor in warfare that I find is often overlooked is the balancing
of the means available and thus the strategies that can be attempted.

The eternal tension between ends and means springs from the fact that the
natural human tendency is to envision the desired ends or objectives and
then stretch the means to meet them, rather than study the means (or
resources) and find an objective well within reach. Because of this, there
is a constant feedback loop from ends to means, as we seek a certain
outcome, find that it may not be possible, and either adapt our desires, or
attempt to expand our resources to meet the original goal. The way we get
from resources to objectives is our strategy or plan, and in the feedback
loop between means and ends, all three items (objectives, resources, and
strategies) all change. The balancing act is to not allow one factor alone
unbalance the whole of the equation, or allow a short term problem effect
long term planning. (Yarger 2006, 110)

This last problem is due another human tendency, that of prioritizing a
short term or immediate concern over a long term one.

As a concrete example of this concept, consider the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The U.S. initially believed it would be a short war, and planned and
budgeted accordingly, with no money or troops set aside for stabilizing the
country after the shooting stopped. The objective was to remove Hussein and
create a stable, free, democratic Iraq. The means was the U.S. military
(and a certain amount of money allowed by Congress). The strategy was to
invade, remove Hussein, and hand the country over to the Iraqis.

After it became apparent that Iraq couldn't be a stable democratic nation
without a true occupation and years of nation-building, the U.S. had to
reconsider the points of the formula. A lengthy occupation would have both
a monetary cost and a cost in the readiness of the military. To leave in
late 2003 would mean to concede part of the objective (stable democratic
Iraq). Caught between these two horns, the U.S. decided to expand the
resources allocated and pursue the objective, even at the new, higher cost.
Because of this decision, the strategy likewise had to change, from one of
short term intense combat to one including years of peace keeping and
nation-building. (And then adapt strategy again in 2007 when it became
apparent that the current methods were failing.)

The possibility of error in balancing these three points gets accentuated
when the cycle time of decisions gets longer. For example, in the world of
American fighter aircraft design, it can take ten to twenty years to design
and field a fighter, before it even goes to the production line, and given
the expenses involved, there is usually only one fight in the design phase
at any time. In the intervening decade or so, the strategic environment can
change and thus create new conditions that the fighter currently entering
the fleet is not prepared for. This is the situation for the F-22 and F-35;
design work for both planes started before the end of the Cold War, when the
conflict the DOD was planning for was a massive conventional battle in
Western Europe versus the Warsaw Pact nations (and was budgeted
accordingly).

Today, a massive battle in Western Europe seems highly unlikely, and the US
is in the midst pivoting into the Pacific to meet growing Chinese military
dominance (after two highly unconventional wars), and doing so while cutting
military spending. In this new environment, a short range, single engine
fighter with stealthy capability and high operating cost (the F-35) may not
be the best choice, but the Air Force has chosen to go that route.
(Pietrucha 2014, 134) In doing so, it is retiring the A-10, leaving the Air
Force with no specialized ground attack capability, and cutting pay and
benefits for personnel (Tritten 2014), an action that will have consequences
for all those currently in the military and those yet to come in, lasting
twenty years or more. It may be that the F-35 will warrant those choices; I
doubt this, but only time will tell.

Yarger, Harry R. 2006. "Toward a Theory of Strategy: Art Lykke and the Army
War College Strategy Model." In U.S. Army War College Guide to National
Security Policy and Strategy, edited by J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr., 107-114.
Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2006.
www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=708 (accessed
June 15, 2014).

Pietrucha, Michael W. 2014. The Comanche and the Albatross About Our Neck
Was Hung. Air & Space Power Journal May - Jun 2014: 133-156,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/article.asp?id=204 (accessed 16 June,
2014).

Tritten, Travis J. 2014. Over strong Joint Chiefs objections, House moves
to preserve military pay, benefits. Stripes.com, May 6,
http://www.stripes.com/over-strong-joint-chiefs-objections-house-moves-to-pr
eserve-military-pay-benefits-1.281766 (accessed 17 July, 2014).

Flash Mob? Flash in the pan

Originally written on 9 December...

One of the Air Force bands executed a flash mob at the National Air and Space Museum recently.

While it's nice to see the USAF embracing 21st century concepts and technology, and actually working positive press for themselves for a change...I would prefer to see this combined with greater institutional depth to our care of people.

As a counterpoint, if Congress does nothing, military incentive pays for all branches stop on 1 January.  For an RPA pilot, major, with 14 years in, flight pay (and incentive pay he will lose) is 8% of his take home pay. 

Where's the press on how the government is hamstringing military personnel who are at war?  A friend mentioned the loss of flight pay to me, and it took some heavy searching to find the article at Stars and Stripes linked below.  Merry Christmas.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/09/heres-how-the-air-force-band-staged-that-viral-flash-mob-youre-seeing-everywhere/

"Special pays would be first casualty of delayed defense bill" By J. Taylor Rushing, Stars and Stripes

http://www.stripes.com/news/special-pays-would-be-first-casualty-of-delayed-defense-bill-1.254910

 Update 21 Dec:

Of course this issue has now been resolved.  Congress has passed a budget, averting the loss of incentive pay mentioned above...but including a large cut to pensions.

More links on the topic:

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/ryan-murray-deal-hits-younger-future-military-retirees-1.257099?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/?p=569

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303330204579250714145778676

Secure Flight Update and What it Means for You

An email I recently got from American Airlines...

~~~
As you may know, since August 2009, American Airlines has collected and transmitted Secure Flight Passenger Data (SFPD) to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (http://www.tsa.gov/) as required by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Secure Flight is designed to enhance the security of domestic and international commercial air travel by streamlining the DHS watch list matching process.

The next phase in this program requires that effective November 1, all passengers have Secure Flight Passenger Data (SFPD) in their reservation at least 72 hours prior to departure. You will be unable to travel without providing this information.

How will this affect you?

In compliance with this mandate, you will be required to provide Secure Flight Passenger Data (full name, date of birth, gender and redress number*, if applicable):


To purchase any ticket on or after September 15, 2010, regardless of travel date
To travel November 1, 2010, or later, regardless of purchase date
Take steps now to be sure you are ready to travel.

You will need to provide Secure Flight Passenger Data:


If it was not provided when you made your reservation
For reservations made prior to adding SFPD to your AAdvantage® account profile
For all future reservations
Learn more about Secure Flight and find instructions for handling each of the above scenarios at www.aa.com/secureflight.

Update your AAdvantage® account profile now

To save you time and make your future travel easier, additional fields have been added to your AAdvantage account profile on AA.com so you can store this new information. Then, every time you make a reservation with us**, we will automatically add your Secure Flight Passenger Data.

For full details and to update your AAdvantage account, visit www.aa.com/secureflight.

Thank you for your business. We look forward to seeing you on board soon.

*A TSA-assigned identification number. This number is assigned to customers who believe they have been mistakenly matched to a name on the watch list to help prevent misidentification. For more information, visit www.dhs.gov/trip.


**Currently, the option to automatically populate your Secure Flight Passenger Data from your AAdvantage account is only available for reservations booked on AA.com or via AA Reservations. Reservations booked elsewhere will require that you manually enter your SFPD. 

Thanksgiving

I won't be home for Thanksgiving this year, and that's annoying for the following reason (besides the obvious): I had a really good thing to be thankful for this year.

Last year, I was thankful for the Internet. That isn't sarcasm, and it isn't meant to be shallow either. I didn't have something specific in mind when we started talking about our things to be grateful for, but I started on the fact that I was able to stay in touch with friends and family throughout all my travels, and that the Internet was a big part of that.

This year, I am grateful for the fact that the presidential race was not as bloody (metaphorically) as it could have been. Since really becoming aware of politics in college, it has seemed as though the level of discourse in the nation has dropped off, and that the most radical elements of both parties were gaining hold, increasingly creating a rift between groups of citizens (and often doing so over incredibly small issues, things that are beginning to affect smaller and smaller parts of the population, that are taking precedence over much larger issues).

In a time of such divisiveness, it would be easy to unleash the hounds, and really play to the baser human instincts, but this didn't happen. Both candidates fought for what they thought was right, and did so without true viciousness, and I truly feel that the way they both chose to campaign has bettered the country. I had conversation via email with a friend recently regarding the candidates, and I said of McCain, "There are few people in Washington I have as much respect for as John McCain; he has sacrificed more than most people can imagine. I think his true colors have shown lately in his rallies where he has been defending Obama to McCain supporters..."

John McCain had to pause in the middle of a rally, and tell to his own supporters, people (right or wrong) full of anger and fear, that they had no need to be fearful of or angry at Barack Obama.
This was a terrible political move. But it was the correct moral thing to do, and truly was good for our country, and I again reaffirm my respect for McCain's character and leadership. Sadly, his choice will be seen by lesser men both as weakness and as a failed political choice. No one remembers Cincinnatus or Scipio Africanus, but it was men such as these who made Rome great, in their willingness to set aside their own power for the benefit of the nation.

So I am thankful for John McCain and Barack Obama, and the choices they made. It is easy to find politics gone badly wrong. Look to Zimbabwe, or Myanmar, where the "bloody" is not metaphoric. Or try this one out for a change, for myself and others my age: ask your parents about American politics in the 1960s and 70s. They were there, and it was much worse in America then than now. I think of the way I have felt watching our government in action over the last several years, and I think I have only a small inkling of what it was like in the 60s, and none whatsoever of things like Myanmar, and I am thankful.

Counterinsurgency

I don't have time to go into the details, unfortunately, so here's the big picture: It isn't a guerrilla or terrorist attack that brings down a nation. It is that nation's overreaction to it. This is a well established principle of counterinsurgency warfare, and it's the reason Al-Qaeda would like to see John McCain elected president.

Time article

the myth of the free market...

With the recent news of the Fannie May and Freddy Mac bailouts, I thought it might be interesting to go over the exact process of a bailout.

So here's how it goes. A privately owned or publicly traded company gets itself into financial troubles, in this case by buying a whole bunch of debt (in the form of mortgages). Unfortunately, they vastly overestimate the face value of these items. (E.g., a 30-year mortgage for $250,000 ought to be worth $250k over 30 years (simplified here by leaving out interest). However, they purchased hundreds of thousands of these and overlooked the fact that many of these new homeowners had no possible means to to pay $250k, even over 30 years.) So they pay a bunch of money for something and actually get nothing in return. When this becomes apparent, everyone who's loaned them money comes asking for it, and the company approaches the verge of collapse. Then, for whatever reason (friends in high places usually), the federal government decides that allowing such a company to go under would be "bad for America" and steps in with a bunch of cash to fund the debt of such a company. That cash comes from tax payer dollars. The net monetary effect is to take tax money from every American and transfer it to a few Americans. (Slightly different this time, see below). It also prevents what free-marketeers say is the upside to a free market, that the company in question (and the people that invested in it) get punished for their poor choices, thus preventing such problems in the future. (This is why Dick Cheney was against the housing market bailout.)

Savings and Loan scandal of the late 80s/early 90s followed the same pattern. Bear-Stearns was similar, and rumor is Lehman Brothers is next.

This type of action, which occurs at regular intervals in America, is the antithesis of the free market.

The new wrinkle with Fannie and Freddy is that for perhaps the first time, the majority of the investors in question were foreigners. Meaning that rather than sending tax dollars to a few select Americans, we sent that money overseas. America is being sold for parts, and it's being done by the very institutions that are supposed to protect it.

~~~
14 Sep: Anne's link: NPR link

Cold war

Given the political chicanery and inefficacy I've observed in this country in my lifetime, looking back, I'm actually quite surprised some crazy SOB didn't get us all killed during the Cold war.

af rumor

Heard a rumor that only 5% of staff jobs are going to be filled this year because they are so low on officers in my peer group. Surprise, surprise, who would have thought 7 years of war would tie up so many officers? I also heard they are considering paying to get back all the guys they paid to quit under the VSP.

Numbers

Just a quick note, not sure if I've posted this before or not: There are more contractors in Iraq than there are U.S. soldiers (190k vers 140k). Reference: Time.

Government Credit Card

Well, the mandatory US Government credit card changed again, from Bank of America to a Citibank Visa. It last changed in about 2005, I can't remember from what.

I've always hated the government card. In short, it is a card you are required by law to carry and use for all travel expenses. Here's why I don't like it: It works just like any other credit card but not as well. The government doesn't have a credit line, it's my credit rating the card is issued against, but I am required to use it. If the government is slow to pay my travel voucher (still haven't been paid for my deployment, due to DTS problems), it's my credit rating that takes a hit. I also have less control over viewing charges online than I do with my own bank (USAA). This thing is a waste of time for everyone except the youngest military members, who haven't yet established credit.

psychosis

Long ago, I read an opinion about mental health saying that schizophrenia, where you see and hear things that aren't there, was the only true form of craziness. All other mental problems are simply exaggerations of normal responses or actions that, in the proper environment, would seem normal.

Agree or not, I always remembered the story because it illustrated the meaning of the word psychosis, disconnection from reality.

On the topic. Among many of the other things that is disturbing to me about the war is complete madness it has created among Americans. Specifically, one mistruth I hear all too frequently in the military: "The threat to the United States has never been greater than it has today."

Let us take a historical example not even very far back, this was in my lifetime: 1983. Do we really think that the objective threat to the United States is greater today than it was in 1983, when there were literally thousands of independently launchable and targetable nuclear weapons pointed at every inhabited inch of America, and the USSR? I don't think I need to go back to the Civil war for a better example.

The statement is objectionable enough as a falsehood, an illusion of a threat. But the real danger in it is that it is so hyperbolic, so out of touch with reality, that it pushes us towards actions that not only don't help, they create further problems for us and exacerbate the ones we have.

We are fighting a global guerrilla war, and what is important in a fight like this is a long term, relatively low-cost, persistent and consistent strategy focused on the very small minority of people who wish us ill. The low-cost is important because it must also be long term - we cannot allow the cost of the war to overwhelm our economy. (Incidentally, our economy has always been the heart of U.S. military dominance and thus deserves a great deal more stewardship than we have shown in my lifetime. Problems like the current housing mess need to be foreseen and avoided by conscientious and patient leadership, and we could also do without carrying the elephant of a $9 trillion dollar debt on our backs.)

We do not have this strategy now, which is why we are not winning.