Currently, the US Army is not ready for future wars. Such a conclusion was made by some US military experts from speeches by a number of high-ranking Pentagon officials at a regular meeting of members of the Association of the US Army held in mid-October.
The Association is a private organization that provides the necessary support to existing military personnel, representatives of the National Guard and the US Army reserve, disabled people, veterans and their families, as well as employees. Commenting on the speeches of the Pentagon and SV leaders, analysts identified several reasons that would not allow the US Army to win victories in future wars.
Lack of political and military culture
According to American experts, today one of the main reasons preventing the US Armed Forces from effectively performing their tasks in future wars is the lack of an effective political and military culture among military personnel of various ranks and parliamentarians who make final decisions on military construction.
When the initiator of the creation of a fully volunteer aircraft, the future US President Richard Nixon 18 of October 1968, promised in one of his speeches to completely abandon military service after the Vietnam War, no one in the Pentagon or Congress could understand that military personnel of such aircraft can completely lose the moral motives of voluntary service to their Fatherland.
Then none of the politicians and the military said a single word that the contract army would actually consist of mercenaries, that is, people whose main motive for their activities would be only financial prospects and benefits, and not loyalty to the Fatherland, which must be protected.
In June, 1974-th all types of the US Armed Forces announced the 100-percent staffing of their states with contract soldiers. But then none of the politicians and the military even imagined that the next time statements about such an achievement could appear only in 2009, that is, 35 years after the implementation of Nixon's idea.
In fact, in the implementation of this direction of the construction of the Armed Forces, American politicians and the military faced enormous problems and more than once considered the issue of returning to the conscription. Back in the early 80s, Richard Nixon said that he "made a big mistake when he canceled the call." And the influential American magazine “Yu.S. The News & World Report noted in early 1982 that "when Reagan came to power 16 months ago, many analysts dismissed the volunteer army as an impossible undertaking." Currently, the possibility of such a situation has been fully confirmed. Today, the relevant recruiting services of the Ground Forces manage to complete military units with great difficulty.
Obviously, in the context of a reduction in the military budget, the MoD will not have enough funds not only to increase the expenditures on personnel maintenance at an annual pace, taken after 2001, but most likely even to maintain them at the current level. In the 2011 year, allocations for the maintenance of personnel were increased by 1,4% and were the lowest since 1973. But in 2010, this figure was 3,9%.
In various types and kinds of troops, the US Armed Forces today serve less than 1% of the American population. And out of every five US parliamentarians, only one ever did military service. Thus, when the leadership of the Army warns them that reducing military spending leads to a reduction in the combat readiness of the troops, most congressmen and senators do not attach any importance to the fact that the privileges that their military voters should receive should be preserved. They are not fully aware of the threats to America from the outside, they feel safe and do not understand what a negative impact in military conditions, insufficient training of personnel and the lack of necessary material and technical support can have on the outcome of hostilities. Lawmakers, of course, are taking some measures to keep the number of troops on the required scale and somehow preserve their benefits. However, the majority of senators and congressmen are not so much concerned with the victory in a future war, as with the desire to secure the votes of military voters and win regular elections.
The main pillars on which the Pentagon’s military strength rests are the training of personnel and weaponbased on the latest technology. The armies of many countries have a large number of personnel, but none of them can compare with the US military in terms of the professional training of personnel and the level of equipment with modern weapons and military equipment (IWT).
However, the technological superiority of the US military is getting closer and closer to its end. This, according to a number of US military experts, is explained by the fact that since the reign of Ronald Reagan, each successive president has relied on increasing the number of privileges for military specialists, and not on modernizing the Armed Forces as a whole.
Today, the CB budget allocated for the purchase of new weapons and military equipment is one tenth of the federal budget. In recent years, one after another, the programs of creating and purchasing the next generation IWT have been shut down, since there were not enough funds to implement them. The leaders of this type of US Armed Forces believe that adequate funding for the development of new technologies will not start before the middle of the next decade. In this regard, some concerned with the state of the military policy in Washington believe that it is likely that countries like China can create military technologies that are not inferior to those of the United States.
Underestimation of reserve components personnel
Most of the American soldiers and officers included in the lists of the Ministry of Interior, does not serve in the regular troops. They are part of the army reserve and the National Guard. These categories of soldiers cost the Pentagon much cheaper than the personnel of the regular troops, since they are allocated less funds for health care and solving housing problems. In addition, they receive fewer retirement benefits. Military personnel of this category are used by the Defense Ministry to replenish military units that perform combat missions, or in cases where it is necessary to provide assistance to the Ministry of Homeland Security, the police and other federal agencies in the elimination of natural disasters, in the event of social unrest and in other emergency situations.
About 300 thousand representatives of the army reserve and the Air Force National Guard were called up for active service during the war in Iraq. However, at present, the US Armed Forces, due to a reduction in allocations, are experiencing serious difficulties in recruiting troops with reserve components. A representative of the New American Security Center, retired Lieutenant General David Barno, who led the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in 2003 – 2005, recently stated that in this situation, National Guard specialists have higher professional skills, for example, in areas such as cyber security than their regular counterparts. He also noted that in the near future professional readiness may become significantly higher, and they will have greater combat skills than regular servicemen. However, the full combat potential of the reserve troops, the general stressed, cannot be used as long as the leadership of the Ground Forces and other types of armed forces treat such servicemen as rivals, and not as partners.
Gaps in military strategy
Experts believe that one of the weakest points of the Pentagon’s military strategy, which has been in force for the past few years, is that the leaders clearly ignore the need for subordinate soldiers and officers of the regular forces to learn the customs and languages of those states whose security has been called upon to ensure America. If the troops have no idea about the customs and customs of the peoples they protect and do not speak their languages, then they will certainly make tragic mistakes during the conduct of hostilities. And it will be inevitable and will always occur in cases where political leaders, having exhausted all other means of resolving conflicts with other countries and not having the desired results, will consider the “soldier's boot” as the final argument in resolving conflicts. At the same time, by their actions they do not give fighters the opportunity to get acquainted with those countries in whose territory they must fight.
In the US Armed Forces are trained professionals who must serve outside of America. They are taught regional geography, they study the culture and learn the languages of the peoples in whose territory they will stay for a set period of time. However, such servicemen, after receiving the relevant diplomas, as a rule, work in embassies, are not included in the combat units and are not directly involved in combat operations.
Over the considerable time that has passed since the tragic attacks of al-Qaida fighters on America 11 September 2001, very few specialists in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia have appeared in the combat units of the Pentagon.
At the beginning of last year, the Pentagon leadership created from the Army, Marine Corps and Special Operations Command specialists a Specialized Group on the strategy of wars in land theaters. The experts of the group found that the successful outcome of operations in such wars and victory in them can largely depend on how well in advance of the outbreak of hostilities the corresponding military contingents were redeployed to regions of future conflicts. If you introduce the practice of sending relevant units to the sites of future military operations long before the outbreak of the conflict, they will be able to establish contacts with the local population and collect all the necessary intelligence information for the subsequent successful conduct of the necessary operations. However, such a strategy, in the opinion of specialists, will require from the NE commanders to constantly maintain the possibility of sending troops to regions where they currently have no immediate need. And in modern conditions, the sequestration of the military budget is simply impossible. Apparently, the American Army will remain in this state for many more years.
Lacks of education and training of personnel
At the present stage, the US Army and its reserve components are staffed by sufficiently educated and internally motivated soldiers who have their own views on staying in the army. However, the general approaches of the relevant training and educational bodies of the SV often affect the views of their subordinates within the framework of established practice, which does not fully correspond to the full range of potential threats to US national security. Today, some servicemen have already ceased to formulate and direct command of their requirements for the weapons they need, which were sometimes too high and even impracticable. Other fighters have ceased to study future threats to America, which do not fully comply with the established training and army education priorities. In this regard, the future instructors of soldiers of the SV should use a completely new, non-orthodox toolkit of training and education of military personnel.
Currently, the main problem for the leadership of the US Army in preparing for future wars is the lack of adequate funding. And although a whole range of military construction tasks facing him can be effectively solved with the involvement of a minimal amount of additional funds, experts say, it is extremely important that regardless of whether the law on budget control remains in effect or changed, in the foreseeable future, the Army will not have enough resources for manning, training and arming its units. The preamble to the New Operational Concept of the Army, published in early October of this year, states that the Army will have “sufficient resources to maintain the combat readiness, the required structure of units and carry out the modernization necessary to ensure that all requirements of the national strategy are met. security. " However, such statements are emotional, not realistic, experts say. This was confirmed by the Chief of Staff of the US Army, General Raymond Odierno. He said that, owing to the lack of funds, HR must move from collective to individual training of servicemen. However, according to him, the combat readiness of the Army is increasing at a very low rate. The general also noted that the Ground Forces should receive all the necessary allocations to ensure combat readiness each year, but noted with distress that "this apparently will not happen."
According to experts, the leaders of the Army should become more entrepreneurial in carrying out activities to ensure preparedness for future wars. They should also explain to politicians who are not very well oriented in military matters, what ultimately would mean for American citizens a situation when the US Army will not be able to conduct combat operations in the upcoming wars.