Department of Defense: Product Actuality or Marketing Stratagem

I had to ask myself the question when the Army unveiled its new doctrine today.


Army commanders stated that their future missions will be centered on “nation building” and “stability operations” rather than “conventional combat.”


Catch phrases aside, these army commanders don’t choose their missions, they go where they are sent. They carry out the missions they are given. They obviously see the writing on the wall as far as our foreign affairs policies under either Senator Obama or McCain and they want their men to be equipped and trained for it. I can’t say I blame them.


I read a lot of other “disturbing” phrases nestled in their projections between the catch phrases. Things like “frequently called upon” and “longer lasting” and “expensive”.


The one thing that strikes me in reading all of these things, none it of seems to have to do with defense. I find this curious since these missions are expected to be performed by none other than the “Department of Defense”. A return to less “politically correct” times when we titled men like Henry Knox as the “Secretary of War” doesn’t seem entirely accurate either.


Senator Obama has stated that his foreign policy will not be war/intimidation driven but will be centered on “democracy promotion.” Well, democracy is a good thing. So how will we promote it? Obama has used this term when describing how he wants expand the size of the army in order to send troops to stabilize the southern regions of Sudan. It also props up when he has spoken about ousting the Zimbabwean dictator who rigs elections and run a corrupt government.

Maybe if Obama becomes president we can place our military under the jurisdiction of the “Department of Democracy Promotion”


Obama isn’t the only candidate spouting interventionalist foreign policy however. McCain has called Bush’s policies to be “too timid”. Two invasions weren’t enough for him. He felt we needed to send more forces to Iraq, should not have taken the military option off the table in dealing with North Korea, and has sang songs about bombing Iran in public. I wonder how angry we would get if an Iranian presidential candidate sang a song about dropping bombs on us. I guess the Department of War wouldn’t be too far fetched for a McCain Administration.


Semantics aside, as much as I love them, the question we really need to ask ourselves, is this what we want our military to be dong?


Should we employ our forces around the world to remove regimes we don’t like, to occupy remote and ungoverned areas, or should we use them to protect our boarders and our citizens from hostile forces.


We need to put the “Defense” back into the “Department of Defense”

I am not saying that our military should not be strong or that we need to withdraw our troops we have stationed around the world. Quite the opposite. Having soldiers stationed in friendly nations such as South Korea and Germany is vital and well as having naval bases in countries like Japan and The Kingdom of Bahrain is essential to that defense. It gives the ability to rapidly deploy troops and maintain supply lines if we are attacked by an aggressor. The key word in that statement is “attacked”.


A significant amount of money is wasted on these nation building efforts, I have seen it first hand. We cut funding to advanced weaponry programs that could protect American citizens and hand it over to corrupt governments instead.

For a few personal examples, I was recently stationed as the liaison officer in Djibouti, Africa. The US government rents land from the Djiboutian government to maintain my former home, Camp Lemonier. The president’s wife uses the money given to them by the US to buy Khat and then manages the sale and distribution of the narcotic throughout the country. The US government spent 20 million dollars to build an AIS receiver array for their coast guard. Within 2 weeks of turning it over to Djiboutian control, the locals stripped the towers of the solar panels used to power the array and used them to build huts. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) and Space & Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) both put in bids to build the Djiboutian Coast Guard a coastal radar system. Both received funding, 12 million apiece. When it became realized that they both were planning to build identical systems in identical spots, neither would budge and they decided to put their radar towers right next to each other, doing the same exact thing. I can continue on for hours on wasted money in one of the world’s smallest and insignificant countries.

I also sat through many meetings and conferences in Bahrain. Admirals and Captains would complain about how they gave billions to Pakistan each year so they could buy weapons and help us fight terrorist. They did buy weapons, but all of them ended up on their boarder with India, not in the hills bordering Afghanistan. Their solution was to give Pakistan more funding.


Instead of building other nations, lets use those resources to continue building ours. We have enough problems to fix right here in America. Let’s take of those first before we worry about others.


Leave OUR military to do what it was designed to do, to protect OUR citizens and OUR boarders.




6 Responses to Department of Defense: Product Actuality or Marketing Stratagem

  1. Reid Greenmun says:

    Congress needs to declare war – this practice of the President committing our armed forces to a never ending series of interventions needs to end.

    Let’s try something really creative – let’s follow the Constitution!

  2. Rich Roberts says:

    I thought about typing up the sections of the Constitution that address the military but decided not to slip them in.

    But since you brought it up, I’ll throw them in here. Yes, wouldn’t be nice if our government started to follow it again.

    Most people don’t know what it says. I carry a copy in my breifcase and pull it out a lot durring office political discussions. When I quote it, I get blank stares and people say, that applyed 200 years ago, it doens’t apply any more. can you believe that! It does apply, it’s our fundamental gorvenance and it is possible to change it when the need arises.

    well here we go. Article I, section 8 (powers granted to congress)

    [12] To raise and support Armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be a longer term than two years;
    [13] To provide and maintain a Navy;
    [14] To make rules for the governement and regulation of land and naval forces;
    [15] To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. (i like this one)
    and sub-section [16] talks about organiation and training of the militia along with stuff about appointing officers.

    and that is it. nation building, building schools in Africa, ect. I couldn’t find it in there

  3. Reid Greenmun says:

    That’s ‘cuz they aren’t there. But what is there is powers of the executve Branch to enter into treaties – and I believe that is how the powers that be were justifying the use of tax funds and our military to build schools in Africa or treat aids abroad, etc.

  4. Rich Roberts says:

    True, the President has the power to enter treaties as long as 2/3’s of the Senate concurs.

    When I was in Africa we had 2 companies of Navy SEEBEEs there. NAVCENT was throwing money out of their “cost of war funds” at us. So much so that we were scratching our heads on how to spend it all.
    Operational Commanders have a blank check. They say they need X amount of dollars to fight the Global War on Terror and it isn’t questioned because the politicains know being against any military apporpation bill at this time would be political death right now.

    The State Department was also working to do things to help out African Communities. I worked with the Embassy quite a bit to facilitate these programs since they needed support from Camp Lemonier.
    This was seperate funding and I have less of a problem with the State Department doing these things.
    I don’t think it is the proper role of our military and our military spending. I want that money and those forces working to defend our nation. Not building up others.

  5. Reid Greenmun says:

    Meanwhile – along the borders of the United States and Mexico my nephew, an ICE agent, reports that they don’t have adequate funds to replace worn out patrol vehicles or to rent cars when they use air travel to support other cities on official business.

    … and the physical fense still in not finished – 7 years after 9/11/2001.

  6. Rich Roberts says:

    I’d rather see our military stationed on the US-Mexico boarder to stop illegal immigrants than see them nation build overseas.

    If you don’t want to deploy the millitary like that, well if you stop these expensive nation building efforts, you can divert the money you save into beefing up the boarder patrol and completing the fense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: