Best Defense
Thomas E. Ricks' daily take on national security.

Why can’t the regular U.S. military organizations do anything?

That’s the question my old friend Col. David Maxwell asks. A fearless Special Operations officer who has commanded in the southern Philippines fight, among other places, he said he didn’t mind having the following note attributed to him, as long as it is pointed out that the opinions he expresses are his own and not ...

By , a former contributing editor to Foreign Policy.
584072_090703_phillipines2.jpg
584072_090703_phillipines2.jpg

That's the question my old friend Col. David Maxwell asks. A fearless Special Operations officer who has commanded in the southern Philippines fight, among other places, he said he didn't mind having the following note attributed to him, as long as it is pointed out that the opinions he expresses are his own and not official in any way. Nor do they reflect the views of Joe Torre or any other National League manager except Manny Acta, for all I know.

That’s the question my old friend Col. David Maxwell asks. A fearless Special Operations officer who has commanded in the southern Philippines fight, among other places, he said he didn’t mind having the following note attributed to him, as long as it is pointed out that the opinions he expresses are his own and not official in any way. Nor do they reflect the views of Joe Torre or any other National League manager except Manny Acta, for all I know.

Why do we have to create new HQ or task forces or agencies for every new problem that we come across? Every time we create a new task force, organization, or agency it is additive to the organizations that already exist and must be manned from the existing personnel strength (for the Army the end strength cap of 547,400 active duty Soldiers). We never seem to reduce any of the requirements for existing organizations when we create new ones – all the new good ideas (and every one of the organizations that are established does good work and they are focused on solving a particular problem) just keep getting resourced (Congress is particularly helpful here in creating and resourcing new organizations to solve particular problems). And once an organization is created it follows the “bureaucratic prime directive” of sustaining its existence; therefore it continues to find more problems to solve and more ways to justify a budget and even increase its manpower. Rarely is there an organization established with a sunset clause.

But we should ask ourselves why do we need to create new organizations for every problem? Are not the Service Staffs, the Joint Staff, and the GCC Staffs inherently supposed to be problem solvers? Why can’t we solve problems with the existing staffs?

And then I think something we need to look hard at as well is our whole Unified Command Plan (UCP). Do we really need GCC’s all over the world (and I failed to mention that almost every GCC has assigned to it a Service Component Command as well as subunified commands such as theater special operations commands or in the case of the Pacific Command, as an example – US Forces Korea and US Forces Japan). All of these commands and organizations require manpower from all the services. And how many of them actually ever seem to fight the war when it happens? Usually we will create a new organization to do the warfighting and these organizations are a combination of “ad hocery” (Joint Manning Documents) melded with existing units in some cases (let’s look at US Forces Afghanistan and Multinational Force Iraq). Those are the warfighting HQ and they must have sustained manning from all the services but they did not exist nor were they likely projected to ever exist when Service strengths were determined.)

The burning questions we should be asking are: Do we need GCCs when we establish separate warfighting HQ (e.g., are the GCCs “warfighters” in name only)? Should the Service and Joint Staffs be able to solve the problems instead of creating new task forces and organizations? And when new task forces and organizations are deemed necessary, what staff or organization should be eliminated? And lastly if we say that the existing Service and Joint Staffs cannot take on the additional problem solving requirements because of existing requirements – have we looked at the existing requirements and determined if perhaps we are doing the wrong kind of work?

On top of this, active-duty Army end strength is carrying many thousands of recuperating soldiers in the Wounded Warrior program, I am told. It is good to keep them on active duty, but doing so is counted against the Army in counting its end strength, which is capped by law.

Photo via Flickr user Okinawa Soba

Thomas E. Ricks is a former contributing editor to Foreign Policy. Twitter: @tomricks1

More from Foreign Policy

The USS Nimitz and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and South Korean Navy warships sail in formation during a joint naval exercise off the South Korean coast.
The USS Nimitz and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and South Korean Navy warships sail in formation during a joint naval exercise off the South Korean coast.

America Is a Heartbeat Away From a War It Could Lose

Global war is neither a theoretical contingency nor the fever dream of hawks and militarists.

A protester waves a Palestinian flag in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, during a demonstration calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. People sit and walk on the grass lawn in front of the protester and barricades.
A protester waves a Palestinian flag in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, during a demonstration calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. People sit and walk on the grass lawn in front of the protester and barricades.

The West’s Incoherent Critique of Israel’s Gaza Strategy

The reality of fighting Hamas in Gaza makes this war terrible one way or another.

Biden dressed in a dark blue suit walks with his head down past a row of alternating U.S. and Israeli flags.
Biden dressed in a dark blue suit walks with his head down past a row of alternating U.S. and Israeli flags.

Biden Owns the Israel-Palestine Conflict Now

In tying Washington to Israel’s war in Gaza, the U.S. president now shares responsibility for the broader conflict’s fate.

U.S. President Joe Biden is seen in profile as he greets Chinese President Xi Jinping with a handshake. Xi, a 70-year-old man in a dark blue suit, smiles as he takes the hand of Biden, an 80-year-old man who also wears a dark blue suit.
U.S. President Joe Biden is seen in profile as he greets Chinese President Xi Jinping with a handshake. Xi, a 70-year-old man in a dark blue suit, smiles as he takes the hand of Biden, an 80-year-old man who also wears a dark blue suit.

Taiwan’s Room to Maneuver Shrinks as Biden and Xi Meet

As the latest crisis in the straits wraps up, Taipei is on the back foot.