Proposed military reforms

[Praetor]

Decorated Vietnam War Hero, Newsweek war correspondent, and author Colonel David Hackworth outlined in one of his books

1. Merge the Army and Marine Corps, giving the new outfit command of all combat aircraft including strategic bombers hence eliminating the air force
2. Transfer control of all nuclear weapons to the Navy and allow the Navy to retain its air arm. Sailors will be manning missile silos on land at first; but ASAP, they will all be transfered to Submarines at sea.
3. Merge the National Guard and Reserve
4. Merge the noncombat arms of the separate armed services (training, finance, administration, JAG, Medical, etc.) into a single service support corps for the entire military
5. Create a single strategic mobility command
6. Replace the separate departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force with a Joint Force Defense Headquarters run by the Secretary of Defense
7. Reinstate the draft and implement Universal Military Training
8. End the "up and out" policy of promotion and allow officers to remain in their rank if they choose to do so
9. Increase the maximum age for marticulation into the academies from 21 to 25
10. Require a minimum of four years enlisted experience before enrollment in ROTC, OCS or the Academy
11. Eventually, merge the separate armed services into a unified military service

a list of reforms he would make in the US Military. Here are those reforms.

Hackworth claims that not only would these reforms save hundreds of billions of dollars in defense, these reforms would also free GIs from rear-echelon jobs to activate several more combat divisions.

 

[Katydid]

OK and the training differences and PT differences, and of course the MOS and training differences would be solved HOW???? What about those who have been in for 15 years, will they be expected to pass the Marine Corps PT test if they have been Navy. Or how about the fact that ALL THE SERVICES HAVE DIFFERENT MISSIONS!! It may look good on paper but the logistics of it would be next to impossible.

 

[Sailor's Wife]

I

 

[desi]

Its a good idea on paper but merging the Army and the Marines would kill our ability to do what the Marines do as the Army's mentality is relatively lax.

 

[Sailor's Wife]

*

 

[Jesus_help_me]

Yes that is true it is a good idea on paper. But how are you gonna give guys and women their new training in months that takes years and when you send them on the battle field they will be lost like littles kids. I believe what is going on now is going well so we should keep it that way.

 

[MikeK]

I agree with his thoughts that the Air Force's contribution to Strategic weapons is no longer needed. The Navy could man a small number of land based missile silos, the vast majority (figure 90%) of strategic weapons being placed in submarines. There is no longer a need for air launched nuclear weapons, as we have given up on the idea of tactical nukes, and sea launched methods are far more survivable.

 

[Praetor]

Its true that the separate armed services have separate missions. However, the Marines were created to stage amphibious operations. The last amphibious operation the Marines staged was in the Korean War. Since then, the Marines have been given functions that should belong to the Army.

Under Hackworth's plan, Marines will still retain their uniform, operation style, organizational style, and equipment. Marine divisions and units will just fall under a larger aegis that will emcompass both Army and Marine units. The Marines and GIs will recieve service support from a unified infrastructure.

Hackworth also points out that the US Military has four separate air forces. Why does the Army need its own air force when you have the US Air Force. The Marines have their own air force and get great ground support from it. Why not give the new outfit resulting from the merger of the Army and Marine Corps command of all combat aircraft including strategic bombers?

There are some things that could be phased in. We could require recruits of all the armed services to go through USMC Boot Camp before going on to skill training in the separate armed services.

Here is another radical proposal posed by a four-star Marine general, why not get rid of the Army and Air Force and transfer their functions to the Marines? The US Constitution only authorizes a Navy and Marine Corps anyway.

 

[Katydid]

Praetor, I have never heard of the Constitution only allowing a Navy and Marine Corps, to me that sounds unreasonable, but if you can show me where, then I will believe that. That still doesn't make me want to agree with the proposals, I just want to know where that is stated.

 

[Praetor]

I didn't say I agreed with this Marine general either. However, I think its in Article I under the powers of Congress. It specifies Congress having the power to raise and maintain a Navy. However, the section says nothing about raising and maintaining a standing army.

 

[WarSong]

Hasn't this thread been brought up before?

 

[WarSong]

Yes, in fact, here it is...

http://christianforums.com/t91355

 

[Glaz]

Hey praetor, good to run into another Hack fan. His ideas are solid, especially merging the seperate boot camps into one.

 

[desi]

Under Hackworth's plan, Marines will still retain their uniform, operation style, organizational style, and equipment. Marine divisions and units will just fall under a larger aegis that will emcompass both Army and Marine units. The Marines and GIs will recieve service support from a unified infrastructure.

For the Marine grunt to get where they need to be and fight effectively they need amazing support which is currently provided by fellow Marines. Making Marines dependent on Army support runs the risk of hindering their hard and fast style as the Army is usually not rushed into anything.

Hackworth also points out that the US Military has four separate air forces. Why does the Army need its own air force when you have the US Air Force. The Marines have their own air force and get great ground support from it. Why not give the new outfit resulting from the merger of the Army and Marine Corps command of all combat aircraft including strategic bombers?

It might work. There is a separate mentality among the services which may serve them well. Can you take Airmen who deal with the complexities of fixing stealth aircraft with their stellar intelligence and treat them harsh like soldiers or Marines? I don't know.

There are some things that could be phased in. We could require recruits of all the armed services to go through USMC Boot Camp before going on to skill training in the separate armed services.

This would be expensive by adding more training time to all other services as Marine Boot Camp is longer than most by a few weeks. It could also weed out some desirable smart people due to physical standards which aren't necessary for many technical jobs.

Here is another radical proposal posed by a four-star Marine general, why not get rid of the Army and Air Force and transfer their functions to the Marines? The US Constitution only authorizes a Navy and Marine Corps anyway.

I don't think there's enough hard cases in America to find that many Marines.

 

[Katydid]

Do the Marines have helicopters? Really, I am curious, because I know in Iraq, the Air Force is covering fixed wings and the Army is covering the helicopters. So how would they work that if the Marines took it over. Do they have helicopters? And the controllers and maintenance people for them? Because that might be another problem.

 

[WarSong]

All branches have helis, though the AF uses theirs for Spec Ops missions and the Navy for similar reasons & ASW, while the Army and Marines ise theirs for about everything.

 

[Razorback]

I would rather see it like this:

Military Operations Command broken into Air, Land, and Sea.
Military Logistics Command again broken in Air, Land, Sea, and Medical Corps.
Military Support Command broken into finance, personnel, etc.

Too simple?

Instead of having entire branches or services specializing in certain tactical or strategic areas, we would have specific units. I don't ever see this happening, but I think it would work a lot better.

It will never happen, but universal military training should be a part of public education. If the government is educating you, it should be able to educate you in order to serve it. Analogy, if Wal-Mart was paying for my education, they would want me to work for them when I finished my education. Make sense?

As a prior enlisted officer, I agree that all officers should first be enlisted. After screening volunteers, enlistees could then go to a service academy, ROTC, or OTS (if they already have a degree). As a product of ROTC, I feel I am justified in saying that the academies have outgrown their usefullness. There is no longer a difference between my commission and theirs. I don't think they should be dissolved, but I think they should work more closely with the other commissioning sources.

 

[daidhaid]

Aside from compulsorily service it is interesting.
All those redundancies cost us big big bucks.
Besides the navy and air force personell could use a little PT.

Consider the source, Col. Hackworth is not a guy to lightly shrug off.

 

[Wolseley]

I didn't say I agreed with this Marine general either. However, I think its in Article I under the powers of Congress. It specifies Congress having the power to raise and maintain a Navy. However, the section says nothing about raising and maintaining a standing army.

Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12, 13, and 14:

"(The Congress shall have power) to raise and support armies...to provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces".

 

[Praetor]

QUOTE]Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12, 13, and 14, "The Congress shall have power to raise and support Armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I stand corrected

As for Razorback's reorganization into the branches of operations, logistics and support-very interesting.