THE AMERICAN MILITARY IN PEACE AND WAR POLS 292 Spring

SUNY College at ONEONTA                                                Spring, 2010
CRN 314 POLS 292-01                                                          Professor Paul Conway
T,Th 10-11:15, SCHU 112

The standard of justice depends upon the equality of power to compel.  - Thucydides

For what can be done against force without force?                              - Cicero

The subordination of the political point of view to the military would be contrary to common
sense, for policy has declared the war; it is the intelligent faculty, war only the instrument,
and not the reverse. . . political intercourse does not cease by the war itself . . . it continues to exist.
                                                                                                                         - Karl Von Clausewitz

The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new
in the American military experience.*                                               -  Dwight D. Eisenhower

The military (leader) rarely favors war. He will always argue that the danger of war requires increased
armaments; he will seldom argue that increased armaments make war practical or more desirable.
He always favors preparedness, but he never feels prepared.                - Samuel P. Huntington

If the American military services are allowed to do their own thing, the US will have few ready forces.
The services have traditionally prepared for the long haul, concentrating on hardware that requires years of development. - Graham Allison

This course: The statements above are insightful, I believe, and they also reflect some of my own values
and sense of political reality as I organize the materials for this course. This catalog description below
suggests the essence of the course but does not hint at the complexity of this subject that encompasses
historical, cultural, economic, sociological, geographic, and psychological (as well as political) variables.

POLS 292 American Military in Peace and War 3 s.h.
Analyzes the organization of American military services and the role of combat in pursuit of
national political objectives. The course deals with the aftermath of World War II, the Cold
War and especially developments since the first U.S. Persian Gulf War that help to explain
contemporary national security issues and priorities. The problems of maintaining civilian
control of the military and the management of Defense Department policies will be
carefully considered. (LA) Prerequisite: SoS or 3 s.h. POLS.

This instructor: After several years in the military, I did most of my undergraduate work at Michigan
State University and my graduate studies at Montclair State in New Jersey and Purdue University in
Indiana. Most of my research and teaching is related to international politics and U.S. foreign policies.

Office: 14F SCHU (basement); regular hours are T,Th 11:20-12 and W 3:30-4:4:45.
My office phone # is 3923; my e-mail address is conwaypg.

Objectives: A primary objective of this course is to encourage critical thinking about military and
defense issues as political phenomena. That means, among other things, a careful consideration of
our sources of information, new terms and concepts, and the language of politics that we often take for granted. We should try to be skeptical (not cynical) and avoid ethnocentrism as much as possible. We should strive for a broad, historical perspective and seek analogies that can be helpful in an analytic sense. Throughout the semester you should become familiar with concepts such as bureaucracy, bureaucratic politics, friction, procurement, logistics, deterrence, geopolitics, balance of power politics, diplomacy, and international law. We should strive for objectivity and acknowledge that there is much that we can't know for sure. We are not likely to learn much from people who are ideologues and `know-it-alls’. Thus we should pursue an understanding of military politics with a sense of curiosity about human nature in uncertain and sometimes dangerous conditions.

Grades: There will be three tests and three assignments.
The tests will count for 50% of the course grade; the assignments will count for 50%.

Thomas E. Ricks, Making the Corps (New York: Simon & Schuster Touchtone paperback, 1997)

Dale R. Herspring, The Pentagon and the Presidency (University of Kansas, 2005)

Allison Stanger, One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009)

Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (New York, Penguin pbk, 2007)

U.S. Army - U.S. Marine Corps, Counterinsurgency Field Manual (Chicago edition, 2007)

January
21 The military ethos and traditional concepts of warfare:
War is a political act . . . a continuation of policy. . . the essence of war is combat
Clausewitz in On War . . . (1967 Gateway paperback edition) pp 82, 83, 101.
Sun Tzu (in The Art of War, Oxford paperback edition, 1971; p.78)
The worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative.

The military in American history: How many conflicts? So what? How about the Constitution?
Questions and concepts (begin Ricks on Making the Corps)

26 Civil-military relations in the USA: The organization of the Defense Department and the military services
The concept of bureaucracy and bureaucratic politics in the Defense establishment
The military as a political institution; the military as a profession (Officers and NCO's)
Does a stereotype of the "military mind" make sense? 'Grunts' vs 'CinC's' and the JCS Chiefs
Herspring (H) 1-22

28 Racial integration and Women in the military, gays in the military
Heroism in battle: What is courage? http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4639029n
What motivates soldiers to fight in combat situations?

2 Are the marines different? Are special forces different? How do the services differ?
Military culture and service culture. Finish Making the Corps by Ricks

9   (A-1)                          Eisenhower The Cold War, nuclear deterrence, and containment politics

Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex speech (1961) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/782356/eisenhower_on_the_military_industrial_complex/
* Ike's Military-Industrial-Complex fairwell speech conclusion: "Each proposal (for military projects) must be weighed
    in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among other vital national programs."
The Defense Budget (some sources below)                                                                      Herspring 85-119

16 Kennedy and Cuba, arms control, and Vietnam Herspring 118-149
Excerpt from transcripts of the Missile Crisis decisionmaking (handout)

March
2 Nixon and Ford Secret wars and secret policies: Laos and Cambodia
Balance of power/realpolitik and Vietnam Herspring 184-236

11 (A-2) Review of test A cursory comparison of difficulties in Vietnam and Afghanistan (handout)

25 Clinton Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo (and, why not Rwanda?) 331-376

Just under one and a half million people are on active duty^[12] in the military with an additional 848,000 people in the seven reserve components.^[3] It is an all volunteer military, nonetheless, conscription can be enacted by the request of the President and the approval of Congress. The United States military is the second largest in the world, after the People's Liberation Army of China, and has troops deployed around the globe.

In early 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates proposed to the President to increase the overall size of the Army and Marine Corps to meet the needs of the War on Terrorism.^[13] Current plans are to increase the Army to 547,400 and the Marine Corps to 202,000 by 2012. The expansion will cost a total of $90.7 billion between 2009 and 2013 as the Navy and Air Force undergo a limited force reduction.^[14] In addition, in 2009, Gates proposed increasing the size of the Army by 22,000 troops in order to reduce fatigue from multiple trips overseas, and to compensate for troops who are in recovery away from their units.As in most militaries, members of the U.S. Armed Forces hold a rank, either that of officer or enlisted, and can be promoted.

Component	Military	Enlisted	Officer	Female	Civilian
Army	548,000	456,651	88,093	73,902	243,172
Marine Corps	203,095	182,147	20,639	12,290
Navy	332,000	276,276	51,093	50,008	182,845
Air Force	323,000	261,193	64,370	64,137	154,032
Coast Guard	41,000	32,647	8,051	4,965	7,396
Total Active	1,445,000	1,174,563	224,144	200,337	580,049
Army National Guard	353,000
Army Reserve	205,000
Marine Forces Reserve	40,000
Navy Reserve	67,000
Air National Guard	107,000
Air Force Reserve	67,000
Coast Guard Reserve	11,000
Total Reserve	850,000
Other DOD Personnel					97,976

As of March 31, 2008, U.S. armed forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.^[18] Some of the largest contingents are the 142,000 military personnel in Iraq, the 56,200 in Germany (see list), the 33,122 in Japan (USFJ), 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), 31,100 in Afghanistan and approximately 9,700 each in Italy and the United Kingdom. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

*************************************************************************************

A critique or personal "think piece" on an article in a professional journal dealing with the U.S. military

Objectives: (a.) To further acquaint you with academic and professional journal sources of data and ideas on national defense issues. (b.) To encourage you to think critically about some research published in scholarly journals in the field of military affairs; (c.) to facilitate your writing a coherent critical essay (critique) in response to the journal article.

2. Individualized thinking: Ask yourself why you are interested in the subject and what you expect to get from the article (or essay) you selected. Before you read the article ask yourself: What do you know and what don’t you know about the subject? What questions did you start with? Then read carefully and take notes. At that point, after you have finished the article, ask yourself what you learned, what new questions you consider most important and why you have a positive or negative reaction to the article Emphasize what you don’t know (new questions) even more than what you feel you do know about the subject.

3. Suggestions: The comparative critique is a personal think piece or reaction paper. This one should be 3-4 pages (typed and double spaced), no longer. Do not refer to the writing style of the author or the readability of the article. You must select an essay that you find readable in the first place. Your only concern in the critique should be with the substance, i.e., the content of the article. Do not summarize the articles beyond two paragraphs. React to the article thoughtfully. Discuss how the article influenced your thinking about the issue. The article should provide a point of departure or a frame of reference to express your thoughts and questions about the topic. Remember to express your tentative understanding of the topic and how show, if possible, how it relates to one or more of the concepts discussed in this course. Due date is February 9.

        A critique or think piece on two analytical articles dealing with the U.S. military
           Task: Write a comparative critique of two academic journal articles dealing with the U.S. military, defense policies, or national security that relate to one or more political concepts (such as bureaucracy, realism, diplomacy, intelligence agencies, balance of power, international law, etc.)

2. Individualized thinking: Ask yourself why you are interested in the subject and what you expect to get from the articles you selected. Before you read the articles ask yourself: What do you know and what don’t you know about the subject? What questions did you start with? Then read one at a time carefully and take notes. At that point, after you have finished the articles, ask yourself what you learned, what new questions you consider most important and why you have a positive or negative reaction to the articles Emphasize what you don’t know (new questions) even more than what you feel you do know about the subject.

3. Suggestions: The comparative critique is a personal think piece or reaction paper. This one should be 3-4 pages (typed and double spaced), no longer. Do not refer to the writing style of the authors or the readability of the articles. You must select articles that you find readable in the first place. Your only concern in the critique should be with the substance, i.e., the content of the article. Do not summarize the articles beyond two paragraphs. React to the articles thoughtfully. Discuss how the articles influenced your thinking about the issue. The articles should provide a point of departure or a frames of reference to express your thoughts and questions about the topic. Remember to express your tentative understanding of the topic and how it relates to one or more of the concepts discussed in this course. Due date is March 23.

The last assignment is to write a brief think piece - 3-4 pages maximum length - on a topic of interest to you. Consider the pros and cons of a one of the DoD/military policy issues below. A minimum of four sources should be used and clearly cited (two pro and two con) Look for scholarly and popular sources of data and opinions in your cursory research. The due date is on the course outline.

Would a ban on CBU's make sense politically and militarily? (Cluster Bomb Units)

When if ever will the ban on homosexuals in the military be lifted? What are the political prospects?

Does China threaten US security? How?
What DoD policies vis-a-vis China should be changed, if any?

Do racist/potentially terrorist cells within the military pose any threat to national security?

The politics of awarding medals for heroism and outstanding behavior in military combat

The politics and consequences of racial integration within the military services

Historical and contemporary issues related to religious discrimination in the US military

Is the all volunteer force better for a democratic society or should there be
a national service obligation?

**************************************************************************************

[edit] Roles and Responsibilities

After the 1986 reorganization of the military undertaken by the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not have operational command of U.S. military forces. Responsibility for conducting military operations goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands and thus bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely.

Today, their primary responsibility is to ensure the personnel readiness, policy, planning and training of their respective military services for the combatant commanders to utilize. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also act in an military advisory capacity for the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acts as the chief military advisor to the President and the Secretary of Defense. In this strictly advisory role, the Joint Chiefs constitute the second-highest deliberatory body for military policy, after the National Security Council, which includes the President and other officials besides the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

[edit] Current Joint Chiefs of Staff

[edit] Leadership

[edit] Chairman

Admiral Michael Mullen, USN, 17^th and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The current Chairman is Admiral Michael Mullen, USN, who began his term on 1 October 2007.

[edit] Vice Chairman

General James Cartwright, USMC, 8^th and current Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (2007–).

The position of Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was created by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986. The Vice Chairman is a four-star-general or admiral and by law the second highest ranking member of the U.S. Armed Forces (after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman presides over the meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He may also perform such duties as the Chairman may prescribe. It was not until the National Defense Authorization Act in 1992 that the position was made a full voting member of the JCS. [6]

[edit] Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman

Command Sergeant Major William J. Gainey, US Army, 1^st Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman (2005–2008).

Command Sgt. Maj. William J. Gainey was selected to serve as the first Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (SEAC) beginning Oct 1 2005. It was to be a newly created position established to advise the Chairman on all matters involving enlisted personnel in a joint environment.

As the SEA to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Chairman), the SEAC will be an advisor to the Chairman on all matters concerning joint and combined total force integration, utilization, and development. Additionally, the SEAC will help develop noncommissioned officers (NCOs)-related joint professional education, enhance utilization of our senior NCOs on joint battle staffs, and support the Chairman’s responsibilities as directed.

SIPRI also comments on the increasing concentration of military expenditure, i.e. that a small number of countries spend the largest sums:

High and rising world market prices of minerals and fossil fuels has also been a contributing factor in the upward trend in military expenditure, said SIPRI in their earlier 2006 report. For example, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Russia and Saudi Arabia have been able to increase spending because of increased oil and gas revenues, while Chile and Peru’s increases are resource-driven, “because their military spending is linked by law to profits from the exploitation of key natural resources.”

Also, “China and India, the world’s two emerging economic powers, are demonstrating a sustained increase in their military expenditure and contribute to the growth in world military spending. In absolute terms their current spending is only a fraction of the USA’s. Their increases are largely commensurate with their economic growth.”

In Context: US Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

When the US Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for military spending came out in early 2008, Travis Sharp and Christopher Hellman (mentioned earlier) projected the spending of other nations planned for 2008 thus allowing comparison between US military spending and the rest of the world:

Pie chart

Comparing US with others

Top spenders ranked (and sources)

Why does the US number seem so high when the budget announced $517.9 for the Department of Defense?

Unfortunately, the budget numbers can be a bit confusing. For example, the Fiscal Year budget requests for US military spending do not include combat figures (which are supplemental requests that Congress approves separately). The budget for nuclear weapons falls under the Department of Energy, and for the 2009 request, was about $29 billion.

Military spending in 2008 ($ Billions, and percent of total)
Source: U.S. Military Spending vs. the World, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February 22, 2008 Notes: · The figure for the United States is the budget request for Fiscal Year 2009 and includes $170 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as funding for the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons activities. · All other figures are projections based on 2006, the last year for which accurate data is available. · All countries that spent over one billion per year are listed. · Due to rounding, some percentages may be slightly off. If you are viewing this table on another site, please see http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending for further details.
United States	711	48.28%	1
China	121.9	8.28%	2
Russia	70	4.75%	3
United Kingdom	55.4	3.76%	4
France	54	3.67%	5
Japan	41.1	2.79%	6
Germany	37.8	2.57%	7
Italy	30.6	2.08%	8
Saudi Arabia	29.5	2.00%	9
South Korea	24.6	1.67%	10
India	22.4	1.52%	11
Australia	17.2	1.17%	12
Brazil	16.2	1.10%	13
Canada	15	1.02%	14
Spain	14.4	0.98%	15
Turkey	11.6	0.79%	16
Israel	11	0.75%	17
Netherlands	9.9	0.67%	18
United Arab Emirates	9.5	0.65%	19
Taiwan	7.7	0.52%	20
Greece	7.3	0.50%	21
Iran	7.2	0.49%	22
Myanmar	6.9	0.47%	23
Singapore	6.3	0.43%	24
Poland	6.2	0.42%	25
Sweden	5.8	0.39%	26
Colombia	5.4	0.37%	27
Chile	4.7	0.32%	28
Belgium	4.4	0.30%	29
Egypt	4.3	0.29%	30
Pakistan	4.2	0.29%	31
Denmark	3.9	0.26%	32
Indonesia	3.6	0.24%	33
Switzerland	3.5	0.24%	34
Kuwait	3.5	0.24%	35
South Africa	3.5	0.24%	36
Oman	3.3	0.22%	37
Malaysia	3.2	0.22%	38
Mexico	3.2	0.22%	39
Portugal	3.1	0.21%	40
Algeria	3.1	0.21%	41
Finland	2.8	0.19%	42
Austria	2.6	0.18%	43
Venezuela	2.6	0.18%	44
Czech Republic	2.5	0.17%	45
Romania	2.3	0.16%	46
Qatar	2.3	0.16%	47
Thailand	2.3	0.16%	48
Morocco	2.2	0.15%	49
Argentina	1.9	0.13%	50
Ukraine	1.7	0.12%	51
Cuba	1.7	0.12%	52
Angola	1.6	0.11%	53
New Zealand	1.5	0.10%	54
Hungary	1.3	0.09%	55
Ireland	1.1	0.07%	56
Jordan	1.1	0.07%	57
Peru	1.1	0.07%	58
North Korea	n/a	n/a	59
Global Total (not all countries shown): 1,472.7	100%	n/a

The cost of war (Iraq and Afghanistan) is estimated to be about $170 billion for the 2009 spending alone. Christopher Hellman and Travis Sharp also discuss the US fiscal year 2009 Pentagon spending request and note that “Congress has already approved nearly $700 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $126 billion in FY'08 war funding is still pending before the House and Senate.”

Furthermore, other costs such as care for vetarans, healthcare, military training/aid, secret operations, may fall under other departments or be counted separately.

The frustration of confusing numbers seemed to hit a raw nerve for the Center for Defense Information, concluding

The articles that newspapers all over the country publish today will be filled with [military spending] numbers to the first decimal point; they will seem precise. Few of them will be accurate; many will be incomplete, some will be both. Worse, few of us will be able to tell what numbers are too high, which are too low, and which are so riddled with gimmicks to make them lose real meaning.

In Context: US military budget vs. other US priorities

The peace lobby, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, calculates for Fiscal Year 2007 that the majority of US tax payer’s money goes towards war:

As a pie chart

Raw data and sources

Furthermore, “national defense” category of federal spending is typically just over half of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year. This is different to mandatory spending, the money that is spent in compliance with existing laws, such as social secuity benefits, medicare, paying the interest on the national debt and so on). For recent years here is how military, education and health budgets (the top 3) have fared:

	2007 (in billions of dollars)	2007 percent of federal funds budget
Source: 43% Percent of Your 2007 Taxes Go to War, Friends Committee on National Legislation, February 14, 2008
Current Military Spending	598	29%
Cost of Past Wars	282	14%
Total military percent		43%
Health Research & Services	423.7	20.5%
Responses to Poverty	255.0	12.4%
Interest on Non-Military Share of Federal Debt	226.2	11%
Government Operations	138.9	6.6%
Social Programs	59.9	2.9%
Science, Energy, & Environment	53.7	2.6%
Non-Military International Programs	29.1	1.4%

Discretionary budgets in $ (billions) and percentages
Sources and notes The link for each year takes you to that year’s source The defense budget is only the Pentagon request each Fiscal Year. It does not include nuclear weapons programs from the Department of Energy, or funding for wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
2009	997	541	54	61.9	6.2	52.7	5.3
2008	930	481.4	51.8	58.6	6.3	52.3	5.6
2007	873	460	52.7	56.8	6.5	53.1	6.1
2006	840.5	438.8	52	58.4	6.9	51	6.1
2005	820	421	51	60	7	51	6.2
2004	782	399	51	55	7	49	6.3
2003	767	396	51.6	52	6.8	49	6.4

In this new era, traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies and even allies do not pose a military threat to the United States. For a while now, critics of large military spending have pointed out that most likely forms of threat to the United States would be through terrorist actions, rather than conventional warfare, and that the spending is still geared towards Cold War-type scenarios and other such conventional confrontations.

[T]he lion’s share of this money is not spent by the Pentagon on protecting American citizens. It goes to supporting U.S. military activities, including interventions, throughout the world. Were this budget and the organization it finances called the “Military Department,” then attitudes might be quite different. Americans are willing to pay for defense, but they would probably be much less willing to spend billions of dollars if the money were labeled “Foreign Military Operations.”

Name	Service	Position
Admiral Michael Mullen	USN	Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General James E. Cartwright	USMC	Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General George W. Casey, Jr.	USA	Chief of Staff of the United States Army
Admiral Gary Roughead	USN	Chief of Naval Operations
General Norton A. Schwartz	USAF	Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force
General James T. Conway	USMC	Commandant of the Marine Corps

Drone attacks (Pakistan)

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=4&islist=true&id=3&d=02-20-2009

More bombing in Afghanistan? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/washington/21policy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th