The Weinberger Doctrine.

When Should We Use Military Force?

I served in the USAF for just under 22 years, and in that time, I saw us end the Vietnam war, engage in a number of brief military operations (with varying success), and fight a short, but violent, conventional war to reestablish Kuwait sovereignty.  Along the way, there were a number of Secretaries of Defense, most of whom made some impacts that may have been newsworthy at the time but left little impression on me.  There is one exception to this and he was Ronald Reagan’s first SECDEF – Casper Weinberger.

In supporting the President, he along with the Secretary of State George Schultz created the conditions to broker an international reduction in Nuclear Arms between the Soviet Union and the United States and NATO with the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces talks.  But their shared strategic vision would ultimately lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Yet, despite these successes for America, he was routinely criticized by President Reagan’s political opponents in the Congress.

During his tenure, we saw the military forces of the United States begin the rebuilding and modernization the Nixon/Ford and Carter administrations had put off after the withdrawal from Vietnam as they dealt with the inflation caused by unbalanced federal spending.

But what I find to be his greatest contribution was something I doubt any of our modern politicians have a clue about.  When it first came out it was known as the Weinberger Doctrine.  It was a simple set of statements on when and how the US should use its military force.  They are listed here.

1. The United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies.
2. If we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all.
3. If we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives.
4. The relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed–their size, composition, and disposition–must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. Before the U.S. commits forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort.

What I think we are seeing today are the choices of a generation of politicians and statesmen who’ve not had the military experience to know the true cost in the human capital of a shrinking military as an instrument of national policy.  The one thing this current war without end will do is change that as more veterans enter into political office.  I just wonder what lessons and experience they will bring as they rise to positions of greater authority.

Unfortunately for us, there is no clear path for disengagement when administrations change or popular support wains.  Sadly, it seems for most of our politicians the commitment of American lives is not an important determination in their political decision making.  They think in much grander, and opaquer, terms where the morality of their position can be justified within the broader context of national security.

Should We Build a Wall?

Sometimes I can only shake my head.  I’ve seen a number of postings on FB about how walls are ineffective and can be defeated.  Some have gone so far as to invoke God as being against walls.  It gives me reason to question the sanity of those who are opposed to a particular wall, or really a political belief in sovereignty yet are unable to make rational arguments supporting their position.  It is far easier to stand on a corner and shout the other side is insane, than it is to decide, perhaps they are not.

We can start with simple yes or no questions but regardless of the answers, it will never alter the positions of those who are for or against a border wall, because the time for logical debate is long past and neither side is willing to concede they are maybe wrong (even a little bit).

The real issue at hand isn’t whether or not we should build a wall, or even if walls are effective or not, those are only wonderfully convenient talking points to mask the foundational question, “Should the laws of a sovereign nation be subject to the whims of outside political activists who have gathered together to trample on the laws they dislike?” Unfortunately, that question is unanswerable in the 15-second sound bites we’ve now come to accept from the media as they cull through the politicians and other elite seeking just the right 15-seconds to inflame their viewers.

After the 2016 election, the Congress created a Special Investigation into this question as it dealt with the allegation of Russian influence/corruption of the voting process.  So far, after two years of investigation and some $30 million dollars, there remains no clear indication whatever Russia did – had any distinct impact on the national vote.

It has long been said we are a nation of sheep and there is a lot of truth to that, for like sheep all most of us want to do is live our lives in peace and let someone else guide or guard the flock.  The politicians and the power-elite know this and gain their power from the flock as they drive them in whatever direction suits their particular need.

So, what is the answer?  Unlike others who suggest they speak for God, I don’t know.  What I do know are the following facts. 

• Over the past 200 years, America has been in the enviable position of not spend massive amounts of energy and capital guarding its borders.  We had acceptable relationships with both Mexico and Canada and none of us saw much need to invade the other.  Sure, we had entry points and we had coastal defenses in case those pesky Europeans wanted to invade, but for the most part, everyone knew the rules and followed them.  Canada kept the Arctic hoards from coming south, and Mexico kept the Incas from coming north.
• Immigrants of the past are not the same as immigrants of today.  There were rules that were followed, and for the most part, they assimilated into the culture adding to our society with their foods, their art, and their histories.  Today’s immigrants are overwhelming the communities as many try and force their culture on the natives without a real desire to assimilate.  At the same time, we native Americans seem to have lost our identities and shared cultural values as we fracture into ever-smaller groups, each demanding a superior place in the social fabric.
• The historical labels of Liberal and Conservative are no longer valid descriptors.  Liberals today are intolerant of those who oppose their views and seek power through manipulation.  Conservatives have no true sense of the natural evolution of society and tend toward knee-jerk reactions against the more extreme social changes.  Labels remain only so those in power can herd the right sheep into the appropriate flocks.
• As long as America remains a viable market for addictive drugs the flow of those drugs from their various points of origin will continue.  The by-product of this is the issue of human trafficking and the increased expenses of border security.  So far, every strategy the US government has tried in its “War on Drugs” has failed.  We’ve filled our jails and watched as lives are lost to the addiction.  I am not sure the government can ever fix this problem, for its root is in a moral choice each individual makes and regardless of what politicians may say the Government is amoral.

So, at the end of the day should we build a wall or should we just do away with Homeland Security?  I guess the answer depends on who you think the new arrivals will vote for.

Do We Know What We Know?

Space, the final frontier.

In March 2018 the President proposed creating a “Space Force” which would be like the Air Force, except for Space[1].  I doubt he came up with this idea all by himself, while resting between his twitter storms, so the question is why is this now becoming a thing?  Will we, or do we, intend to make Space a place for overt state versus state offensive military operations?  A friend recently suggested we do.  Perhaps we already have – since we have so many military assets in space.

Let’s start with what we know about Space and the current laws.  First and foremost, Space is really pretty big.  I suppose technically we are talking about everything from about 188 km (73.2 miles)[2] to the edge of the ever-expanding universe.  Covering our activities in this domain is the Space Treaty[3] signed and ratified by the U.S. in 1967.  In simple terms the treaty forms the basis for current space law, holds the nation-states responsible for activities (either governmental or commercial) originating from that nation-state, prohibits the placement of “weapons of mass destruction” in space or on the moon, and calls for the human explorers to be considered “envoys of mankind.”  Since this is a UN treaty I am not sure how much it actually deters a rouge power if that power chose to ignore it, but as a signatory, we do have legal obligations as we consider the roles and missions of our newly proposed Space Force.

It seems to me we are kind of where we were in the late 1930s when proponents of an independent U.S. air power began actively lobbying for a separate Air Force, and in turn, their fair share of the military budget.  It was then we began to see the predominant military air power theorists argue that air power should be a co-equal to the Army and the Navy and that air power alone could bring an adversary to the peace table and end a war.  At best, history has shown unless we are willing to take the consideration of civilian humanity out of the equation and just bomb the country into oblivion this is a flawed assumption.  At worst it is just wrong since unless we are willing to turn the land into a nuclear wasteland somebody has to eventually occupy the space and fill in the political vacuum we’ve created.

On the other side of the coin, control of the air domain is absolutely essential to allow U.S. ground and sea forces to maneuver and operate effectively.  Control of the space domain, at least within the standard orbital sphere, is equally essential to our success or failure in any sort of national engagement.  If we lose control of that space our assets essential for intelligence, communication, and navigation are lost, and so is our ability to operate within the domains below it.  So far, both commercial and military enterprises have placed only limited resources towards independent redundant capabilities in all those areas, and our reliance on those assets in space grows daily.

For the sake of argument let’s assume we create this Space Force to control and exploit what the U.S. Air Force today calls the “high ground.”  What exactly would their mission be? Within military parlance controlling the high ground has always been essential for successful military operations.  We put castles and fortresses on hills for two reasons, they can better see what is coming at them, and attacking forces would have to fight uphill to overcome them.  What exactly would we need to do to control the high ground in Space, is it even possible without completely eliminating all potential opponents.

What happens to global stability if we, operating singularly or with allies, choose to place offensive weapons in space to destroy another nation's access or use those weapons to target our adversaries’ capabilities in the air, sea and land environments.  To me, that is the $64,000-question.  It raises the same questions for the risk of war that emerged with the cold war when the two opposing sides developed extensive nuclear arsenals – ostensibly for the defense of their homelands.  Fortunately for us, reasonable men found ways to hold that power in check despite the tensions that arose. 

We successfully avoided that nuclear war because the political stakes were so high, and the politicians in charge had all seen the cost of war up close and personal.  The same cannot be said of today’s politicians or the societies they control.  The political elite no longer understands what war really means from a social and economic standpoint.  On top of that, we have a new breed of non-state actors with access to the technology once only available to large governments who create a whole new wild card in the game.

I am not sure how increasing the federal bureaucracy through the creation of new layers of command and building yet another force that will fight for funding for its own academy and the obligatory NCAA Division I football team will ensure we can effectively protect our interests in the Space domain.

---

[1] https://gizmodo.com/trump-proposes-a-space-force-which-is-like-the-air-for-1823746231

[2] https://futurism.com/where-does-earth-end-and-space-begin/

[3] https://history.nasa.gov/1967treaty.html