Blueprint for a 21st Century Military

Nearly five years after the initial invasion of Iraq, our outstanding military is battle-tested, but stretched thin and war-weary. Bush and Cheney threw our troops into the fire. Now from that fire we must forge something stronger and more adaptable to the new and very real dangers we face.

That process must begin with getting all of our troops out of Iraq.

But that is just the first step. We need a military that can deter, fight, and win the wars of the 21st century. We need a military that can win not only the war, but also the peace.

We need to adjust our promotion and training requirements, as well as our budget priorities, to reflect the war-fighting challenges that face our military in this new century.

I have proposed a plan that would focus our selection and promotion policies to incentivize learning the skill sets needed for counter-insurgency, peacekeeping, conflict resolution, and the training of foreign militaries. These skills are needed to win the peace, and we must augment them without diluting the combat skills of our troops.

We should create permanent Civil Affairs positions--troops who bridge the gap between soldiers and civilians--in appropriate units, and we should expand Civil Affairs training for all soldiers and Marines likely to interact with foreign nationals.

We need to integrate post-conflict planning into everything our military does.

I also think that we need to get civilians more involved. Our military has shouldered the burden alone in Iraq--it is unfair and wrong. We must integrate civilians better into our military operations, so that there is seamless coordination among military, diplomatic and political actions.

We must also reorder our budget priorities to reflect the challenges we will face. We need to spend less on planes, and more on people. We need to spend less on Cold War-era weapons systems, and more on state-of-the-art troops. Furthermore, we need to stop building new, unnecessary nuclear weapons.

I have a plan to eliminate $57 billion in wasteful Pentagon spending. As President, I will stand up two additional Army divisions and one additional Marine Corps division -a commitment I believe we must make to face the true threats of the 21st century.

Hard choices lie ahead, but this is the right and responsible road to travel for our nation's safety and security. We must get all of our troops out of Iraq, and we must give them the tools they need to fight and win the wars of this new century.

Comments

[horhay]

Governor Richardson, I agree with much of what you wrote. Looking at the comments, it seems that many of us want peace without having to be hegemonic. But we are very far from Utopia.

The Bush/Cheney administration has severely damaged our nation's principles, foreign relations, and our military. The next President will have some very difficult decisions to make. I think you are wise to at least think about what to do to improve and repair our "war-weary" military. Eliminating $57 billion from Pentagon spending is also long overdue.

When I was in the military, I couldn't believe the waste. Even when equipment was obviously obsolete or a base/station was no longer needed, the budget would always increase. Money wasted on useless projects or weapons instead of giving the troops a paltry raise.

I agree with many comments here, but I think we need to acknowlegde the fact that we do need a military. I want peace on Earth too. But we as a nation still need to be able to defend ourselves and even help our allies when it is appropriate.

A couple of comments below, LightningJoe writes,"(FDR) was not afraid to follow his vision, & that's what we need now: vision." Absolutely right! But the FDR administration also took an antiquated military into a new era, making our nation one of the most powerful in history. With that power though, the US has also engaged in some very immoral and abusive acts. Invading Iraq is just one example. The "dirty wars" in Chile, Nicaragua, and Iran. The Vietnam War. Selling chemical weapons to Saddam. The list is too extensive to detail here.

We the people need to have more oversight into these unscrupulous affairs. Maybe that's what you mean by "integrat(ing) civilians into our military operations, so that there is seamless coordination among military, diplomatic, & political actions"?

Good Luck in the race. If you aren't nominated, I think you would be a great asset in someone's administration.

[moderationsmuse]

Senator Richardson,
You must be preaching to the "core" in this forum judging by the remarks. As one of their token Republicans, I hope I don't add to your troubles by saying that your article sounds some nice intentions, though is a bit fuzzy on the details.

Commentator Mark Shields has been another consistent voice for "sharing the sacrifice," though it's hard to see how Americans can really do that short of enlisting since the sacrifice is really over there, isn't it?

The American Red Cross has a long history of providing services to US soldiers and their families, as well as disaster relief. People can volunteer. You can urge people to assist in military or civilian roles, but the volunteer military service that we have is something to keep.

It means that those who serve, choose their service. It sets limits on war and leaves the draft as an action to reserve for severe emergency, and it means we have a military with high standards and good training.

As for Iraq, the wisdom of our involvement is debated by both parties. Perhaps Pres. Bush will be hailed as a far-seeing hero, if democracy is ever possible there. Or he may have brought us sorrow we didn't need. But to his credit, at least he got rid of Saddam.

Whatever one's views, to ditch the Iraqis now is not wise. How would it look to our enemies? Or to our friends? Gen. Powell was correct, we own Iraq now. And we have a duty to Iraqis. My sense is that American soldiers understand and accept that duty even if the public doesn't.

[LightningJoe]

"Get civilians more involved in war?" Am I reading you right here, Governor? You want to erase the line between war and peace, and just have everyone do war? Can we at least CALL it peace, then? I'm not willing to give up the idea of peace on Earth just yet, so let's at least keep the word for now, whaddaya say?

But this opens up all kinds of possiblities, doesn't it? We could use the BSA for light support roles. I'm seeing merit badges in land-mine detection and sapper work. The Brownies could hand out ration packs to displaced refugees. There has to be a role for the 4-H in this somewhere. The NRA would want to be involved...

Pardon me for plain talking, but what we really need is to get ourselves out of the world's hair for once, and let history take its proper path. We have plenty to pay attention to at home, shifting our energy economy to sustainability. The only reason for foreign adventures these days is to secure sources of energy that (News Flash!) don't belong to us. We are acting like imperialists, and you are advocating a continuation of that role.

True, the future is a lower-energy-flux future, but look at the advantages we hold in preparing for it. Think: what would an FDR do, if faced with an end to cheap energy, but with immense human and creative resources? That may be the wrong question to ask you if, like other Republicans, you are scared to death of FDR. But the man was not afraid to follow his vision, and that's what we need now: vision.

For this one slice of present time, we are blessed with human and material resources. Resources that will soon enough be gone. What we need now is a government willing to set a new course by ending (yes: ENDING) the stranglehold of profit interests, and allowing us to use our genius to chart a different sort of future.

[MoreWarDems4aDraft]

Exactly, The United States of America should police the world.

If not us... who?

[IMPRISONBUSH]

THE FUTURE OF THE U.S. SERVICE:

THERE will never be the same U.S.SERVICE as we wonce know it BUSH AND HIS FRIENDS HAVE CHANGED THAT FOR EVER AGAIN.

THE ARMY MAY BE CALLED THE ARMY : but the men who will serve will be known as :
.............." MERCENARIES "................

AND to hold them in service they will be as a paid army to fight in other countrys that are will to pay the price.

o america what a great country bush, cheney and the christain right have made of you."

[sculptor]

I'm sorry, but I find it quite offensive that you wish to train our military to be better at illegal occupation of foreign territory. How about we just not get in stupid and illegal wars like Iraq instead? Better yet, how about we train the military to be better at disobeying illegal orders such as invading countries without cause?

[Doofus]

One less JSF built: $200M *saved*

One less armored HUMV: $150K *saved*

Troops at home, marching in parades: *PRICELESS*

'We need to spend less on Cold War-era weapons
systems, and more on state-of-the-art troops.'

Robots. We need lots & lots of robots. Those
are your 'state-of-the-art' troops, Governor.

Replace all 'soft-skinned' soldiers with 'armored models'.

While we're at it, lets make war obsolete.

[Marichu]

Governor Richardson,
I must agree with several of your key points. The United States must certainly remove its military presence from Iraq. This must also include halting the construction of any and all military bases being built there.
Another important point you made was in "eliminating 57 billion in wasteful Pentagon spending." But it must not stop there. With Defense and Security taking up 21% of the GDP (446 billion for the fiscal year 2007) outspending China (63 billion) and Russia (62 billion) we have ignored or shortchanged other federal departments and programs. Why so much for Defense? Our "enemies" do not fly around in million dollar jets or sail in billion dollar aircraft carriers. Military spending must be prudently spent taking into consideration the welfare of the soldiers.
Buena suerte on your campaign. I feel you are the most qualified of all the candidates to vie for the Presidency of the United States.

[PeterM]

Actually, I only wish you were right about the 21% of the GDP. This article "Murdering Butter with Guns" claims 41% with the past debts and miscellaneous.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18509.htm

This country has its collective head in a heap of pathological denial and is not ready for the pain that ensues from the complete inflationary liquidation of the American economy and total drain of wealth that people have saved up and no resources left to take care of their needs.
When you sell everything you have, your means of production, your capital and you just print worthless money that cannot buy anything anymore, when you have no place to go, you are going down....

[Marichu]

PeterM,
Thank you for the link to "Murdering Butter with Guns". After reading the article it left me with feelings of disquiet and doubt. More questions arose with no expectation of any, let alone truthful answers forth coming.

[Marichu]

PeterM,
(I replied to this post earlier, but it did not show up. Hopefully,it will not show up twice.)
Thank you for the link to "Murdering Butter with Guns." After reading the article it left me with feelings of doubt and disquiet. More questions arose with no expectation of any, let alone truthful answers.

[PeterM]

I completely disagree with you Governor Richardson.
The ever expanding budget for the military and "undue influence of the Military industrial complex" as expressed by president Eisenhower is the biggest threat to our democracy that this republic has ever faced.
The military spending in the US is completely out of control. Your gesture to cut some billions of dollars out of trillion dollar budget is absurd. There is no military budget that the Senate and Congress does not like for fear of being extorted and called unpatriotic. There are handful who have the courage to act against the military hydra alas in my opinion bankrupcy will solve the problem for us all.

Our future is either Democracy or Empire but not both. I am deeply disapointed in your view but I am not surprised that you propose basically the status quo as dictated by the military-c­orporate-m­edia overlords.

[MistahCharleyPhD]

Governor Richardson,

Thank you for expressing your views so clearly. I had hoped, after your clear difference with Senator Hillary "We have always been at war with Eastasia" Clinton about ending the occupation of Iraq, that you might NOT be a member of the War Party. I see now I was mistaken.

[zizyphus]

We need less soldiers, less police and more education.

Our greatest enemy is our own stupidity.

[TimeToThink]

Judging from some of the people commenting below, your opinon should be dismissed because you erred using 'less' instead of 'fewer'. Others would fault you for brevity. But I understand you I think.

I'm not in agreement with your first sentence, but totally agree with your second. And I agree with what Gov. Richardson said regarding our armed forces' outdated tactical and strategic emphasis only on the big army vs. army confrontation. We lack cultural and language skills critical to today's conflicts. Most of our money for military research goes to weapons and systems there is little use for now.

We should not abandon all that high tech heavy ability and weaponry, just put it in its place.

We should not train our troops to do everything. The Gov. never said so. We need more men with units more variously trained and maintained. The Gov. is hardly a fool. I believe he is right and has felt our lack of such a military in his efforts in diplomacy and has seen it in this war.

You are right about stupidity zizyphus. I often quote a political cartoon strip of the middle of the last century who's famous ending line was 'we have met the enemy and they are us!'

But our worst stupidity has been in being sheep to vote for such transparently corrupt and governmentally inept people as are Pres. Bush, Chaney, et al not once, but twice.

The people have ultimate power if they only knew it. It should be used not for tactics though, but for choosing wise and honorable men who will employ the best methods to secure and maintain the honor of this Republic via a strategy commensurate with the common good of ALL Americans and the people's just values.

[Give Peace A Chance]

But of course, Bill Clinton and Rumsfeld said the same thing and spent the money to modernize the military. Every election cycle, we get the same talk of how we need to spend hundreds of billions to modernize the military.

It is time for Americans to say no.

[AcitizenNJ]

Gov. Bill Richardson,

Good luck on the race but I read into this post just another politican ready to maintain our warring on other countries instead of attacking the groups responsible for 9/11 here in the U.S. but all the other countries that have been attacked in much the same manner. These are groups with no borders and claim no country. My question to you sir is why has this not been addressed as a global issue with a global response. It took a group effort to win WWII, why now without the obvious (oil aspect) that if we are to make this country more secure that a group effort to shut down these terrorist groups isn't widely discussed or in action.

As for our military capability it a no brainer that it needs to be well maintained, cared for and updated constantly.

[rwe2late]

Sorry Mr. Richardson,
Someone has sold you a false bill of goods. I am reminded of the movie Cool Hand Luke when the warden stated the basic problem was a "failure to communicate". Well, the basic problem with our military overseas escapades is not that our soldiers fail to "communicate".

Attempting to train soldiers to have a range of conflicted "do-all" skill sets is absurd. It is comparable to cross-training welfare workers to also be state troopers.
Most bureaucracies will self-defeatingly attempt to expand outside their original mission.
Most businesses recognize mixed goals make for conflicted organizations that don't work.

Forget trying to create "native-friendly" soldiers, instead dismantle some overseas bases, and gain some accountability by ending privatization of the military. End foreign military aid, loans, and trade agreements that ruin local economies and support privileged elites.
Instead, offer Peace Corps workers uninfiltrated by the CIA, and give economic grants. Stop launching wars to defend the world subsidy to the oil cabal and the Saudis, and all the financeers who benefit from the enforced Petrodollar ripoff.

By the way, it might also help to take another look at some of our own distressed cities in a similar light.

[thedirtman]

"Attempting to train soldiers to have a range of conflicted "do-all" skill sets is absurd."

I would also say that this is absurd. However, Bill didn't say we should train soliers to have a range of conflicted "do-all" skill sets. Please read again.

[rwe2late]

per Richardson:
“We need a military that can win not only the war, but also the peace. ..skill sets needed
for counter-insurgency, peacekeeping, conflict resolution­...state-o­f-the-art troops”

It used to be that the military was seen for what it is. It is NOT a democratic organization.
It thrives in secrecy, and imposes itself by force. It does not support human rights above
its mission. It is readily corrupted by alliances with arms contractors. It operates under an infinitely expansive goal of unattainable security against all conceivable threats. Military growth is a THREAT to democracy.
Unfortunately, too many have been blinded by the Orwellian buzz words. Soldiers do not
wage war, but instead “win the peace”. Martial law, mass arrests, torture (aka enhanced
interrogation), bombardment of populated areas, creating mass refugees, walling off
neighborhoods is “counter-i­nsurgency”­. And “insurgents” are bad because, well, they
resist being conquered (aka “occupied”).

As long as we cling to an absurd belief that our occupations and invasions are “good”
because are soldiers are so “good” (or at least could be with the proper sensitivity
training)-- the we will never admit the brutalities being undertaken to protect not the
average US citizen, but greedy Robber Barons who have usurped power with lies and
fearmongering.

[TheKurgan]

The problem with our military is that it's designed to kill on the battlefield, with lines and flanks and reserve divisions. At that, we're pretty good. In fact, we won all the battles in 1990-1991 in Iraq the first time round (except for a draw at Basra), but we lost the war because we don't know shit from shinola when it comes to guerilla fighting. Sure, CIA paramilitary officers know it well, as do the Special Forces; however, what we need is the entire military to know about guerilla fighting and to be trained in its different tactics.

In history, great massed armies conquered, but lost to the guerilla fighters who were smart enough not to walk into tht teeth of a battalion of 120mm smoothbore tank cannons (or their historical equivalent - do you think the French EVER charged an English formation again after Crecy?)

The Iraqis were thinking: "Shock and Awe my ass. I'll wait till they 'take over' and then blow the motherfucking infidels' brains out." It's absurdly easy to make a big, powerful military run itself ragged into bankrupt disarray. If our troops were trained to kill on the small scale as well as the big scale, Iraq would have likely already been over by now.

[thedirtman]

Spot on, Bill. Spot on. I can see you have been observing what works having troops in Germany and Korea. The troops mix with civilians. They speak the language. The troops can give us a human face rather than the face of greedy occupiers.

Now this is a little different from what people have been trained to believe in recent times. Forgive them if they seem confused. But don't give up. There will be a day when intelligent thought and sensitivity are in fashion again, and we will need you to lead the way.

[milo9]

Maybe Mr McGoo can use his intelligent thought and sensitivity to opine as to what our 21st century Constitution will look like? Or will we even have one.