A review of Maj. Gen. Bob Scales' new book Scales on War: The Future of America's Military at Risk
By Sarah Lohschelder
In Scales on War - The Future of America's Military at Risk, retired Major General Bob Scales takes account of what he thinks is wrong with America's military. The main argument - that the infantry is undervalued and underfunded - is interesting and presented with convincing supporting evidence. However, he loses some of his credibility by insinuating malicious intent in a rather political manner.
Scales' vision of the future is grounded in his military experiences in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He argues that many of the wars of the future will take place in the Middle East, and the infantry will be essential to winning those wars in close combat. Additionally, Scales emphasizes public perception as a crucial factor in war, which places a significant constraint on the full exploitation of America's technological superiority. The enemy has realized this and concluded that America's weaknesses are its aversion to high casualty numbers and long-term commitments to wars.
The greatest death toll across the services is in the infantry and, according to Scales, many of those deaths could have been prevented with inexpensive technology ― costing only a few hundred dollars per soldier. Such technology includes simple things such as helmet cameras, so that the military command and control centers can quickly tell when soldiers need aerial support, as well as sensors capable of spotting enemies before they enter a soldier's line of vision. Scales asserts that such a helmet camera could be purchased at Walmart for a hundred dollars, but this disregards both special requirements for military equipment and the defense procurement process, which tend to inflate costs. Nevertheless, the author makes a good point: it would be easy to have "no more fair fights" because the United States is capable of making combat unfair in its favor.
Unfortunately, Scales charges, Washington does not understand this for two main reasons. First, the US government does not value the infantry. Since the use of minutemen during the American Revolution, the infantry has been perceived as ineffective, consisting of those who do not have the smarts or the education to get into the other services. Second, Washington is beholden to defense contractors and their lobbyists who want to sell expensive high-tech machinery to the Air Force and the Navy, at the expense of the simple, but low-cost, life-saving equipment the infantry would benefit from most. Over decades, Scales accuses, these mistaken views have led to a "lingering dissonance between the Beltway and the tactical battle" to the extent that defense funding is characterized by a "tradition of neglect" of the infantry.
Scales is most convincing when he presents detailed arguments, such as specific equipment that would help the infantry and be cost-effective. The descriptions of the changing nature of war requiring boots on the ground among the population and sensitivity to public opinion are insightful. He also effectively criticizes the over-mechanization of war, charging that Washington forgets that it is the sweat and blood of soldiers that wins wars.
The author's arguments are weakest when he launches into generalizations, particularly when displaying his blatant dismissiveness of Washington. Broad statements like "America loves its Army, and Washington hates it" imbue the book with a political agenda that does disservice to its central argument. He also summarily dismisses Beltway concerns on cyber security, environmental threats, and other risk predictions as "patently ridiculous," reducing the arguments for countering non-traditional security threats as being tied to the anti-war movement. "Their logic goes like this," he says, "Global warming is bad. Wars are bad. Therefore they must be connected." In these instances, the book would benefit from a deeper discussion of the perspectives the author disagrees with.
Overall, Scales makes some strong points, particularly his advocacy for the infantry. However, his arguments lose some of their effectiveness because of the way they are presented. Outside of the subject matter of defense funding, the book is insightful in that it displays the deep political divisions in America today.
Sarah Lohschelder is pursuing a Master of Science in Foreign Service and a Juris Doctor at Georgetown University. She is a Defense Fellow at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy
Scales on War: The Future of America's Military at Risk, published by the Naval Institute Press (September 15, 2016)