United States Branches of the Military and their Constitutional Wonkiness

[Bacle]

So apparently the West Point Mafia in the Pentagon has so utterly gutted the Navy and maritime services, in favor of their land forces meant for COIN in the last couple decades, that the reserve/utility ships the Corp of Engineers or Navy salvage/utility fleet is almost non-existent now.

All the nice logistical bit that would have helped with this crane issue, and a lot of the US maritime logistics capacity in general, is effectively a skeleton of it's former self.

This is why the Army heads needs to stop being allowed to control Navy budgets.

 

[Buba]

This is why the Army heads needs to stop being allowed to control Navy budgets.

Yup.
The merging of Departments of Army and Navy was a mistake, as was the creation of the Air Force as 3rd branch.
I will now burn priest-blessed incense to stave off ghosts of LeMay and suchlike ...

 

[Zachowon]

I mean, the stuff that most of the Army budget went to was special operations because regular Army didn't really get much in terms of money.

That's what COIN does to ya.

The military, and the joint Chief's are actively attempting to get things ready.

But I will leave that there and that twitter thread only PARTIALLY talked about the bridge and more on everyone else.

And sure China could do it quicker, they would also throw safety regulations to the side.

 

[S'task]

So apparently the West Point Mafia in the Pentagon has so utterly gutted the Navy and maritime services, in favor of their land forces meant for COIN in the last couple decades, that the reserve/utility ships the Corp of Engineers or Navy salvage/utility fleet is almost non-existent now.

All the nice logistical bit that would have helped with this crane issue, and a lot of the US maritime logistics capacity in general, is effectively a skeleton of it's former self.

This is why the Army heads needs to stop being allowed to control Navy budgets.

Yup.
The merging of Departments of Army and Navy was a mistake, as was the creation of the Air Force as 3rd branch.
I will now burn priest-blessed incense to stave off ghosts of LeMay and suchlike ...

From a strict reading of the Constitution our present Army and Air Force are both completely unconstitutional. The way it's gotten around is a loose reading of the army funding clause and so basically every two years the Army and Air Force are renewed for another two years of service via congressional budget.

Meanwhile the Navy literally has no limitations Constitutionally, it's Constitutional authorization clause is basically "yes" with no limitations on duration of funding or other requirements.

I'm not sure when they decided to do it, but they linked the Navy and rest of the military budgets together, which has greatly harmed the Navy as it's made their longer term planning and production harder while linking an arguably Constitutionally dubious standing Army to the very clearly Constitutionally enabled standing Navy...

 

[DarthOne]

From a strict reading of the Constitution our present Army and Air Force are both completely unconstitutional. The way it's gotten around is a loose reading of the army funding clause and so basically every two years the Army and Air Force are renewed for another two years of service via congressional budget.

Meanwhile the Navy literally has no limitations Constitutionally, it's Constitutional authorization clause is basically "yes" with no limitations on duration of funding or other requirements.

I'm not sure when they decided to do it, but they linked the Navy and rest of the military budgets together, which has greatly harmed the Navy as it's made their longer term planning and production harder while linking an arguably Constitutionally dubious standing Army to the very clearly Constitutionally enabled standing Navy...

…interesting. Very interesting.

(Takes notes)

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Something similar happened with the Royal Navy in the 1960s. As I understand it the command structures got slammed together (undermining the Sea Lords and Admiralty Board) and thereafter the fleet got fucked over in favour of the airforce.

And in classic Westminster fashion, they didn’t even spend the money they were meant to on the RAF, undermining them in turn.

 

[S'task]

…interesting. Very interesting.

(Takes notes)

The specific clauses in question are in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Note the bolded sections. Army appropriations can be for no longer than two years. Also note the extensive powers concerning Congressional powers to support militias. Taking these together it's clear that a standing Army, as we have now, was not what the Framers intended our military to be.

Meanwhile note the Navy clause. It's literally a single line, with no limitations ascribed to it: "To provide and maintain a Navy" (which, note, was understood to included the Marine Corps even back then).

It's pretty clear that the the Framers expected the US Government to have a standing Navy, and even back then proper warships took years to make and were maintained over decades and they knew it, so they structured the Constitution to reflect that.

Now, I'll grant, time and warfare have changed. The US Army uses vehicles that require longer term financing and maintenance similar to how the Navy needed in the 18th century. So really the Constitution probably should be amended to allow for longer term procurement for the rest of the military, but as it stands now... yeah... the Army and Air Force are both on Constitutional shaky footing.

 

[Bacle]

The specific clauses in question are in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

Note the bolded sections. Army appropriations can be for no longer than two years. Also note the extensive powers concerning Congressional powers to support militias. Taking these together it's clear that a standing Army, as we have now, was not what the Framers intended our military to be.

Meanwhile note the Navy clause. It's literally a single line, with no limitations ascribed to it: "To provide and maintain a Navy" (which, note, was understood to included the Marine Corps even back then).

It's pretty clear that the the Framers expected the US Government to have a standing Navy, and even back then proper warships took years to make and were maintained over decades and they knew it, so they structured the Constitution to reflect that.

Now, I'll grant, time and warfare have changed. The US Army uses vehicles that require longer term financing and maintenance similar to how the Navy needed in the 18th century. So really the Constitution probably should be amended to allow for longer term procurement for the rest of the military, but as it stands now... yeah... the Army and Air Force are both on Constitutional shaky footing.

An Amendment to the Constitution to clarify and detangle the procurement and budgetary requirements/limits/abilities for military spending is probably one of the few that could get bipartisan support from a lot of the populace.

It takes longer to train and equip the modern US military than I think the Founding Father's really expected or anticipated, and the budgetary limits/requirements/laws around procurement and logistics for the US military needs to have a longer term budgetary planning than a couple years.

Also, repealing or amending the Jones Act is probably a good idea as well.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Taking these together it's clear that a standing Army, as we have now, was not what the Framers intended our military to be.

A touch naive and a tad insulting to what the Continental Army achieved.

Unless you are Switzerland, with an excellently trained pool of reserves, a standing army is necessary for statehood.

 

[S'task]

A touch naive and a tad insulting to what the Continental Army achieved.

Unless you are Switzerland, with an excellently trained pool of reserves, a standing army is necessary for statehood.

In the 18th century? Who was a standing army in the early American Republic going to defend against?

Nobody. Militias were more than enough to handle the American Indian Tribes, and no European power had sufficient military power on continent to threaten to conquer the States. Further, in order for a European power to even TRY they'd have to move their troops via the Atlantic Ocean...

Which in this construction would be contested by the standing US Navy.

A state needs a standing military in order to defend it's borders from peer opponents. When your peer opponents are not on the same continent of you, that means you need a strong standing Navy. An Army is optional.

 

[Zachowon]

In the 18th century? Who was a standing army in the early American Republic going to defend against?

Nobody. Militias were more than enough to handle the American Indian Tribes, and no European power had sufficient military power on continent to threaten to conquer the States. Further, in order for a European power to even TRY they'd have to move their troops via the Atlantic Ocean...

Which in this construction would be contested by the standing US Navy.

A state needs a standing military in order to defend it's borders from peer opponents. When your peer opponents are not on the same continent of you, that means you need a strong standing Navy. An Army is optional.

Wasn't the reason DC burned because of not having a standing army?

 

[Husky_Khan]

Wasn't the reason DC burned because of not having a standing army?

Well the Militia outnumbered the invading Brits but they were lolworthy. Based Federalism failed to keep up the bare minimum of standards.

Not so much an issue now I feel with a proper National Guard and Army Reserve system. I've kinda wondered how things would look if the Active Duty Army was largely downsized and then we pass on some of the savings to things like Special Forces, the National Guard and an expanded Army Reserve maybe and so you'd have semi-ready National Guard units and then the Army Reserve could have cadres around which formations are built around them if we need to do some sort of serious military deployment.

And we'd still have a thick, if not thicker Navy and Marine Corps and Space Force, Air Force blah blah blah and so forth. Your MOS of military intelligence or whatever it is you do would probably be okay along with other myriad support roles I imagine.

It'd never happen but it does seem like it could be practically done and maybe there'd be some sort of fiscal (and other) benefits to it.

 

[Bacle]

Well the Militia outnumbered the invading Brits but they were lolworthy. Based Federalism failed to keep up the bare minimum of standards.

Not so much an issue now I feel with a proper National Guard and Army Reserve system. I've kinda wondered how things would look if the Active Duty Army was largely downsized and then we pass on some of the savings to things like Special Forces, the National Guard and an expanded Army Reserve maybe and so you'd have semi-ready National Guard units and then the Army Reserve could have cadres around which formations are built around them if we need to do some sort of serious military deployment.

And we'd still have a thick, if not thicker Navy and Marine Corps and Space Force, Air Force blah blah blah and so forth. Your MOS of military intelligence or whatever it is you do would probably be okay along with other myriad support roles I imagine.

It'd never happen but it does seem like it could be practically done and maybe there'd be some sort of fiscal (and other) benefits to it.

I personally see the Corp of Engineers as the best justification for our current standing army, with anti-ballistic missile/air defense duties being a close second.

Drones, planes, and ships are going to matter more than numbers of infantry going forward in most conflicts, and the US Army really doesn't like taking backseat to the Navy, Air Force, or Coasties, despite the other services needing far more maintenance and logistical support to remain effective compared to maintaining some infantry and armor divisions.

But the Army forgets the lead times for the other services are not as short as their's, and thus keep shortchanging the long term needs of the Navy, Air Force, and Coasties any time an Army officer gets to be in the SecDef or similar spots.

The focus on COIN has gutted our maritime logistics capacity, which was already getting worse because the US stopped building many ships, due to the unintended effects of both the Jones Act and that the US gov would not subsidize civie shipbuilding like many other nations do to keep their yards running.

When our Navy and Air Force is getting gutted to satisfy the desires of the Army, our nation ends up so much weaker. No amount of infantry or armor can make up for a lack of ships or aircraft, and the Army just doesn't want to deal with how it's obsession over infantry and COIN work has left the US vastly under-prepared not just for foreign conflicts, but some types of domestic emergencies as well.

 

[49ersfootball]

From a strict reading of the Constitution our present Army and Air Force are both completely unconstitutional. The way it's gotten around is a loose reading of the army funding clause and so basically every two years the Army and Air Force are renewed for another two years of service via congressional budget.

Meanwhile the Navy literally has no limitations Constitutionally, it's Constitutional authorization clause is basically "yes" with no limitations on duration of funding or other requirements.

I'm not sure when they decided to do it, but they linked the Navy and rest of the military budgets together, which has greatly harmed the Navy as it's made their longer term planning and production harder while linking an arguably Constitutionally dubious standing Army to the very clearly Constitutionally enabled standing Navy...

The Air Force is NOT a fucking mistake!

 

[King Arts]

A touch naive and a tad insulting to what the Continental Army achieved.

Unless you are Switzerland, with an excellently trained pool of reserves, a standing army is necessary for statehood.

Not really there are nations that don't have a army worth the name.

 

[DarthOne]

The Air Force is NOT a fucking mistake!

Yes it is. Should just be split between army and navy like it was pre-cold war.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

Wasn't the reason DC burned because of not having a standing army?

no.
dc was burned because the regular army miscoordeated their defences, forcing the infantry to first prepare a defensive line then abandon that line so that they could march over to prepare a far worse defensive line in the wrong place.
this left the defenders exhausted, poorly placed, poorly lead, and w/o artillery support.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

TL;DR, heroic and based second amendment militia got put up against Peninsular War Veterans and were promptly steamrolled.

Edit: Apparently our lads were quite surprised by how quickly the American defence collapsed. After fighting the French in Spain it must have felt like a cakewalk in comparison.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

no.
dc was burned because the regular army miscoordeated their defences, forcing the infantry to first prepare a defensive line then abandon that line so that they could march over to prepare a far worse defensive line in the wrong place.
this left the defenders exhausted, poorly placed, poorly lead, and w/o artillery support.

This is because the general in charge, who had set up defensive lines in an ideal location, found out that another unit was preemptively retreating, become irrationally paranoid about the (extremely remote) possibility of being flanked, and from there panicked himself into a headlong retreat from nothing.

 

[S'task]

The Air Force is NOT a fucking mistake!

Where do you get that idea from what I wrote?

The commenting upon the dubious Constitutionality of the Air Force, Space Force, and Army is not the same thing as claiming we do not actually need an Air Force, Space Force, and Army or that having them is "a mistake".

I actually think we need all four... well three, frankly, I'd merge the Space Force and Air Force back together and rename it the Aerospace Force.

But I also would like to see a Constitutional amendment to allow Army procurement and and standup for more than two year timeframes thus updating the Constitution to what is actually needed for a modern military.