Fascinating...did you know that during WW II many business execs became "dollar-a-year" men to work in the federal procurement system from the government's side?

Notwithstanding, the conflicts we are engaged I do not believe come close to the magnitude of WW I and WW II.  

And I reject as myth that the American people are disconnected from their military (this seems to be the dominant narrative).  I think the American public well-respects the military and with the advent of incredible information media, stays well-informed, probably better informed than any generation prior.  

We have been funded (adjusted for inflation) better than we were during Vietnam.  Opinion polls still have military leaders ranks as the most trustworthy institutions in America (above clergy!).  While I do not subscribe that we should take this high esteem for granted, we should be reflective about why it seems to be true (and not jump to conclusions and jump on bandwagon euphemisms, such as "America is at the mall").

I actually do not see a problem with "overseas contingency operations" as opposed to full-scale war.  I think it is sufficiently descriptive and doesn't overstate or understate.  Comparing now to WW I is a stretch, if that was your intent.

No, wasn't trying to make a direct comparison between WWI & WWII to todays conflicts, although what we are in now has lasted longer than both put together (US involvement, at least).  By that account, and the amount of resources (treasure) we have expended, you probably could make some kind of direct comparison.  I was trying to contrast the amount of national involvement during that conflict with what is occurring now.

My point was that the Nation doesn't seem to be at war.  I don't think it ever was, at least not in line with our previous National efforts.  Perhaps if it impacted the general public more (i.e. rationing, limited profits, diverted transportation) they would be more interested in policy and decision making, etc.

I know this has been addressed on another blog, but it seems like replacing 'war' with 'overseas contingency operation' lessens the urgency or seriousness of the matter.  It lumps natural disaster response into the same category as combat operations.  The amount (and placement) of "air time" the wars received during the Presidents address mentioned above would certainly seem to indicate a lesser urgency to a whole bunch of other stuff.

JP 1-02 defines a contingency as contingency — A situation requiring military operations in response to natural disasters, terrorists, subversives, or as otherwise directed by appropriate authority to protect US interests.  (Interestingly, FM 3-0 doesn't touch on a definition of a contingency operation, but at one points separates it from a protracted operation, possibly implying a short time period for contingency ops?)  JP 1-02 goes on to define limited war: Armed conflict short of general war, exclusive of incidents, involving the overt engagement of the military forces of two or more nations, and Genral War: Armed conflict between major powers in which the total resources of the belligerents are employed, and the national survival of a major belligerent is in jeopardy.  One could argue these definitions either support the name change, or are merely outdated in their use of "nations."

We always say around here that "words mean things."  I'm guessing what the folks currently in Afghanistan and some places in Iraq feels like war, as opposed to a contingency operation.

I'm guessing many would argue about how "well-informed" Americans are nowadays vs. WWI or II.  I suppose those that want to be are "informed," at the very least.  And then there are those who cannot name the three branches of government, but can name every American Idol judge...

By the way, everytime I go anywhere, it seems as if America IS at the mall!  So much for the bad economy!

interestingly, "war" is not defined in the DOD dictionary!

Everytime we have a QDR (or previously known as BUR) we have new terms to defined potential conflict -- to serves as force structuring constructs.  

OCO is more in line with past references (like "MCO") than "war."  Perhaps war is ill-defined and should remain so.  OCO may be a better construct.

Eric, we have struggled within the US government to find the right term or phrase to characterize military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  People smarter than I have written books and articles and we have debated in public and behind closed doors and there has not been a consensus.  War is too broad a concept.  Counterinsurgency does not encapsulate the whole mission.  GWOT begs the question:  How does one wage war on the concept of terror?  

Our troops at a checkpoint in Afghanistan see a person coming at them at 50 mph and must decide within three seconds if this person is an insurgent, terrorist, suicide-bomber, or poppy farmer.  Guess what?  He may be all four within the next 24 hours.  The soldier knows that he is in a combat zone, people are shooting at him, and he is at war.  It is the politicians in Washington and the academics at Carlisle Barracks who must deal with the definitions for both policy and legal reasons.

Chris, America is at the mall.  Those who are not at the mall are at Starbucks ordering a Venti Caramel Macchiato with low fat milk and sugar free syrup.

Regardless of how one defines war, and I am smart enough to not enter that debate on this blog, the average American is not touched by what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is the military and the alphabet soup of federal departments and agencies (DoJ, DoS, FBI, CIA, DEA) and their families who are directly and indirectly touched during the last seven years.

I spent 2001-2008 in the Washington DC metro area commuting 75 minutes (car, bus, train) twice a day in uniform.  I traveled to Afghanistan 7 times from 2004-2008.  I also took TDY trips into America's heartland where I could talk to "normal" people who did not live close to a military installation or National Guard outpost.  My discussions with Americans on the bus and train in Washington DC and with our citizens in Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania convinced me that the war (GWOT, Long War) was not impacting their day to day lives.  Yes, they respect us, but they and theirs do not have to sacrifice or suffer to support the war effort.  Of course, there are the small towns with Reserve or National Guard units, and these communities are impacted.  I started to believe that the COUNTRY is at war and our NATION is not.

I must have made about 2,000 metro trips, in uniform, from 2001--2008.  I talked to visiting tourists on most days.  I made it a habit to ask how the war impacted their lives.  For most, it did not.  Those who had a brother or cousin, or high school buddy deployed seemed to be connected and informed.  Most believed that our volunteer military meant that we should shoulder the burdens.  The older visitors from the WWII era fully understood that many Americans are disconnected and they told stories similar to the ones Eric alluded to.  

In a paradoxical way, isn't NOT having the war impact their lives an honorable "measure of effectiveness" on the part of the military?  Seems like if we are about preserving our way of life, the more normal that life is the better?

One more observation:  we changed the name of War Department to "Department of Defense" in the late 40s as part of government reform.  Would be interesting to hear from our DMH bretherin on what the rationale was for this "reframing" that was perhaps more remarkable than this one.

Chris, yes, it is a paradox.  I do not want the "average American" to suffer because the country is at war.  However, I do want the average American"connected" to the effort so the nation is at war.

This is fine balancing act.  Our volunteer military allows ordinary Americans to go about their day-to-day routine without being too concerned about our troops who are forward deployed.  The citizen who goes to work each day and pays her taxes is doing all they should have to do, in my mind.  But, there is something to be said about compulsory service or a military draft, or both, so all of our citizens are giving something back to the nation.  A Signal battalion deployed forward should have the sons and daughters of the banker, doctor, lawyer, Congressman and the plumber, retail clerk, and gas station attendant.

I think there is a lot more public service going on out there than we give credit.  My son's little league coach, the teacher who stays after school to run the cross-country team, the residents of Northern Minnesota, surrounding residents to Fargo, ND who pitched in to save the city of Fargo, on and on.  

There is is something "metaphysical" in this that does not need to be controlled by the Federal government.  Our citizens are by-and-large great people.  

Agreed.

Our Vice President said: ..."In a sense, we're more a military at war than a nation at war...."  OK, Chris, I await your learned response ;)

VP Biden tells returning troops he knows their stress

By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY

FORT BRAGG, N.C. — Vice President Biden, addressing soldiers returning from a 15-month combat tour in Iraq, acknowledged Wednesday the stress that multiple, lengthy deployments have taken on U.S. forces.

Biden, speaking to members of the Army's XVIII Airborne Corps who returned home from Iraq, said the strain on troops and their families is largely invisible to most Americans.

"In a sense, we're more a military at war than a nation at war," said Biden, who as a senator was critical of the way former president George W. Bush waged the war in Iraq. Biden's son, Beau, is currently serving in Iraq as an Army lawyer.

"A 15-month deployment — to most Americans that's a lifetime," he said. Soldiers can miss their child's first step or two birthdays, he said.

Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, who commands the corps and who was the No. 2 officer in Iraq, said 15 months is "a very long time" but worth it.

U.S. troops, Biden said, provided security for elections, improved Iraqi security forces and left Iraqis with a chance to establish a stable government in "God knows how long."

On Afghanistan, Biden said he had "overwhelming appreciation" for troops who battle insurgents in rugged terrain. Heavy helmets and vests add to their burden, he said.

A top priority for Army officials who outfit soldiers with gear is to lighten their load.

Biden referred to Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the central front" in the battle against al-Qaeda extremists. President Obama, who recently ordered 17,000 more troops to battle insurgents there, has established a strategy to "disrupt, defeat and dismantle" al-Qaeda, he said.

"That's where bin Laden is," Biden said.

I hadn't heard those remarks from the Vice President.  Interesting.  Ambassador Ryan Crocker (former Amb to Iraq) just spoke here at CGSC.  Near the end, he stated "All of you know we are not a nation at war," stating that it was a conscious decision not to put the nation on a war footing.  He continued "This means, in many respects, we are not a government at war," leading to his frustration in trying to obtain government expertise from departments that do not have an international focus during his time in Iraq.  He ended his comments with "It may be that we are not a nation at war, but I am very much humbled to be in a room of Americans who are at war."

I beieve that some of the points made in the article, 'Are we at War or not' were very informative and thought provoking.  The concepts of industrial mobilization and price fixing, as well as the nation's sacrificial gesture of forgoing the use of gasoline on Sundays were great and responsible ideas.  However, measuring the President's words, and noting at what point he mentions the word "war" doesn't help, neither does it help to make an issue of what semantics should be used to describe this war.  I said, "war" because we still have members executing missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Calling U.S. efforts, "The Global War On Terrorism" will not insure greater military or diplomatic success. Those of us in the Armed Services volunteered to do what we do.  I believe citizens have a right to use the pronoun "we" when speaking on the war effort because they are Americans and their taxpayer money, fund military efforts.  As I said before, the article was a good one with great ideas, but drawing distinctions between Soldiers who serve and execute war when necessary, and citizens who do is not productive at all.    

Connie-

Distinguishing between the service members who execute war and the citizens who do not is productive, I think, in that our government is elected by a citizenry who, in theory, plays an active role in how they are governed.  Will a citizenry who is not impacted by the wars (or at least reminded of their importance by the president) be thoughtful enough to seek out information, understand (or have an opinion) on what should be done, and vote (or contact their representatives) accordingly?  Will they read the National Security Strategy or Quardrennial Defense Review with a critical eye towards the "big stick" means that are sometimes couched in the political language of these documents?  

In 1969, Senator (and Medal of Honor winner) Daniel K. Inouye gave a speech to the National War College about the Military-Industrial Complex.  In it, he said "I am afraid the patience of the American people has been tried.  I, too, share their impatience with the seemingly endless number of military involvements in which we find ourselves, the gigantic military projects in which we are engaged, and the huge defense spendings which devour our national budget...It seems to me that if one wants to seriously discuss the miltary budget and military spendings, one should begin discussing the issue at the first point where the decision leading to the ultimate purchase of equipment is made--at the stage where the initial decision is made to enter into 'x' number of defense commitments abroad, when the decision is made to prepare for 'y' number of contingencies, when the decision is made to deploy 'z' number of divisions."  

He was referring, of course, to when our National policies are defined, debated, and created.  Will a detached, unimpacted, uniformed citizenry who thinks we are in an Overseas Contingency Operation as opposed to a war be concerned with their govenrment's security policies?  Will they understand or react when their representatives speak out for or against "x" funding for a supplemental, or the cancellation/continuation of a particular weapon system or modernization effort?    

My intent was not to distinguish between the quality of citizenship between service members and those that are not.  My concern is that if the nation does not feel like it is at war, then our government will proceed on a "business as usual" footing, which I feel would fall short of the requirement.

Applicable op-ed that appeared in the USA Today called "The Heavy Burden Of War, Shouldered By The Few" By DeWayne Wickham.  Excerpt:

"A spectator sport

Those who volunteered for military service during this time of war deserve to be treated like patriots, not mercenaries. We shouldn't have to repeatedly deploy them to war zones while millions of young men and women do nothing that could remotely pass for public service.

When America goes to war, Americans — all of us — should be on a war footing. But with a U.S. military force likely to remain in Iraq for many years and the fighting in Afghanistan about to become more lethal, most Americans treat our involvement in these conflicts like a spectator sport — the view for them is just fine from the bleachers. And as this passive public watches, the military is forced to keep thousands of servicemen and women on active duty beyond the end of their enlistment contracts"

USA Today's site is having some issues today, or I would give you the link to the piece.  It's a good read.

Another interesting opion piece that appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on July 16th.  "Nation at war loses its interest" by Frida Ghitis draws comparisons between the level of interest in the death of Michael Jackson and the lack of interest in the war in Afghanistan:

"As Americans followed the news about Michael Jackson’s death with an interest bordering on obsession, the situation for American forces fighting in Afghanistan became deadlier than ever.

The day before Jackson’s memorial service extravaganza — watched by more than 30 million television viewers — brought the worst one-day losses for the United States in almost a year. Seven soldiers died that day in Afghanistan, and the deaths have continued to mount for the U.S. and its allies.

Still, few people seem to have more than a passing interest in a war that seems so distant as to appear almost unreal."

The article goes on to relate that "Afghanistan" places 42d in a list of most popular searches in "the last 24 hours."  

Ghitis goes on to remind readers why we went into Afghanistan in the first place, what is at stake (both for the President and the nation), and closes with this:

"Whether we like it or not, America remains at war. The stakes remain high, and we will eventually have to pay attention. Until now, most Americans have found it easy to look away, focus on celebrity news and other items that may tug at the heart strings but are less consequential to the future of the country. That must soon change."

Article: www.ajc.com/.../nation-at-war-loses-93423.html

A few more interesting an appropriate articles.  Secretary of Defense Gates has for quite some time now lamented the fact that DoD and Congress are still operating on a "business as usual" footing even though the nation is at war.  Apparently not much has changed, as a Defense News article by John T. Bennet points out that:

"Of 47 Pentagon posts that require Senate confirmation, eight are filled by holdovers appointed by former President George W. Bush. The Obama administration has filled an additional 20. That leaves 19 vacant positions scattered across the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the three military departments."

The vacancies include service acquisition chiefs, comptrollers, and positions in the areas of personnel and readiness.  These positions include undersecretaries and acquisition executives for all three services, as well as comptrollers for the Army and the Navy.  The DoD is missing the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, and the assistant secretary for health affairs.  

The Post of Secretary of the Army is held by Bush-holdover Peter Geren until the Obama adminstration's nominee, Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y, is confirmed.  This could take a while, as, according to the New York Times, Kansas Senators Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts are holding up the nomination in protest over the plans to transfer Guantánamo inmates to Fort Leavenworth.

With Congress on recess, the appearance of a lack of urgency is hard to shake...

Bennet articles: www.defensenews.com/story.php

NY Times editorial: www.nytimes.com/.../16sun3.html

Interesting Blog by David Brooks and Bob Herbert on at NYTimes.com today that fits this topic:

theconversation.blogs.nytimes.com/.../support-for-the-troops

Some quotes:

“It seems to me that however one feels about this war and the war in Iraq, the environment here on the home front is bizarre. This is as weird a wartime atmosphere as I can imagine. For most Americans, there is nothing in the way of shared wartime sacrifices.”

“I’ve had a number of conversations with members of the military who spontaneously mentioned that they’re a little tired of people coming up and thanking them for their service. It’s not that they are tired of being thanked, I imagine, it’s just that this greeting has given civilians a false impression that they’re doing something for the troops. It’s too easy.”

“In the Second World War, those who did not serve in uniform nevertheless endured shortages of fuel, certain types of food and material goods. The nation took great collective pride in the fight against the Nazis and the Japanese. Major industries were converted to war production. Bonds were sold. Taxes were raised. There was very much a sense that “we’re in this together.”

“…we need a civilian nation-building academy. The military dominates nation-building efforts in part because the State Department contributions are pathetic. In Afghanistan the so-called civilian surge has been practically non-existent. We need to train people to do this kind of work — to provide legal aid, police aid, agricultural aid and so on. We don’t have to call it a colonial office, but we do need civilians who are willing to go to places like Afghanistan and do civil society building work.”

“But one of my great concerns, apart from the unfairness of having a very small sliver of the population shoulder the entire wartime burden, is that the absence of shared sacrifice makes it all too easy to be in favor of engaging in warfare — at least at the beginning. And then the public’s interest fades, and if the wars don’t go well, support wanes.”