The U.S. Military as a whole needs an overhaul.
Debate Rounds (5)
Round 2-4 is for debating
Round 5 is for your conclusion
This debate is about whether the U.S. military is good as is, or rather it be changed.
I love our military and can't wait to join after I finish my last year in high school, and that is why this needs to be done. The Air Force for instance is ruled by fighter jocks that love to feed the military-industrial complex, the Navy must realize that we don't need 100,000+ ton super carriers. The Army has to realize that it's policy towards equipment is stupid, and finally the marines should go back to their roots as the poor bastard child of the military.
Contender; Objective: prove the current strategic model of the United States Military is optimal for protection and or enforcement of United states political and economic interests.
For the purposes of clarity; I will not address U.S. Foreign policy as it out side the scope of this argument. The focus of my contention will be on Strategic asset deployment and development of technologies in furtherance of U.S. Strategic goals, as they are currently.
The Military's first big issue is powerpoint. What seems like a tool to organize thoughts and help public speakers with fear of crowds, is actually the Military's biggest enemy. It takes up hours and hours of time, this cancer should be cut out of the military and banned. It is an intellectual crutch, it is for those that can't write a concise and lucid paper, not a 30-slide powerpoint of death. Lucid writing leads to lucid thinking thus powerpoint should be banned.
The next issue is leadership. The Brass needs to be as good as possible and strict standards should be put in place, lessons learned from the Army's 90th Division  in Normandy must be remembered. A soldier that looses his rifle can be punished more than a senior CO that looses his part of the war. General Petraeus and his airborne division were able to keep Mosul quiet for almost a year while other parts of the country were doing less than favorable jobs at countering the insurgency. Poor leaders most be relieved immediately.
A huge issue is the fighting mans load. A infantryman should carry no more than 45-50 Ibs combat load but for some reason the average Marine Grunt is carrying anywhere from 97- 135 Ibs. This weight is attributed to many things they must carry but a lot of it is from body armor. Regulations should be relaxed so soldiers and marines can have more freedom of movement. They could remove the neck protection from body armor, the Deltoid plates could also be removed, and the Groin protection. This would make the vest far lighter and give soldiers far better mobility. A mobile soldier with superior firepower is far more lethal than a soldier that has good firepower but can't move. I mean just look at any video with Marines or Soldiers in combat their tactics suck because they can barely move, most of the time they just go static and poor as much led as possible in the enemies general direction.
Alright more to come on my next turn, with some branch specific material.
Because of the nature of Pro's argument the rebuttal will be most of my post. When I took this debate I assumed you where going to be arguing in favor of a more Nuclear centric strategy or at least another defined war doctrine other than the Power-Projection doctrine currently at the center of U.S. Military Strategic planning. What you gave me is kind of hard to decipher. Power-point; really? It sounds more like you have an opinion you wanted to air rather than a coherent military doctrine you wanted to argue in favor of. Alright, PowerPoint aside, This is at least something to grab onto with these other two points.
1. On leadership, accountability of leadership has always been an issue with any military. In the absence of really good argument by pro about what exactly to do besides a blanket assertion of 'dismiss bad commanders'. On this point I will grant Credit to Pro's point. This is not a new problem how ever, as Pro's source highlights " American troops were fighting to stay alive—no small feat in that summer’s  bloody combat. One infantry company in the 90th began a day in July with 142 men and finished it with 32. Its battalion commander walked around babbling “I killed K Company, I killed K Company.” Later that summer, one of the 90th’s battalions, with 265 soldiers, surrendered to a German patrol of 50 men and two tanks. In six weeks of small advances, the division would use up all its infantrymen, requesting replacements of more than 100 percent. " In this article, this story goes on to show the commander being relieved of command and replaced, as it should have been and continues to assert that modern U.S. military command fails to do this today, an assertion I do not dispute.
Disputes over military leadership are nothing new how ever, we contended with bad commanders in virtually every war we've thought with varying levels of accountability going back to the Revolutionary war it self. Benedict Arnold for example. A famous example is the legacy of Union general Killpatrick who: "... was a master, in his mid-twenties, of using political influence to get ahead. His men had little love for his manner and his willingness to exhaust men and horses and to order suicidal mounted cavalry charges."
2. Weight of gear on soldiers is variable depending on mission duration and job of the solider in question. A soldier on patrol will carry something in the ball park of 20kg~ (40ish pounds) where as a solider on a long duration mission will be carrying a full 40kg up to 65kg+ This is all dependent on mission length and combat role and it is a reality of warfare that has persisted for a very long time. U.S. Strategic planners are already well aware of it and spend a lot of money to develop lighter weight materials and lighter equipment with out compromising effectiveness. Army planners the world over have known of this issue for a very long time . Famously Sergeant Costello (75th rifle 1809) wrote in his biography of carrying at least 80 pounds of gear.
To conclude this round, Besides pro's war on power point, Nothing brought up is especially new nor is it issues that U.S. Strategic planning already contends with to one level or another. In point 2,regarding weight, this is a long term issue that has burdened troops and military planners through virtually every generation, the U.S. military is already working on it.
 http://www.protonex.com... (Protonex is a military contractor who manufactures batteries and some other electronics.)
Costello, Edward. The Peninsular and Waterloo Campaigns Hamden : Archon Books; 1968.
TyJack11x forfeited this round.
TyJack11x forfeited this round.
TyJack11x forfeited this round.
Jevinigh forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited more turns.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.