Bunker Mentality

[richlevy]

From here.

<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Military Service Chiefs Demoted in Line of Pentagon Succession </nyt_headline>

<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "></nyt_byline>By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: December 30, 2005

<nyt_text> </nyt_text> WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 (AP) - The three military service chiefs have been dropped in the Bush administration's doomsday line of Pentagon succession, pushed beneath three civilian under secretaries in the inner circle of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

A recent executive order from President Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy. Mr. Rumsfeld is No. 1, and the second spot would be the deputy secretary of defense, but that position is vacant at the moment. The Army chief, who long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth.

The changes, announced last week, mirror the administration's new emphasis on intelligence gathering versus combat in 21st-century wars.

The line of succession is assigned to specific positions, rather than the people holding those jobs.

But this version of the doomsday plan moves up the top three under secretaries, who are Rumsfeld loyalists and who previously worked for Vice President Dick Cheney when he was defense secretary.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the changes were recommended because the three under secretaries have "a broad knowledge and perspective of overall Defense Department operations." He said the service leaders were more focused on training, equipping and leading a particular military service.

So if the US is hit hard enough to force the goverment to go underground, the priority is for intelligence gathering versus the commanders of the military? This administration is looking more and more like the cast from Dr. Strangelove. Maybe they figure that the chiefs will fight harder if their asses are on the line. Or maybe they need someone to tell them the fighting is going well even when they are being overrun like they did with Nassar in Egypt.

[BigV]

To answer your (likely tongue in cheek) question, I can't die just now, I have plans for the future.

And of course, dying remains an option throughout the following ten years in the bunker.

Anyway, wrt your story, I don't agree with very many policies put forward by this administration, but I don't know enough about this issue to feel confident about opposing it. Certainly in matters of military strategy, I defer to the professionals. I believe (and hope) those professionals are providing input here, input that has traction with the decision makers. But I can't find something to object to here.

I will say it smacks of cronyism. Hey, my loyal buddy, I moved you up on the list. But besides the bragging rights in the underground cafeteria, how could this be actually useful? Or harmful? I don't reckon the changes in the list leave out in the cold the one or two or three people bumped down in a position of mortal peril. Who knows? Cronyism and more fear based jumping at shadows we must prevent *everything* and we have the power to do so mentality. More of the same.

Hmmm. I guess I talked myself into opposing it on general prinicples after all.

Edit: btw, the link leads to a login only article and bugmenot is shooting blanks today. Too bad.

[Undertoad]

It is surely the right thing to do.

Old way of war: Troops invade the capital.
How to identify enemy: Color of uniform.
First response: Load troop carriers.
Long-term response: Occupy enemy lands to manage negotiation of surrender.

New way of war: Smallpox agent released over capital via single-engine plane.
How to identify enemy: Determine strain of germ, identify possible sources, review recent intel collection for clues.
First response: Depends entirely on who was responsible and why. May be military, may not.
Long-term response: Global War on Biotoxins, including military but also diplomacy, intelligence, and much more.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They're simply following the model that brought them wonderful success they had with FEMA.
Considering the inter-service rivalry, I can see why they wouldn't want one branch in charge.

Oh, and I'd love to get in a closed room with those three.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It is surely the right thing to do.

Old way of war: Troops invade the capital.
How to identify enemy: Color of uniform.
First response: Load troop carriers.
Long-term response: Occupy enemy lands to manage negotiation of surrender.

New way of war: Smallpox agent released over capital via single-engine plane.
How to identify enemy: Determine strain of germ, identify possible sources, review recent intel collection for clues.
First response: Depends entirely on who was responsible and why. May be military, may not.
Long-term response: Global War on Biotoxins, including military but also diplomacy, intelligence, and much more.

In any catastrophic disruption, the military will probably be the first responders. While the under secretaries are responsible for logistics and infrastructure, the command and control ends with the chiefs. If the disruption were the start of a shooting war, they would be the logical authority.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

With current events going as they are, I'm thinking it's about time for me to reread Stand On Zanzibar, with the BS filters polarized to reject the Club Of Rome-influenced stuff.

I'd spend the ten years (as a practical matter, likely far less, more on the order of ten days) in the bunker, because I am the sort who expects to prevail, not die. I recommend this philosophy.

[capnhowdy]

I'll hang with George, Dick and Donald. After all.... they are just men like me. Hell, who knows? I could wind up ranking.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by capnhowdy

After all.... they are just men like me.

You're setting a pretty low standard there for yourself, capn. I do agree that you might be the sole survivor in that scenario.