If the US really wants to win against China or Russia, it needs to start investing in the infantry

In the cyber era, the infantry nevertheless remains our nation's foundational fighting force

Opinion
In this March 12, 2016, file photo, Marines of the U.S., left, and South Korea, wearing blue headbands on their helmets, take positions after landing on a beach during the joint military combined amphibious exercise, called Ssangyong, part of the Key Resolve and Foal Eagle military exercises, in Pohang, South Korea. (Associated Press/Yonhap/Kim Jun-bum)

The 2018 U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS) suggests our biggest national security threats come from "near-peer" rivals such as China and Russia. In order to adequately prepare the U.S. for a military conflict with one of these major global powers, the recently announced 2020 national budget prioritizes the rapid development of next-generation, high-technology initiatives in the nuclear, cyber, autonomous systems, and outer space arenas.

While these initiatives are important and worthwhile, they underestimate the importance of America's foundational and most critical military capability: the infantry.


The infantryman, or "grunt," has borne the lion's share of the fight from classical to contemporary times. Although no infantryman in their right mind would go to war without the right support — including artillery, aviation, armor, combat engineers, and combat logistics — infantry units historically make up the foundation upon which more complex armed task forces are built.

As rivals like China continue to gain geopolitical influence and challenge U.S. hegemony, infantry units must be kept in center focus. Whether the next fight is a large-scale world war or a counterinsurgency, well-supported infantry units will be the ones who ultimately win the close fight by clearing out enemy forces, holding ground, and setting the conditions for long-term stability and governance.

Indeed, the infantry is unique in its dual mandate and ability to both cause, and subsequently conquer, chaos.

High-tech precision guided munitions provide significant combat support initially to weaken the enemy, but they cannot hold ground. Young soldiers, Marines, and special operations teams are the ones who conduct the key missions to secure contested battleground — often fighting in the streets among a terrified local population — with nothing but the weaponry on their bodies to survive.

While it is practical, wise, and necessary to keep our high-technology military capabilities on par with those of Russia and China, it is unlikely that the U.S. will engage in full-blown, unrestricted warfare with either of these powers. Indeed, the age of Dresden-like fire-bombing without consideration for the potential loss of civilian lives and other collateral damage seems to be mostly a thing of the past.

While future conflicts might start with cyber, they will likely end in proxy wars.

An enemy's first order of business might include eliminating U.S. computer networks, jamming radio frequencies, disabling navigation, and exploiting digital signatures. When proxy forces, insurgents, and mercenaries inevitably attack American troops, it will once again be the infantry that clears out enemy strongholds in contested areas where the lines between combatant and non-combatant are blurred. It will be the infantry that is left to operate on their last orders and follow their commander's intent to sort out the battlefield and secure a victory.

Given the infantry's indispensable role in defending our nation and winning our wars, we have fallen woefully behind in keeping its training ranges and other necessary accoutrements up-to-date. Fortunately, the speed and cost of equipping an infantryman is minuscule compared to that of the DoD's more high-tech initiatives. A single F-35A costs an estimated $89.2 million. By contrast, the Marine Corps recently contracted to purchase 15,000 M27 Heckler and Koch rifles — enough for nearly every infantry Marine — for $1,300 a copy, totaling $29.4 million.

Going forward, we need to prioritize updating training facilities and securing ample supplies of small arms ammunition to better develop and maintain the U.S. military's primary weapon system — the infantryman himself.

Such a policy could start with an expansion of the former Secretary of Defense's Close Combat Lethality Task Force (CCLTF) to increase and sustain the infantry squad's capabilities. Rapidly identifying, testing, and fielding the newest weaponry, munitions, technologies, training capabilities, and personal protective equipment of the U.S. infantry will save lives and build a strong foundation for the entire force.

We should also invest in the leadership and cohesion of small infantry units and quantifiably measure these traits across the force. History is replete with examples of infantry units haphazardly thrown together that undergo disproportionate casualties and suffer a steep learning curve in combat. In 1943, the 34th Infantry Division's failure to secure the Kasserine Pass — nicknamed "America's most humiliating defeat' in WWII — was a direct result of unprepared, poorly trained, and ill-equipped ground troops.

Victory in combat — as well as a successful transition to an enduring peaceful future — remains possible only with the most lethal, disciplined, physically fit, well-equipped, well-supported, well-led, and well-trained infantry in the world. As Major Mark A. Smith, a Special Forces soldier, Vietnam prisoner of war, and recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross medal, once said: "Anyone who thinks that future battlefields will not contain Infantrymen knows nothing about war."

Matthew S. Reid is a Colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps and a current Military Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Prior, he served as an infantry officer on two tours in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and on three Marine Expeditionary Units.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the Marine Corps or the United States Government.

US Marine Corps

The Marine lieutenant colonel who was removed from command of 1st Reconnaissance Battalion in May is accused of lying to investigators looking into allegations of misconduct, according to a copy of his charge sheet provided to Task & Purpose on Monday.

Read More Show Less

President Donald Trump just can't stop telling stories about former Defense Secretary James Mattis. This time, the president claims Mattis said U.S. troops were so perilously low on ammunition that it would be better to hold off launching a military operation.

"You know, when I came here, three years ago almost, Gen. Mattis told me, 'Sir, we're very low on ammunition,'" Trump recalled on Monday at the White House. "I said, 'That's a horrible thing to say.' I'm not blaming him. I'm not blaming anybody. But that's what he told me because we were in a position with a certain country, I won't say which one; we may have had conflict. And he said to me: 'Sir, if you could, delay it because we're very low on ammunition.'

"And I said: You know what, general, I never want to hear that again from another general," Trump continued. "No president should ever, ever hear that statement: 'We're low on ammunition.'"

Read More Show Less

At least one Air Force base is waging a slow battle against feral hogs — and way, way more than 30-50 of them.

A Texas trapper announced on Monday that his company had removed roughly 1,200 feral hogs from Joint Base San Antonio property at the behest of the service since 2016.

Read More Show Less

In a move that could see President Donald Trump set foot on North Korean soil again, Kim Jong Un has invited the U.S. leader to Pyongyang, a South Korean newspaper reported Monday, as the North's Foreign Ministry said it expected stalled nuclear talks to resume "in a few weeks."

A letter from Kim, the second Trump received from the North Korean leader last month, was passed to the U.S. president during the third week of August and came ahead of the North's launch of short-range projectiles on Sept. 10, the South's Joongang Ilbo newspaper reported, citing multiple people familiar with the matter.

In the letter, Kim expressed his willingness to meet the U.S. leader for another summit — a stance that echoed Trump's own remarks just days earlier.

Read More Show Less

Editor's Note: This article by Oriana Pawlyk originally appeared on Military.com, a leading source of news for the military and veteran community.

On April 14, 2018, two B-1B Lancer bombers fired off payloads of Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles against weapons storage plants in western Syria, part of a shock-and-awe response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against his citizens that also included strikes from Navy destroyers and submarines.

In all, the two bombers fired 19 JASSMs, successfully eliminating their targets. But the moment would ultimately be one of the last — and certainly most publicized — strategic strikes for the aircraft before operations began to wind down for the entire fleet.

A few months after the Syria strike, Air Force Global Strike Command commander Gen. Tim Ray called the bombers back home. Ray had crunched the data, and determined the non-nuclear B-1 was pushing its capabilities limit. Between 2006 and 2016, the B-1 was the sole bomber tasked continuously in the Middle East. The assignment was spread over three Lancer squadrons that spent one year at home, then six month deployed — back and forth for a decade.

The constant deployments broke the B-1 fleet. It's no longer a question of if, but when the Air Force and Congress will send the aircraft to the Boneyard. But Air Force officials are still arguing the B-1 has value to offer, especially since it's all the service really has until newer bombers hit the flight line in the mid-2020s.

Read More Show Less