Military Organizations for Homeland Defense and Smaller-Scale Contingencies:
Based on recent threats to the U.S. homeland and global threats to U.S. interests, there seems to be a surge in missions involving homeland defense and expeditionary operations, all of which fall under the umbrella of “operations other than war.” It is often said that the military must prepare for future threats in terms of training, doctrine, and force structure, and our Army has always adapted, albeit mostly reactively, to changes in the threat environment.
In Military Organizations for Homeland Defense and Smaller-Scale Contingencies, Kevin D. Stringer provides a proactive solution to the new security requirements by suggesting that the U.S. Army should focus on developing specific kinds of brigade-size units, not general types, to conduct stability operations. Toward that end, Stringer combines Colonel (Retired) Douglas MacGregor’s concept of joint task forces/brigades and Lieutenant Colonel Richard D. Hooker’s proposal of educating leaders in accordance with career tracks and unit missions. Stringer’s “specialty brigades” would be assigned key stability missions such as domestic authority support, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, counter-drug operations, arms control, noncombatant evacuation, peacekeeping, peace enforcement, show of force, counterinsurgency support, and even the more traditional attacks and raids.
To arrive at his optimum brigade model for stability operations, Stringer compares units from nine countries (Sweden, Norway, Israel, Britain, Denmark, Germany, Rhodesia, Soviet Union, and Colombia). This is where his analysis seems strongest.
Stringer also calls for a clear delineation of duties between active-duty and Guard/Reserve brigades, with the active concentrating on external threats and the Guard/Reserve focusing on domestic ones. Although somewhat controversial, this proposal falls at least partly in line with recommendations by the Hart-Rudman Commission and the Gilmore Panel, both of which urged that the National Guard be assigned homeland security as a primary mission.
On the debit side, Stringer does not fully address the issue of transforming while conducting combat operations, nor does he consider the political or financial impacts of restructuring and retraining. However, placed against the book’s fresh and innovative recommendations, these shortcomings seem more like quibbles than qualms. Ultimately, and most important, Stringer erects a strong foundation for future decisions about how we should transform our Army to face domestic emergencies and emerging threats. His book could become the benchmark for future publications addressing these issues.