Some things to keep in mind:
1. The SysAdmin force is a failure mode. The preferable solution is peaceful democratic reform and gradual entry into the Core at whatever pace the society can tolerate the massive changes this entails. Since the SysAdmin force’s entry is a mark of failure, fixing the problems means that they will leave. Permanent garrisoning is neither desirable nor feasible.

2. A great deal of what the SysAdmin force does will be sociological and psychological. Some of it may even be remote capable so honey may not have to go to Somalia as hubby’s presence there may be a telepresence.

3. Eventually, the job of the SysAdmin force will largely be done. When the depths of Africa become part of the Core, there will likely be no Gap states left. Leviathan will continue to drill and practice for high intensity war but SysAdmin can’t do its job in the Core. It ends up competing with the private sector.

Because while these functions are likely to be necessary, there is still going to be a need for specialised fighting/security forces too.

Such units will need the ability to fight hard, but also to specialise in these sorts of “not major war” operations.

In either case, the Army is going to have to operate two very different types of force, and to overcome a lot of internal pressures to focus primarily on the major wars function: for one institution to combine Leviathan and (at least part of) SysAdmin.
Or both Wehrmacht and British Imperial Army.

This is going to take a lot of bludgeoning of generals, I would guess.
(Interestingly, one force that has tried to combine both roles, on a much smaller scale, is the post-war British Army.)

Louis: We wouldn’t disengage from the world. That is the idea. Your question contains a false premise, that we are not already doing this stuff. We are. And we are misusing the existing military to do it. The idea is that we are going to continue to do these missions, as we have since the beginning of the country. See Max Boot’s book The Savage Wars of Peace and Andrew J. Birtle’s U.S. Army Counterinsurgency and Contingency Operations Doctrine, 1860-1945. Barnett is not the wooly-headed idealist. He is a realist about what our military can and cannot continue to do, and the need to do this category of job better is extremely apparent in light of our inadequate job planning and executing the reconstruction of post-war Iraq.

Jim: An all-volunteer SysAdmin force would go in with its eyes open, and the public would know what it was and what it was there for. The problem is that we have a combat-oriented Army, and when it is doing stuff that doesn’t look like war, then people wonder why people are dying. Making clear what people are volunteering to do would make the risks and costs more, not less, tolerable to all parties. Or so I see it.

Andrew, I am serious that there could be a big demand for positions in the SysAdmin force, which would mean that it could be selective and pick good people. There are many, many mature people with good skills who are not thrilled with their careers or who would like to do something they think is good and important beyond making more a little more money this year than they did last year, or increase widget sales by 5.397% over third quarter last year, or bill 87.25 more hours. How many recently divorced cops are there who’d say, shit yeah, I’ll go to Sierra Leone for two years, why the Hell not? How many lawyers would bail out of a practice and help set up a court system in some Hell hole somewhere? How many experienced nurses would go to some place to train people to run clinics and provide basic care? I am only half serious when I suggest I would go — Too many mouths to feed. But the fact that it appeals to me shows supports me in thinking that sufficient recruitment would be a problem at all.

@andrewb
I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not. I’m guessing you are. I would say in response that lots of folks thought the all volunteer army would be a farce too. It’s turned out to be quite the opposite.

Does the American voter want us to become an Empire? That is what we would become if we followed Mr. Bartnett’s advise. Would we voters get a chance to pass on the issue? I think not. Our problems in Iraq are not due to America being too large, but from having a powerful cabal in the State Department of MidEast experts who are opposed to us winning the war.

This war is fought on many fronts; defeating the terrorists and the nations that aid them may be the minor part. The Cold War has ended, but the world has not yet realigned. Old Europe tried to game us; it tried to create a world government under their control of the UN using the US as muscle. That is why the World Court, ABM and Kyoto Treaty’s became controversies. Clinton paid them lip service but Bush would not.

The Soviet Union was defeated but Socialism struggles on pointlessly. The current war is as much about that as anything. The war forces people to take sides; there will be winners and losers. The Socialists are lining up with the terrorists and will pay the price for doing so.

On the other hand, the US public tolerates (and in fact is not really aware of) the substantial number of police killed on duty every year.