*-IF VISITORS TO THIS PAGE HAVEN'T COME FROM THE ONE RECALLING PERHAPS THE MOST OFTEN QUOTED STATEMENT EVER MADE BY FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, THEN TAKE A BRIEF SIDESTEP HERE AND COME BACK HERE.The presidential campaign has embarked on an unhelpful debate between the candidates about Gov. George W. Bush's assertion that American military forces have been "hollowed out" during the Clinton administration. That is not true, and it deflects the conversation from a host of important defense issues that the candidates should be addressing. The United States has by far the world's most powerful military forces and invests more money in maintaining them and their weapons than the next 10 largest countries combined spend on their militaries.* The question for Americans to consider is whether the armed forces are adapting quickly enough to fight the kinds of battles they are likely to face in the years ahead.
The paramount non-nuclear military issue before the nation is how the country's military forces should be organized, armed, trained and used. We will deal in a later piece with nuclear weapons and missile defense schemes. The United States must maintain conventional military forces of sufficient strength to defend the nation's vital interests. But war should always be the option of last resort in settling a conflict.
When Washington sends Americans into combat, it must do so with the intention and means to achieve victory quickly and decisively but without a wanton use of firepower. America cannot expect that all its future conflicts will be as casualty free as those of the past decade. Still, commanders must exercise military power overseas with due regard for the safety of American troops and civilian populations. Ground troops should be employed only if air power and precision weapons cannot achieve American goals.
Though the armed services have been downsized over the past 10 years and battle doctrines have been modified since the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States today still has military forces better suited to dealing with the kinds of threats encountered during the cold war than the new dangers the nation faces. That must change.
America now has some 1.4 million men and women on active duty, down from about 2.2 million a decade ago. The Army has shrunk from 18 divisions (each with roughly 15,000 troops) to 10, though it still has 470,000 people over all. The Air Force has gone from 22 air wings (each with 72 planes) to 12. The Navy has slimmed from 13 aircraft carrier groups to 12 and from a total of 528 ships to 315. Defense spending, at nearly $300 billion a year and once again rising in real terms, is now about 25 percent below the peak Reagan years, after accounting for inflation.
The nation's conventional forces are now organized on the assumption that they might have to fight two regional wars simultaneously, for example in the Persian Gulf and the Korean peninsula. Future military conflicts are possible in either region, but overlapping wars seem highly improbable.
The Pentagon should be ready to fight one regional war on short notice, using ground forces if necessary, while relying on air power to give the country time to mobilize for a second conflict. One regional war would likely require four to five army divisions, five air wings and three carrier groups. In the highly unlikely event of a second war breaking out at the same time, the country should rely on mobilizing its 865,000 reserve troops, including eight reserve air wings.
To fight regional wars, the army needs lighter, more easily transportable tanks and artillery than it has today. The Pentagon needs to strengthen its capacity for airlifting and sealifting troops into battle regions. The services also should be equipped with a robust arsenal of sea- and air-launched cruise missiles, more smart weapons and airborne drones for intelligence. The Pentagon must improve the way it delivers to battlefield commanders the sophisticated photographic intelligence now available from satellites and reconnaissance aircraft.
Since the Persian Gulf war nine years ago, the largest American military operations have involved protracted peacekeeping, as in Bosnia, punitive air and missile strikes, as in Iraq, or emergency actions to halt ethnic conflicts, as in Kosovo. The future is likely to see more of these interventions, which require different kinds of training, equipment and planning than the large European land battles anticipated during the cold war. The Army, with its heavy weaponry and lack of mobility, seems least prepared to engage in these new conflicts, as seen in Kosovo. Even if a decision had been made to use ground forces, it would have taken many months to transport an effective force to the area.
The Navy and the Air Force are better adapted to the post-cold-war world. But too much of their weapons budgets are now allocated to dubious projects like the next-generation fighter plane. This is an expensive indulgence in a world where no potential rival is developing aircraft superior to America's current F-16's and F-15's. The Air Force could use the money it would save to assure a more reliable flow of spare parts and more cargo planes for airlifting troops and equipment, among other things. The Navy could devote its savings to adapting more of its submarine and surface fleet for launching cruise missiles.
Charges that the American military is unprepared to wage war are a regular feature of presidential campaigns. A more fundamental debate is needed, looking not just at time spent training for combat but also at factors like air and sealift capacity and the availability of appropriate equipment. Both candidates have usefully called attention to issues of military pay and housing and to the need to recruit and retain skilled pilots and computer professionals at a time when the civilian economy is offering attractive lures.
Mr. Bush has offered a few thoughtful and
provocative ideas on defense but now needs to move
beyond generalities. Mr. Gore, long a student of
military issues, has seemed content to let the Clinton administration's record and policies speak for
him. Both candidates have chosen running mates
who are interested and knowledgeable about military issues. The two tickets should now move on to
an expansive defense debate.
(text of August 21, 2000 New York Times On The Web article)
Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
*-IF VISITORS TO THIS PAGE HAVEN'T COME FROM THE ONE RECALLING PERHAPS THE MOST OFTEN QUOTED STATEMENT EVER MADE BY FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, THEN TAKE A BRIEF SIDESTEP HERE AND COME BACK HERE.
BACK?
I AM NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THIS BEYOND SUGGESTING, WITH THAT EISENHOWER ANALYSIS AND THIS ANNOTATED TERM OF REFERENCE IN MIND, THAT VISITORS TO MY AWARD-WINNING WEBSITE TAKE YOUR NEXT FOOTSTEP HERE.