Chapter Nine

The Future of U.S. Overseas Presence
by Roger Cliff, Sam J. Tangredi, and Christine E. Wormuth

Blessed by favorable geography, sound defense policies, and a propitious history, the United States has not had to fight a major war on American soil against a foreign power for over 187 years.1 Instead, it has been involved in conflicts ranging from smaller-scale contingencies to global wars that have taken place in international seas and airspace or on the territory of allies or opponents. Considering the physical devastation that war can bring--to say nothing of the military and civilian casualties--the fact that conflicts have been conducted away from the U.S. homeland can be considered one of the more fortunate aspects of the American experience.

But this did not occur by grace alone. For much of its existence, the United States has maintained an overseas military presence in an effort to prevent hostilities from reaching North America. For this reason--and in response to American involvement in conflicts overseas, most notably the Second World War--the contemporary U.S. military has been structured primarily as a power-projection force.2

However, projecting power into a distant theater without military forces already in place to slow the enemy advance, and protecting the infrastructure required to receive the incoming friendly forces and the forces themselves until they can establish their own defenses, are extremely difficult.

Moreover, the actual deterrent effect of a robust power-projection capability never has been particularly clear. During the Cold War, the United States stationed a considerable share of its active-duty forces overseas to act as both the means of facilitating the arrival of U.S. power-projection forces and as a deterrent to the actual outbreak of conflict. U.S. forces were stationed at the Fulda Gap in Germany and in other places in Europe and in Turkey to be able to respond immediately to a Warsaw Pact attack and to buy time for the mobilization of other NATO forces and the projection of forces from the continental United States. They also were intended to be a deterrent to war in the event of an expanding crisis. U.S. forces stationed in Asia, notably Japan and Korea, also served as a deterrent to possible crises or, as in the case of Korea, more immediate ones.

The forward positioning of naval forces within regions of potential crisis has been a U.S. policy since long before the Cold War. This naval version of overseas presence, independently known as naval presence or forward presence, has been an integral part of American diplomacy and has functioned to protect American access to foreign trade. During the Cold War, the deterrent element of naval forward presence was emphasized. A key difference is that naval forces operating at sea effectively are sovereign U.S. territory under the law of the sea, while the stationing of land-based forces overseas is subject to the desires of the host nation and is governed by bilateral or multilateral agreements.3

With the end of the Cold War, some have questioned the need to station extensive U.S. forces overseas, particularly the land-based forces whose status-of-forces agreements require periodic renewal--a procedure that sometimes involves contentious diplomatic effort. Removing U.S. forces from overseas locations sometimes is seen as a potential cost savings; however, given the financial and material support that overseas forces receive from several key host-nation allies, this belief may be false. At the same time that the end of the Cold War may have called the policy into question, the United States has taken on an additional overseas presence commitment by stationing forces in the Arabian Gulf region in the wake of Operation Desert Storm. Such U.S. forces are meant to deter renewed aggression by Iraq or potential action by Iran, and to maintain the United Nations (UN) sanctions regime against Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. overseas presence force posture will be examined as a part of the Quadrennial Defense Review in 2001. This chapter examines the policies and issues of the stationing of U.S. forces in three particular regions: Europe, the Pacific, and the Arabian Gulf. The primary purpose is to identify options for the Bush administration to consider when crafting the overseas presence portion of its defense policy. The sections that follow describe--for each of the three regions--the current U.S. posture, emerging regional missions for the presence forces, the potential mismatches of posture and policy that have developed in the past decade, and the possible political impact of changes to the current force posture.

Europe

At the height of the Cold War, U.S. forces in Europe numbered close to 325,000. Stationed mainly in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy, these forces served two major purposes. First, American forces on European soil were a physical symbol of the U.S. commitment to the security of Europe. Second, had a war with the Soviet Union broken out, these forces were the first line of defense. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and later the Soviet Union itself, the rationale for maintaining Cold War force levels in Europe no longer existed. DOD began reviewing force levels in Europe in 1991 and then began the largest drawdown of active-duty forces from Europe since permanently stationing troops there in the late 1940s.

U.S. Interests

In addition to the continuing U.S. commitment to NATO, economic, political, and cultural ties to Europe remain strong--and are perhaps the strongest in the global community. Trade between the United States and European nations totals over $1 billion daily. Europe shares American democratic political and social values and is its strongest military and diplomatic partner in working to strengthen the international community. At the same time, the experience of two global wars with origins in European conflicts makes the commitment to supporting peace in Europe a foundation of U.S. foreign policy. Much has changed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but a stable and secure Europe remains important to the United States. Therefore, the United States will remain seriously engaged in European affairs, and the Armed Forces will be an important tool in the transatlantic relationship.

About 100,000 military personnel remain permanently stationed in Europe. The majority of them are members of elements of larger units that were stationed there during the Cold War. Although most U.S. forces in Europe are still stationed at Cold War-era bases, the missions that these forces perform have changed in nature and increased in number since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Using a force posture that was designed to meet outdated needs has created what some consider a mismatch between requirements and forces. Tempo challenges and difficulties associated with SSC operations such as the Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Operation Allied Force in Kosovo are, at least in part, manifestations of the strains thus generated.

In the last 5 years, forces under the Commander in Chief, Europe Command, have conducted nine noncombatant operations, patrols of three no-fly zones, two major humanitarian assistance operations, nine peace enforcement operations, and two major coercive air campaigns. These forces also have conducted innumerable exercises with NATO allies and partners, military-to-military contact programs, training and education programs, and other engagement activities. As they were during the Cold War, most of these forces are stationed in Britain, Germany, and Italy. In addition to permanently stationed forces, the Navy and Marine Corps are regularly deployed to the European theater, and the headquarters of the U.S. Sixth Fleet is located in the Mediterranean. The United States also has maintained forces on the ground in Bosnia and Hungary, since 1995. U.S. European Command (EUCOM), headquartered in Stuttgart, and the forces assigned to it are responsible for monitoring and responding to events in all of Europe, including many of the former Soviet republics, as well as countries in North Africa and the sub-Saharan region. U.S. military personnel in Europe today are busier than ever before, and although they have done an admirable job advancing U.S. objectives in Europe, the United States would be better served by a force posture designed specifically to address the existing and likely future security environment in that region.

Potential Challenges

The former Soviet Union no longer dominates the threat scenario for Europe, but it will present challenges and risks for the United States and its NATO allies for at least the next 10 years. The evolution of Russia and its relationship with the Alliance, efforts by NATO to adapt to the new strategic environment, continuing instability in the Balkans, and the growing threat posed by the proliferation of NBC weapons dominate the security environment in Europe.

Russia no longer poses a major threat to the stability of Europe, although its uneven and unpredictable evolution toward free markets and democracy will affect the broader security environment for Europe. The United States and its allies must be concerned about the potential spread of NBC weapons and expertise from Russia and the other newly independent states that emerged from the end of the Cold War.

Although NATO also has changed since 1991 to meet new realities in Europe, it remains the preeminent security mechanism for the continent. The Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI), launched in 1999 to strengthen allied military capabilities, and efforts to reinvigorate the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) may further strengthen NATO ability to address European security challenges. The Alliance is likely to invite additional countries to join it in the next several years. NATO also will continue broadening its focus beyond member territory to address instability in southern Europe and threats posed by the proliferation of NBC weapons and ballistic missiles in North African and the Middle East, and perhaps ultimately to deal with broader interests in the Persian Gulf area.

Many aspects of the current and future security environment in Europe are reasonably clear, but certain key variables will have a major impact on European security and the U.S. strategy toward Europe in the future. The future of Russia is the primary unknown with critical implications for Europe and the United States. The United States and its European allies and friends will be monitoring developments in Russia very carefully, trying to strike a balance between assisting the Russian transformation wherever possible and maintaining a clear-eyed perspective on its long-term strategic orientation. Whether the DCI and ESDI efforts are successful also may affect U.S.-European relations significantly. If the Europeans succeed in improving their military capabilities, the nature of U.S.-European roles in NATO may evolve considerably.

The deployment of a national missile defense would have profound implications for European security. Many European nations argue that an NMD system would fundamentally undermine the Western relationship with Russia, particularly if the United States were to abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to deploy the system. Europeans also fear that the system could increase instability in regions such as Asia and could create different zones of security in NATO in which some nations are more secure than others. Unless all allied nations were to move from shared vulnerability to shared invulnerability under a NATO-wide missile defense system, many Europeans fear that the European members of the Alliance could become detached from the United States. Finally, even if these European members were unanimous on the need for an NMD system, almost all of them have grave concerns about how to finance it. Although many of these concerns can be managed as the United States deliberates whether to deploy an NMD system, the issue will remain important in the transatlantic relationship in the years to come.

New Missions

In light of this complex security picture, the United States will need to maintain a strong partnership with its European allies and friends to ensure that Europe remains strong, stable, and secure. The U.S. military will play an important role in maintaining and strengthening the health of the transatlantic partnership.

In the last decade, the U.S. military has been on the leading edge of establishing bilateral defense relations with many countries that formerly were behind the Iron Curtain. American forces stationed in Europe or assigned to EUCOM are uniquely positioned to influence developments in the European security environment positively. Engagement activities involving U.S. military personnel include exchange programs, exercises, port visits, and regular assignments at NATO headquarters where American and partner-country personnel work side by side. These engagement activities, coupled with the regular overseas presence in Europe, ensure frequent and regular contact between U.S. forces and those from partner countries. Such contact helps to develop bilateral defense relationships and in many cases leads to productive collaboration on matters of mutual security concern.

Through the Partnership for Peace program, the United States and its allies seek to build positive relations with the former Warsaw Pact countries and the states of the former Soviet Union. American military personnel worked with their counterparts in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to help prepare them to join NATO. American forces in Europe also have worked closely with such nations as Ukraine, Romania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and other partner countries, advising on how best to restructure and to reform their militaries and how to increase interoperability with NATO so that they can participate in peace operations such as SFOR or the Kosovo Force.

Finally, U.S. forces stationed in Europe play an important role in ensuring strong defense relations among the allied countries themselves. U.S. military personnel are stationed at NATO headquarters throughout Europe as part of the integrated military command structure; U.S. personnel have served in roles from Supreme Allied Commander in Europe to enlisted soldier in a ground unit committed to NATO operations. American forces in Europe participate regularly in Alliance exercises and also visit individual countries and conduct activities on a bilateral basis. These regular interactions generate the trust and mutual understanding that bind the NATO members to each other in times of crisis and that enable military forces from diverse nations to operate together during conflicts, such as the air campaign over Kosovo.

The major air operation over Kosovo in 1999 is just one example of the many ways in which U.S. forces are called upon to respond to crises in Europe and in neighboring regions such as Africa and the Persian Gulf. American forces in Europe help to maintain stability in the Balkans, conduct noncombatant evacuations following natural disasters or violent political uprisings, and serve as peacekeepers after political resolution of conflicts such as the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. U.S. forces in Europe are the foundation of the American Article V commitment to its NATO allies, however unlikely such a contingency appears in the current security environment.

Precisely because the likelihood of an Article V conflict is, and is likely to remain, so low in Europe, the primary role of U.S. forces there no longer is to be the tripwire for a major land war against a powerful adversary. American forces today perform the critical shaping tasks that help to maintain peace and stability in the region and are the U.S. first responders to conflicts that arise when shaping activities are unable to contain violence. Bringing forces from the continental United States to participate in exercises, exchange programs, and training activities is feasible, but the quality and quantity of these activities would be significantly lower than if in-theater forces are used. Forces in theater can exercise more frequently and longer because they do not have to spend time traveling across the Atlantic. They also are better positioned to build relationships with foreign counterparts because the same personnel can attend multiple events and develop substantive connections over time.

Similarly, forces in theater are better able to respond quickly to emerging conflicts than forces stationed in the United States. Operation Allied Force would have been significantly less effective if all or even a significant portion of the U.S. troops and equipment were required to be transported from the United States. Operations such as noncombatant evacuations, no-fly zone patrols, shows of force, and other SSCs would be much more difficult if the only forces available for such operations had to be brought from the United States. Many SSCs in the region and in surrounding areas might become more serious conflicts.

American forces in Europe not only are concerned with current engagement activities and crises, but they also must focus on preparing to deal with tomorrow's challenges. Troops will be transforming themselves as part of the ongoing evolution of the U.S. military and will play an essential role in encouraging transformation within the militaries of NATO allies. A strong transatlantic relationship is essential to ensuring that NATO allies continue to improve their military capabilities. If the relationship begins to deteriorate, the Europeans may move toward maintaining only the basic military capabilities needed to address security problems in the immediate area.

Some might argue that a greatly reduced American presence in Europe would force the Europeans to assume greater responsibility for their own security, but past experience indicates that the Europeans might instead choose not to address important security concerns--as happened in the early years of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. European nations with only minimal capabilities would be in no position to join the United States in coalitions of the willing to address larger security threats outside the European area. A significant American military presence in Europe is essential to demonstrating the enduring nature of the transatlantic relationship and to providing a continuing incentive for the Europeans to ensure that their military forces can operate effectively with the U.S. military in the future.

The internal transformation process, the Defense Capabilities Initiative, is the cornerstone of the Alliance effort to reinvent itself for the future. Energetic U.S. participation in DCI will be important, but the European members of the Alliance will ultimately determine its success. Current budget constraints in Europe are a major hurdle to significant improvements in European military capabilities. As the Europeans try to surmount this obstacle, U.S. forces in Europe will need to manage their own transformation process to avoid widening the capability gap between themselves and other NATO forces. The United States will not want to compromise its own military capabilities to remain interoperable with its allies, but it will want to avoid exacerbating the types of interoperability problems that were evident during the air war over Kosovo, such as the lack of compatible secure communications, of all-weather-capable European attack aircraft, and of European precision-guided munitions. The Alliance was able to manage these problems during the Kosovo conflict, but if NATO had to confront a more capable adversary than the Serbian military, such problems could prove to be a serious weakness. Finding creative strategies to remain sufficiently interoperable with its allies while avoiding dumbing down its own transformation process will be one of the more challenging tasks facing the United States in the future.

New Forces

The missions of U.S. forces in Europe have changed: containment is out, and engagement is in. Balkan peace enforcement operations in which NATO troops and Russian soldiers work side by side have replaced preparations for a clash of the titans on the battlefields of Central Europe. However, the types of forces that the United States maintains in Europe have not kept pace with the changed missions. To alleviate readiness and retention concerns and to give U.S. forces the tools that they need to perform their missions more effectively, the United States should reshape its forces in Europe to be more deployable, sustainable, and flexible, and less oriented overall toward heavy combat operations.

Because the U.S. force structure in Europe still reflects its Cold War-era configuration, it is not designed to move troops quickly over long distances to a conflict. Ground forces in Europe are particularly cumbersome to deploy to relatively distant and primitively equipped staging areas such as Taszar in southeastern Europe or the staging areas in Albania used during Operation Allied Force. Ferrying the 10,300 pieces of equipment the Army requested for Task Force Hawk in Albania during the Kosovo operation required 550 C-17 flights. This cargo included M1A1 Abrams tanks (which are too heavy for most roads in Albania), 37 Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters to support the 24 Apache helicopters that made up Task Force Hawk, and approximately 6,200 troops sent to the base in Tirana to support the task force. Although the Army eventually transported all the equipment to Tirana, it faced major obstacles along the way: record rainfall, thigh-high mud, and primitive landing pads at the Rinas airport. Conditions such as these probably will be the rule rather than the exception in future operations in Europe.

Responding to specific criticism of its performance in Kosovo and to the broader argument that it is too slow and risks becoming irrelevant to modern conflicts, the Army has begun a transformation process with the goal of developing a mix of light, medium, and heavy forces. The centerpiece of this transformation process is development by 2003 of three to five rapidly deployable interim brigades with new medium-weight, wheeled assault vehicles. Army weapons designers hope to design a future combat system to replace the Abrams tank by 2010. Such a transformation, if successful, would greatly improve the ability of U.S. ground forces in Europe to respond effectively to future security challenges.

By contrast, naval forces assigned to EUCOM are inherently highly deployable. Naval assets such as an amphibious ready group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) or a carrier battle group are valuable assets that are used frequently to respond to fast-breaking developments. Naval assets are relatively scarce, however, so a carrier battle group is assigned to EUCOM for only 270 days a year and the MEU for just 300 days a year. Carrier battle groups are particularly scarce assets, and without a significant increase to the U.S. defense budget, the Navy is not likely to build additional carriers beyond what already is envisioned in the defense program. At a minimum, a comprehensive policy review of how naval assets are allocated globally would ensure that the United States is applying these scarce assets as wisely as possible.

Another problem is that much of the U.S. force structure in Europe is oriented toward theater warfighting rather than the types of missions the military in Europe is now called upon to perform. In light of existing mission requirements in Europe and the fact that much of the heavy combat force required for a major theater war in a region such as the Persian Gulf could come from the continental United States, shifting the balance of forces based in Europe from heavy combat units toward medium-weight units and combat support and combat service support units should be considered. Eliminating combat-heavy forces in Europe altogether would be extremely unwise, but exchanging some portion of the existing heavy brigades for the new medium-weight units would greatly enhance the Army ability to address current threats in Europe effectively. These units would be able to move more quickly to a conflict than today's heavy units, but they also would retain sufficient combat power and force protection measures to maintain their combat effectiveness. A partial shift away from heavy combat units also would enable the United States to field more support units in Europe; these units perform many of the missions needed for SSCs. Medical, construction, and communications units, as well as the entire range of special operations forces stationed in Europe, are experiencing particularly high operational tempo rates. Increasing the number of support units in this theater would better equip the force structure to meet future challenges.

Although the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction is growing significantly, U.S. forces in Europe do not yet have a significant capability to defend against such threats or to operate in a WMD environment. American forces in Europe and worldwide need better protective gear and chemical and biological weapons detectors and a robust theater missile defense (TMD) system to protect them from missile threats on the periphery of Europe. The United States already is working to field this equipment, but it may need to place an even higher priority on this part of the defense program. Similarly, the U.S. military has made significant strides in integrating awareness of WMD threats into its program and planning processes in the last several years, but this issue still is not taken into account sufficiently as the Pentagon determines its future requirements and budget needs.

Political Implications

Adapting the U.S. force presence in Europe to suit future security needs better not only makes military sense, but it also makes political sense both here and in Europe. A thoughtful, well-implemented plan to restructure forces in Europe would reassure European allies of the continued commitment by the United States to their security.

A well-structured American military presence in Europe, improved European military capabilities, and Congressional and public support for U.S. involvement in European security are inextricably linked. The NATO DCI, which is critical to bringing about real improvements in European military capabilities, will not succeed without strong American support and leadership. In order to lead effectively in Europe, the United States will need to be able to demonstrate, through a force structure configured to deal with the real challenges Europe faces, that it is committed to preserving European security. The United States will need Congressional support for transforming its forces in Europe, but if European NATO members do not improve their military capabilities over the next several years, Congressional support for future American involvement in European security affairs will waver. Legislative burdensharing provisions will proliferate and become more stringent, and the drive to move troops out of Europe altogether could gain significant momentum.

If managed properly, however, adapting U.S. forces in Europe could help push these interrelated trends into an upward rather than a downward spiral. An adapted U.S. force posture in Europe would reassure NATO allies that America remains seriously committed to helping Europe preserve its security and would provide a significant opportunity for the United States to lead by example in building support for the DCI. If, for example, the United States were to station medium-weight interim Army brigades in Germany, it would help the German government make the case to its own public and Parliament for lightening its extremely heavy combat structure, which is essential to making the German military more relevant for future operations.

Restructuring aspects of the U.S. military presence in Europe also would provide an opportunity to reevaluate American and allied roles. A fundamental review of defense roles can realistically take place only when NATO members are confident that new capabilities exist to support new responsibilities. A serious dialogue on this issue would reduce suspicions on both sides of the ESDI debate. Such a dialogue will be essential to ensuring that the effort to flesh out a common foreign and security policy for Europe does not become a zero-sum game, pitting the European Union against NATO. A newly balanced division of labor within the Alliance would strengthen both European support for NATO and Congressional support for continued American involvement in Europe by disarming critics who charge that the Europeans are content to let the United States shoulder the burden on security issues.

The Middle East

The U.S. military presence in the Middle East, and particularly in the Arabian Gulf, is historically and quantitatively different than its presence in Europe. An average of 15,000 U.S. military personnel are deployed--most rotationally or temporarily--within the region. Much of this presence is naval, and the permanent footprint is relatively small. Support for the flow of follow-on forces exists primarily in the form of prepositioned war material, along with earmarked afloat prepositioned equipment on board ships anchored at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The use of Diego Garcia is a helpful legacy of the Cold War, as is the rotational deployment of naval forces with a small U.S. fleet headquarters permanently located in Bahrain. But much of the additional access to supporting infrastructure is the result of U.S. leadership of the multinational coalition that ejected Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and most of the personnel within the region have an ongoing military mission in maintaining UN sanctions against the rogue regime of Saddam Hussein. This mission gives much of the U.S. land-based presence in the region a very temporary flavor. Symbolic of this is the fact that the headquarters for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is located near Tampa, Florida, not in the Middle East.

Unlike Europe, the host nations within the region do not have permanent defense treaties with the United States, and they traditionally have been suspicious of the stationing of any foreign forces on their territory. Although Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and especially Kuwait desire a continuing and strong defense relationship with the United States, political and cultural concerns associated with Islamic fundamentalism dampen their overt support for anything that might appear to indicate a permanent U.S.--or other non-Muslim--presence. Presumably, the end of the UN sanctions or the replacement of the Saddam Hussein regime by another Iraqi government might lead to a regional desire for reductions in U.S. land-based presence, but this impulse might be mitigated by concerns about potential aggression by Iran.

Another element that shadows the regional view of U.S. presence is long-term American support for Israel. In the wake of the Mideast peace process and the Gulf War, this shadow is not as big as it was in the 1970s and 1980s. However, the continuing potential for Arab-Israeli conflict and the unrest of the Palestinians often are used as premises for unofficial (and sometimes official) anti-U.S. presence sentiment.

The bottom line is that a clear and evident requirement--deterring Saddam Hussein or a potentially aggressive Iran--exists for the U.S. presence in the region. Ongoing operations include patrol of the two no-fly zones by coalition air forces. Preventing genocidal acts against minority populations such as the Kurds and deterring the proliferation of WMD are justifications for a reassuring U.S. presence, as is protection of the flow of oil from the Gulf region. However, political limits on the size of that presence constrain and channel CENTCOM planning for the possibility of a major theater war.

U.S. Interests

Perhaps the best way to assess the current and future requirement for a U.S. military presence in the region is to determine what the long-term U.S. interests are. The Secretary of Defense has identified U.S. interests in terms of "peace, where access to strategic natural resources at stable prices is unhindered and free markets are expanding." 4 Historically, American interests in the region have revolved around trade. Such interests predate the discovery of Middle East oil, but the dominance of the British Empire in the Gulf region limited American commercial involvement until after the Second World War. The British decision to withdraw all military forces from east of Aden in the early 1970s effectively ceded outside support for Arabian Gulf security to the United States.

The prospect of a permanent peace between Arabs and Israelis, curtailing threats to regional security by Iraq and Iran, and deterring proliferation or use of WMD appear to be necessary components for Gulf security. Achieving these goals also would eliminate much of the near-term threat to access. However, the flow of oil and transit through the Strait of Hormuz (and the Suez Canal) would remain an American strategic interest. Securing this interest would require a long-term (primarily maritime) presence that would closely resemble the U.S. regional presence before Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

Promoting democratic governance often is cited as a significant element of the engagement activities of U.S. military forces overseas. But some inherent contradictions exist in this mission for CENTCOM, particularly in the Arabian Gulf, which does not have a tradition of democracy. Indeed, most U.S. allies in the region cannot be considered parliamentary democracies, although the degree of popular participation in government varies from state to state. Having democracy become firmly rooted in states throughout the Middle East may be a long-term U.S. and global interest, but the short-term result might be a regional instability that allows demagogues and populist dictators to overthrow the more moderate existing regimes. This possibility makes the near-term goals of U.S. presence in the region much narrower than its goals in Europe and East Asia.

Challenges and Implications

Barring heightened fears prompted by an act of overt aggression, regional leaders appear to have no incentive to ask for any increase in U.S. military presence. Likewise, because rotational naval forces operating in international waters or temporarily deployed air or land forces conduct much of the presence mission, no direct incentive exists to call for a reduction in U.S. regional presence. Fundamentalist anti-presence sentiment is focused against land-basing of what are viewed as "crusader" forces, implying that the presence of Western troops in the 21st century somehow is analogous to occupation of the Holy Land by Christian knights during the Middle Ages. Traditional enmities, even those that defy Western logic, remain.

However, changes in the nature of the potential threats within the region, notably the development of longer-range ballistic missiles potentially armed with WMD, may require changes in the form of U.S. presence posture. The development of antiaccess systems, including Iranian interest in acquiring antiship missiles and mines and developing a viable submarine force, appears to increase the range of potential threats to maritime forces. The October 2000 terrorist attack on USS Cole in Aden harbor in Yemen has renewed public concerns about the adequacy of force protection for U.S. military personnel in the region.

All these developments suggest an increasing regional requirement for TMD, chemical and biological detection defense systems, and improved methods of force protection. Although host-nation militaries could undertake certain of these improvements, many of them would need to be provided by U.S. forces. Without an increase in the number of presence forces, this shift could require a change in their mix, substituting force protection units for other combat forces.

Another option would be an increase in naval presence, particularly proposed TMD-capable surface ships, or a focus on amphibious capability in lieu of land-based ground forces. Alternatively, increases in long-range strike systems stationed just outside the region (such as at Diego Garcia) could replace the emphasis on presence. However, a concurrent reduction in visible regional presence might have a very severe and deleterious political effect, eroding both deterrence and regional support for American interests.

Paradoxically, increasing force protection might reduce the regional engagement that U.S. presence forces currently conduct. The attack on USS Cole prompted questions about the need for U.S. military engagement with Yemen, a state not known for political stability or support for Western interests. Another issue has been the potential disparity between enhanced protection for the Armed Forces in the event of a WMD threat and the minimal or nonexistent protection afforded to the populations of the host nations by their own governments. One concern is the destruction of the host-nation support personnel and infrastructure needed for the entry of follow-on power projection forces. This concern could tilt the focus from force protection toward civilian population protection, which would necessitate some changes in the types of presence forces stationed in the region.

Such issues point to the complexity of maintaining a presence in a region where it is seen as but a temporary solution to current conditions. U.S. interests in the Middle East would appear to continue to revolve around resources and free markets. Although presence supports the stability of current governments in the region, it also attracts the ire of Muslim fundamentalists. This imbalance renders quite uncertain the long-range prospects of a contribution by a permanent land-based presence to democratic engagement and enlargement, previously a continuing goal of U.S. foreign policy.

Asia-Pacific Region

U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region is largely the legacy of two half-century-ago wars: World War II and the Korean War.5 As a result of these wars, the United States established and has maintained substantial forces in South Korea and Japan. Throughout the Cold War, these forces helped deter not only North Korean but also Soviet aggression in Northeast Asia. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, these forces continue to serve as a deterrent to North Korean aggression. However, the regional security paradigm is changing. Although predictions of the imminent demise of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea have proven to be exaggerations, the country's long-term viability remains questionable, and a fundamental change in the security equation on the Korean Peninsula is likely to occur within the next decade. Meanwhile, Chinese military capabilities are steadily increasing, with no sign that Beijing intends to give up its authoritarian system of government or its threats to use force against Taiwan under certain circumstances. In South Asia, both India and Pakistan have tested nuclear weapons, raising the specter of nuclear war on the subcontinent.

These changes to the Asian security environment offer the United States an appropriate time to reassess its security posture in the region and consider what changes it ought to undertake. If major changes to U.S. posture are needed, time will be required to build the necessary political consensus and then to implement the changes. The movements in the Asia-Pacific region may appear to be occurring at the pace of continental drift, but as the tectonic plates of the security environment grind past each other, they could suddenly slip--fundamentally altering the landscape before the United States has prepared adequately for change.

U.S. Interests

To secure its fundamental interests of maintaining the territorial, political, and social integrity of the United States, ensuring the lives and safety of its people, and promoting the prosperity of the Nation and its people, the United States pursues a number of specific goals. These include preventing the emergence of a hostile power capable of threatening these fundamental interests, deterring aggression against U.S. friends and allies, promoting the growth of democracy throughout the world, ensuring U.S. economic access to important markets, commodities, and trading partners, and preventing the spread of dangerous military technologies. In the Asia-Pacific region, only three countries appear to have the potential to rival the military capabilities of the United States in the next 50 years: China, Japan, and India. At present, none of these countries is overtly hostile to U.S. interests--although Japan is the most friendly and China the least--and none of them possesses anything comparable to U.S. military capabilities. The goal for the United States with regard to these three countries, therefore, is twofold: ensuring that they remain friendly to the United States, and ensuring that they do not develop military capabilities that could challenge those of the United States. The more certain the United States is of the friendliness of a nation, the more willing it is to accept the possession of significant military capabilities by that nation.

The United States has formal military alliances with Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand. The United States has a more ambiguous security commitment to Taiwan, as embodied in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. The United States has a security relationship with Singapore that includes a small, permanent military presence there, which brings with it an implied interest in Singapore's security. America also enjoys friendly relations with a number of other countries in the region and would not like to see their sovereignty or independence threatened by a country hostile to the United States.

Democratization is an ongoing trend in the Asia-Pacific region; South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines have enjoyed democratic transitions in the last 15 years, and other states also are taking steps in the direction of democracy. Many countries still are not fully democratic, however, and some, such as China, Vietnam, and Burma, remain authoritarian dictatorships. The continuation of the democratic systems in those states that are already democracies, and the democratization of those that are not, particularly China, are important U.S. interests in the region. Fortunately, two of the three states with the potential to become major military powers--Japan and India--already are full-fledged democracies.

Although the United States remains dissatisfied with its access to the markets of many countries in the region, particularly China and Japan, the Asia-Pacific region is a vital trading partner of the United States, with transpacific trade well exceeding transatlantic trade. American companies also have more than $100 billion invested in the region. Any attempt to create an exclusionary trading bloc that denied economic access to important U.S. trading partners in the region (particularly Japan, China, South Korea, or Taiwan), or actions that imperiled the economies of major trading partners, would threaten the vital national interests.

The spread of dangerous military technologies also is a concern in the Asia-Pacific region. Several countries (China, India, Pakistan, and possibly North Korea) already possess nuclear weapons. Some of these countries are attempting to increase their arsenals, and other states may be attempting to acquire nuclear weapons as well. A number of regional states are suspected of possessing chemical or biological weapons, and several (China, India, North Korea, and Pakistan) are upgrading their ballistic and cruise missile capabilities. These technologies in the hands of some countries, such as India, are not a direct threat to the United States, but the more countries that possess them, the greater the likelihood that they will spread to countries that are a direct threat to the United States. China and North Korea, in particular, indiscriminately will transfer nuclear and missile technology to any country willing to pay for it, and the mere demonstration effect of India and Pakistan acquiring nuclear weapons may encourage other countries to pursue them as well. Moreover, the actual use of a nuclear weapon in war would break the nuclear taboo that has been in effect in 1945, increasing the likelihood of subsequent use--a development that clearly would counter the interests of the United States (or almost any other country). The United States, therefore, has a strong interest in preventing the further spread or development of nuclear, biological, chemical, and missile technology in the Asia-Pacific region.

Potential Challenges

The most prominent of several possible developments that could threaten U.S. regional interests remains conflict on the Korean Peninsula. The possibility that North Korea could launch an attack on South Korea--perhaps as an attempt by Pyongyang to maintain its hold on power by creating a national emergency--remains real, if apparently remote. A more likely scenario would be the collapse of the North Korean state, which probably would result in the intervention of South Korean and American forces to restore order. If China also intervened (perhaps because of refugee flows into Manchuria), the danger of conflict between China and the United States or South Korea would arise. The United States already is well positioned to deal with any contingencies on the Korean Peninsula, however, and none of these scenarios seem to require a change in U.S. force posture.

The possibility of a Chinese attack on Taiwan is of increasing concern. Although Beijing seems to have come to terms temporarily with the Taiwanese election of a president from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party, China has not given up its claim to the island and continues to assert its right to use force to recover it. Considering current Chinese military capabilities, which are unlikely to change significantly in the immediate future, any attempt to invade the island almost certainly would fail. Nonetheless, evidence indicates that Beijing hopes to force a resolution of the Taiwan issue by the year 2005 or so. If attempts at peaceful persuasion fail, some form of coercion using air and missile attacks or a naval blockade would be more likely than an outright invasion.

China also could attempt to use military means to enforce its claims to the islands of the South China Sea. So far China has adopted a patient approach in resolving these disputes, but it could come into conflict over the islands with Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, or Taiwan. Rather than an outright attempt by one country to evict another from an island it occupies, the most likely scenario is a clash at sea. Such a conflict might occur as a result of countries attempting to enforce claims to territorial waters or of one country attempting to prevent another from landing on an unoccupied island (such as Fiery Cross Reef in 1988) or reinforcing an existing garrison. Conflict among claimants other than China, although less likely, also is a possibility. The use of force against an ally such as the Philippines would be a threat to national interests, and even if a U.S. ally were not involved, naval conflict in the South China Sea could disrupt shipping through some of the world's most important shipping routes.

Nuclear war between India and Pakistan would be detrimental to U.S. interests as well. Although neither country is an ally or important economic partner of the United States, nuclear war would be a huge humanitarian and environmental catastrophe. More significantly from a strategic perspective, the demonstration effect of the use of nuclear weapons and the breaking of the nuclear taboo could increase the likelihood that other countries that already possess nuclear weapons might also use them. Likewise, states that do not already possess nuclear weapons could be encouraged to seek to acquire them.

Other interstate conflicts in the region are conceivable, although less likely. Developments other than interstate conflict also could be detrimental to national interests. An attempt by a regional power such as China to dominate part or all of the region politically would be one example. Such action could weaken American influence over its allies and friends in the region, thus undermining overall U.S. power and security while augmenting the power and influence of a country that could threaten the United States. Regional domination accompanied by trading policies that discriminated against the United States would threaten U.S. economic interests as well.

Any weakening of the U.S.-Japan alliance would be a serious concern for America. A Japan that no longer enjoyed a close security relationship with the United States would be likely to increase its military capabilities in order to protect its interests in the region. This buildup, in turn, might cause other countries--such as China or Korea--to feel threatened and to bolster their own military capabilities in response. A weakening of the U.S.-Japan alliance probably would increase pressure for the United States to withdraw its forces currently stationed in Japan, reducing U.S. ability to project power and influence in the region. None of the overall results--a Japan no longer closely aligned with the United States and that had turned its formidable economic and technological capabilities to the development of military power, an increase in the military capabilities in other countries in the region, and a reduction of U.S. military capability in the region--would be in U.S. interests.

Related to this issue is the question of the U.S. role in Korea and Japan subsequent to a resolution of the Korean problem. Because the presence of U.S. forces in both Korea and Japan is justified primarily in terms of potential contingencies on the Korean Peninsula, popular sentiment in Korea, and possibly Japan as well, probably would strongly favor the removal of U.S. forces if the threat of war on the Korean Peninsula dissipated. The result of such a withdrawal, however, would be a Korea left alone between two major regional powers, China and Japan. Such circumstances might compel Korea to increase its military capabilities, which could cause Japan to feel uneasy (particularly if the ending of the potential Korean conflict also resulted in a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Japan) and to build up its own military capabilities. In turn, China could perceive this move as threatening, with the net result being a region significantly more militarized than at present, and a weakened U.S. relationship with its two most powerful allies in the region. Preventing such an outcome, therefore, is an important U.S. interest.

Another development for which the United States must be prepared is the failure of an important state in the region. The breakup of China no longer appears plausible, but it still cannot be ruled out with complete certainty, while the long-term viability of countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, and North Korea remains open to question. A Pakistani collapse would have repercussions throughout South and Southwest Asia. Factional conflict within and between the resultant pieces of the Pakistani state would be likely and could involve intervention by India from the east or Iran from the west. Control over Pakistani nuclear weapons would be a serious concern, with a high risk that they might fall into the hands of a state or nonstate actor hostile to the United States.

An Indonesian collapse would be detrimental to U.S. interests in the region. In addition to the humanitarian disaster it would represent, there also would be a danger of sectarian conflict spreading to other countries in the region (primarily the Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia), massive refugee flows, and increased piracy and disruptions of commerce.

A final candidate for collapse is North Korea. Although, as with China, this no longer seems as likely as it did a few years ago, it still cannot be ruled out. Most of the resulting refugees undoubtedly would attempt to migrate south, but some would also flee toward China, particularly if they were thwarted in their efforts to reach South Korea. This might cause China to intervene in North Korea to restore order. South Korea would likely attempt to enter the North as well. Since a North Korean collapse probably would result from paralysis of the Pyongyang government, perhaps because of or accompanied by a coup attempt or civil war, the risk of conflict between some combination of South Korean, North Korean, and Chinese forces would be high. The situation would be further complicated by the existence of North Korean NBC weapons.

Developments in military technology also can pose challenges to U.S. interests in the region. The most significant of these are the increasing numbers, range, and accuracy of ballistic and cruise missiles. In the post-Cold War era, the United States has become accustomed to enjoying invulnerability in its rear areas during regional conflicts. This security would not necessarily be the case in the event of conflict in the Asia-Pacific region. China, North Korea, India, and Pakistan all possess ballistic missiles, and China is developing cruise missiles as well. China has long possessed nuclear-armed ICBMs capable of reaching the continental United States, but the existence of conventional missiles capable of striking U.S. airbases and other rear-area targets represents a new challenge to conducting military operations in the region.

Implications for U.S. Military Posture

The United States is well postured to respond to the most likely immediate challenges on the Korean Peninsula: inter-Korean conflict or a North Korean collapse. However, it must also prepare for the eventuality of a resolution of the Korean problem, which might result in strong popular pressure for the removal of all U.S. forces. As a complete American withdrawal from Korea would not be in the interest of either the United States or the Republic of Korea, the United States should seek ways to ensure that it could maintain forces on the peninsula even after the Korean problem was resolved. This could well entail a significant reduction in troop numbers along with their reassignment to less intrusive locations, as well as a skillful public relations campaign to persuade the Korean people of the value of a continued U.S. military presence.

A similar argument applies to U.S. military presence in Japan. Resolution of the Korean problem undoubtedly would increase the pressure for a reduction in or removal of U.S. forces from Japan, but such sentiments are already growing. To counter this trend, the United States must seek ways to revitalize the U.S.-Japan alliance. Most fundamentally, this requires treating Japan as an equal partner in the relationship. Although allowing Japan to move beyond a subordinate role in the relationship might risk having it question the continued need for U.S. military presence, perpetuating the current unequal relationship ensures that the issue will one day explode. As in the case of a post-resolution Korea, the United States must be prepared to contemplate reductions in its presence in Japan.

However, certain U.S. facilities in Japan will remain critical to U.S. ability to project power and influence in the region even after the danger of inter-Korean conflict has ended and should be retained if possible. The naval facilities at Yokosuka and airbases at Kadena play particularly vital roles. If United States were no longer able to base an aircraft carrier in Japan (or somewhere in East Asia), U.S. carrier presence throughout the world would be reduced. Additional carriers would be needed even to maintain a partial presence in East Asia, but increasing the total Navy complement of aircraft carriers beyond the current 12 would be very costly.6

The airbase at Kadena also is vital to U.S. security because it is the only U.S. airbase within tactical fighter range of Taiwan. Without access to Kadena, the United States would be forced to rely primarily on carrier-based aviation to support defense of Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. (Aircraft also could reach Taiwan from Guam and other distant bases, but at the cost of a vastly reduced sortie rate and substantially increased requirements for refueling aircraft.) The airbases at Misawa on mainland Japan are less vital but still are important because of the role they play in facilitating the movement of tactical aircraft from the United States to Asia. Short-range aircraft flying out of bases in Alaska are met over the northern Pacific by refueling aircraft based at Misawa, which enables them to reach Japan. From Japan, the aircraft can, with additional ground or air refuelings, continue on to contingencies throughout Asia.

The Marine Corps maintains extensive facilities in Japan, primarily in Okinawa but also in mainland Japan. Replacing these facilities would be extremely costly, and whether another home could be found for III Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) elsewhere in?East Asia is questionable. Nonetheless, the inherent mobility of the Marines means that there is no absolute requirement for them to be located in Japan, particularly if they were no longer needed for a Korean contingency. If a reduction in U.S. forces in Japan resulted in the relocation of III MEF to Hawaii or the west coast of the United States, aside from the considerable cost of constructing facilities to accommodate them, the primary operational impact would be a several-day increase in the time required for them to deploy to a contingency in Asia. Thus, although valuable, the Marine Corps presence in Japan is not as vital as the basing of an aircraft carrier at Yokosuka and having an airbase at Kadena. If a reduction in U.S. military presence in Japan were necessary, the Marine Corps facilities in Okinawa and the Air Force base at Yokota probably are the least vital of major American installations in the country and therefore the most likely candidates for reduction. Reductions alone, however, will not ensure the sustainability of military presence in Japan and could simply encourage attempts to eliminate all American bases in Japan. Reductions should occur only in the context of a restructuring of the U.S.-Japan security relationship aimed at ensuring the long-term viability of the alliance.

Other than in South Korea and Japan, U.S. military presence in the region is sparse, particularly in South and Southeast Asia. The U.S. military periodically exercises with the militaries of nations in this region, and Navy ships transit the region and conduct port calls and exercises. In addition, Singapore and Australia have allowed the Navy and Air Force to maintain liaison offices in their territory. The Air Force regularly deploys aircraft to Singapore for training purposes, and Singapore has built a pier capable of accommodating visiting nuclear aircraft carriers. The Air Force and Marine Corps periodically use training areas in Australia, and the Navy conducts exercises offshore. The United States maintains naval and air facilities on Guam in the western Pacific and on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The United States should seek ways to increase its military presence in other countries in South and Southeast Asia. This presence should not, however, necessarily come in the form of large sovereign bases such as those the United States maintains in South Korea and Japan (and as it formerly did in the Philippines). In an era of constrained defense budgets and the absence of an unambiguous threat, justifying the expense would be difficult. Moreover, countries in the region are unlikely to allow the United States to establish new permanent bases on their territory. Almost all significant overseas U.S. bases were established in the aftermath of a major war. In the absence of such a war or an immediate threat, countries will have little motivation to bear the political costs associated with a perceived compromise of national sovereignty.

Instead, the United States should seek to extend to other countries in the region the type of arrangement it has with Singapore--a small permanent liaison staff and regular temporary training deployments by larger combat units to facilities owned and operated by the host country. Regular deployments of land-based forces to these countries would provide an opportunity to train in a variety of regional environments, facilitate interoperability with allies and potential coalition partners, and deter regional aggression. They also would increase the logistical and political ability of the United States to operate out of those countries in a contingency, whether interstate war or humanitarian crisis. The Armed Forces already have considerable naval access and some land-based access to Australia, but current arrangements should be further expanded, if possible, to make use of the excellent training areas available in that country. The United States also should seek to expand its presence on the territory of its other regional allies, the Philippines and Thailand. Given its former colonial relationship with the Philippines, the United States must be sensitive to the delicacy of the issue there and not attempt to acquire greater access than is acceptable to the Philippine people. Nonetheless, given the strategic location of the Philippines, particularly relative to the South China Sea, and the continuing U.S. alliance relationship with it, both countries would benefit if America had an increased ability to train with Philippine forces and operate out of Philippine bases. A similar argument applies to Thailand, which occupies a strategic location as the only U.S. ally in mainland Southeast Asia. Where possible, comparable arrangements should be made elsewhere in South and Southeast Asia--perhaps India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and even Vietnam.

Finally, the United States should consider upgrading its facilities on Diego Garcia and Guam. The United States has major air and naval facilities at Guam, but they are underutilized and have fallen into disrepair, and the facilities at Diego Garcia are limited. Both islands occupy strategically similar locations within their respective regions, being at least several hundred miles from the Asian mainland. This location limits the ability of tactical aircraft to operate from bases there but has the advantage of being out of range of most missiles possessed by countries in the region. Thus, long-range aircraft and naval forces could operate out of bases on these islands in relative safety. Guam has the advantage of being roughly equidistant between Northeast Asia, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia, while Diego Garcia is the only U.S. military facility in South Asia (although the United States does have access to some facilities in the Arabian Gulf). Refurbishing the air and naval facilities in Guam would enable U.S. forces to operate more effectively from there in event of a crisis in East Asia, and expanding the facilities at Diego Garcia would increase the ability of U.S. forces to respond to a crisis--humanitarian or otherwise--in South Asia.7

Opportunities for Change

Overseas military presence is a fundamental requirement for any defense strategy based primarily on power projection, and QDR 2001 is unlikely to challenge the concept of a robust U.S. overseas presence. However, the type of presence and the nature of the forces stationed overseas logically will be significant QDR issues.

The potential for some change already is building. The shift of the Air Force toward a rotational Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) concept, along with the inherent sovereignty and force protection characteristics of naval-forward presence, might prompt a move toward a more maritime-based presence backed by greater deployment of longer-range strike forces stationed just outside or on the well-protected fringes of the region. This model may be a good one for the Arabian Gulf region, where any increase in land-based presence would seem problematic politically. It also could be a solution to some Pacific region presence issues. But it would help little with potential conflicts in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, where the United States currently has no presence forces; it would not increase the interoperability of ground forces in areas such as South and Southeast Asia; and it would not be sufficient for broader NATO activities in the Balkans or elsewhere.

The United States maintains a very real and abiding interest in European security affairs. Forces in Europe perform numerous important missions to ensure that the United States can achieve its foreign policy objectives in that region. The needs of the European theater deserve to be given careful and thorough consideration in light of the essential role played daily by Americans stationed there. The Soviet Union is a thing of the past, but the need to maintain a strong and capable U.S. military presence in Europe is very much an obligation of the present and future. This presence should, however, consist primarily of lighter forces with greater mobility than the Cold War remnants currently in place.

In a resource-constrained environment, reshaping U.S. forces in Europe will not be easy, but the upcoming QDR provides an ideal opportunity for DOD to consider these issues in the context of global U.S. overseas presence. In some cases, changes could be pursued through ongoing transformation initiatives, such as the Army transformation plan and the AEF concept. However, attempting to adapt U.S. forces in Europe solely through a series of existing efforts that are not tightly integrated risks generating a force structure in Europe that, even if it is better suited than the Cold War remnants, will fall short of a solid solution. The QDR 2001 provides a needed opportunity to examine the requirements of the European theater across the board and to assess how those needs compare to those of other theaters.

U.S. presence in the Arabian Gulf region should balance long-term American interests with current political conditions, in which a rogue regime continues to defy collective world concerns about the development of weapons of mass destruction and the potential for cross-border aggression. An additional factor is that the operational U.S. presence tied to the Northern and Southern no-fly zones imposed on Iraq ultimately have a UN mandate and are not part of a permanent regional agreement. A maritime-oriented presence--legitimated by the legal freedom of the seas--may be optimal for long-term U.S. interests in free trade and the flow of natural resources, but some degree of land-based presence still appears essential in helping to constrain current threats. Because of the narrow physical confines of the region, notably the Strait of Hormuz, the development of antiaccess weapons and strategies may have even more of an immediate impact on regional presence decisions than changes in political conditions. Current political conditions may make it difficult for QDR 2001 to advocate any fundamental change in the size of presence forces in the region, although a force mix tilted toward counterproliferation and force protection could be a logical recommendation.

The Asia-Pacific security environment is evolving, and U.S. presence in the region must evolve as well. The Cold War has ended, and the Korean confrontation appears to be winding down, while Chinese power and reach are growing. The risk of conflict in the South China Sea appears to be increasing, as are the danger of war in South Asia and the chances of state failure in South, Southeast, and Northeast Asia. The United States must ensure that it has adequately prepared the way for the type of presence it needs to maintain in Northeast Asia when the Korean confrontation has ended. This includes considerations of stability and reassurance for Japan, China, and Korea, and also of U.S. ability to maintain its presence and to project power throughout the region. The United States must expand its presence in South and Southeast Asia, not through the establishment of new sovereign bases but through access arrangements that allow it to deploy forces regularly to countries in these subregions without compromising their sovereignty. The current defense relationship with Singapore may provide a suitable model. The United States also should upgrade its facilities in Guam and Diego Garcia. The range of missiles possessed by potentially hostile countries is increasing, and the likelihood of regional crises is increasing. The United States needs bases that are well away from the mainland but close enough to support operations in response to those crises. Fundamental shifts gradually are taking place in the regional security landscape; to protect and advance its interests in the region, the United States must adapt its overseas presence in anticipation of, rather than in reaction to, these shifts.

The QDR will allow DOD to take stock of its entire defense strategy and what it requires in the context of likely available resources. A decision in the next QDR to depart from the two-major theater war requirement clearly would have implications for what might be available for overseas presence. These implications must be well understood before any decisions are made concerning what to do with those very visible pieces of U.S. force structure.

In the absence of a change in the requirements needed to implement the strategy and without significant additional resources for defense, the only way to make the kinds of changes outlined here will be to make tradeoffs among force structures in various theaters. Only by carefully and objectively assessing the needs of one theater against another during QDR 2001 can sound decisions be reached about whether these types of changes would be beneficial to achieving U.S. objectives without jeopardizing achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives as a whole.

Notes

Chapter Ten

Peacetime Operations: Reducing Friction
by John J. Spinelli

Fighting and winning the Nation's wars is the most visible mission of the U.S. military, but its operations in peacetime also are critical. When we see a humanitarian disaster in the making or a chance for peace on the horizon, we often consider committing the military to assist; the price to pay might be small for the greater good that it can yield. Given that we are not at war, that we spend billions on defense, and that we have remarkable advantages in technology and capability, the sheer size of the U.S. military makes it easy to assume that a few peacetime operations should be "a drop in the bucket."

Yet today's military increasingly is showing signs of stress as it conducts peacetime operations while maintaining readiness for war. Recent recruiting and retention shortfalls as well as slippage in unit readiness have caused significant concern. Officials worry about an overextended military, about units losing their warfighting edge by conducting peace operations, and about scarce and expensive resources mired in commitments with no end in sight.

For this chapter, peacetime operations are defined as those missions short of major theater warfare that execute U.S. national military strategy.1They occur daily and involve all components of the total force: active, Reserve, and civilian. The scope of these operations is broad and includes overseas military activities such as presence, military-to-military contacts, and exercises; support to domestic authorities such as disaster relief and counterdrug support; and myriad contingency operations such as humanitarian assistance, peace operations, and shows of force. Today's national security strategy requires integrated approaches that shape the international environment, respond to crises, and prepare now for an uncertain future. Peacetime operations generally support the shaping and responding elements of U.S. strategy.

This chapter seeks to accomplish three things:

Establish a framework for thinking about U.S. military peacetime operations by organizing numerous activities and linking them to U.S. national security strategy;

Identify the major demands for U.S. military forces and the significant challenges, or points of friction, that are caused by today's peacetime operations environment, especially smaller-scale contingencies (SSCs); and

Offer several broad policy approaches for consideration in future analysis of defense strategy, force sizing, and force structure.

The chapter begins with a review of the U.S. military missions and forces integral to the shaping and responding elements of strategy. Points of friction resulting from these activities are then described and discussed in detail. The chapter concludes with policy options to serve as a starting point for analysis during QDR strategy development and implementation.

Shaping the Environment

U.S. military peacetime operations shape the international environment by creating, fielding, and sustaining credible forces that can achieve multiple purposes: reassure and influence allies, deter adversaries, and influence neutral countries. Overseas presence embodies the notion of global military engagement and shaping. On a day-to-day basis, thousands of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen demonstrate American values, capabilities, and resolve. The presence of these forces overseas is a visible signal of U.S. commitment to other nations and their peoples. Through a variety of engagement activities, the Armed Forces promote regional stability, increase the security of allies and friends, build coalitions, and ensure a more secure global environment. Participation in alliances and coalitions also can influence decisions on the allocation of leadership positions and on strategy and policy. Overseas presence forces must be able to conduct a full spectrum of activities with allies and be capable of independent, sizable combat operations when combined with forces stationed in the United States. By their operations and activities in theater, U.S. forces are well positioned to assess the capabilities and weaknesses of allies, potential adversaries, and other regional states alike. They also are strategically postured for rapid response to crises.

The credibility and deterrent effect of the Armed Forces is not possible without a significant investment in the institutions and infrastructure that generate military power. A third component of peacetime shaping operations requires U.S. strategic forces for purposes of deterrence.

Generating Military Power

Today's unmatched U.S. military might is the product of years of effort and many unique and vital institutions and processes. These assets--facilities, equipment, and personnel--conduct or support activities that recruit, organize, train, equip, maintain, care for, sustain, deploy, redeploy, and reconstitute the military organizations and personnel that are employed worldwide. For example, they are the people who recruit at shopping malls, teach at boot camps and service academies, provide health care at hospitals and clinics, write U.S. military doctrine, and run installations and training ranges. They staff the military departments, operate strategic deployment facilities, manage finance and accounting systems, and buy and repair weapons and equipment. Generating military power also includes numerous organizations that conduct planning, direct activities, acquire material and services, and analyze all aspects of military operations.

These assets, including roughly one-third of each service's active military personnel, as well as nearly all DOD civilians, predominantly are committed to building the force and power projection of military units stationed in the United States.2 Thus, they are not directly conducting peacetime engagement, SSCs, or MTW. In areas such as research and development and acquisition, these DOD assets also support preparing now for an uncertain future, the third component of U.S. security strategy.

Peacetime Engagement

The heart of the shaping strategy component is the daily commitment of over 200,000 military and DOD civilian personnel throughout the world (see table 10-1).3 Regional CINCs plan and conduct engagement activities based on guidance from the National Command Authorities and the Chairman. CINC engagement plans are designed to achieve prioritized objectives for their area of responsibility and to incorporate the particular geographic, economic, political, military, and cultural features of the area. Engagement includes a variety of missions, organizations, and resources for such actions as international military exercises, military-to-military contacts, Partnership for Peace activities in Europe, defense cooperation activities, foreign military sales, the International Military Education and Training program, treaty obligations and security commitments, humanitarian assistance (including medical and engineering projects), humanitarian demining, and counterdrug operations.

Military engagement activities are viewed as an essential instrument for bolstering the security of allies, strengthening alliances and coalitions, and building constructive security relationships.4 In some cases, the U.S. military serves as the preferred means of engagement with countries that are neither staunch friends nor confirmed foes. Engagement also provides numerous opportunities to encourage adherence to international norms and regimes that serve as foundations of peace and stability.

A portion of the U.S. military forward-deployed force is embedded in the institutions and processes associated with numerous international activities and generally would be unavailable for redeployment to SSCs or MTW. For example, support to NATO military staff, embassy military attach?s, and overseas installation operations probably would continue despite out-of-area operations. Other deployed forces would be available for contingencies or theater warfare, although such shifting of commitments may entail additional cost and risk (see table 10-1).

Strategic Nuclear Forces

Strategic nuclear forces complement conventional U.S. capabilities in deterring aggression and coercion. They serve as a hedge against an uncertain future, a guarantee of security commitments to allies, and a disincentive to those contemplating the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons. The United States maintains a robust triad of strategic forces to deter hostility or attempts to seek a nuclear advantage. These forces are not normally associated with SSCs or MTW. Today's force structure is estimated to cost $6 billion per year and includes 550 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 18 ballistic missile submarines, and 113 heavy bombers.5 (A more detailed review of strategic nuclear forces is provided in chapter 12.)

Responding to Crises

The United States and others in the international community generally seek to prevent and to contain localized conflicts and crises without the use of military force. If such efforts do not succeed, however, intervention by military forces may be necessary. Although the spectrum of possible crises ranges from providing humanitarian assistance to fighting and winning MTW, the most frequent future challenges are expected to be SSCs. Peacetime operations that respond to crises include military assistance to civilian authorities and SSCs.

Aid to Civilian Authorities

Extending military support to civilian authorities in the United States is both expected and required in a variety of circumstances, including disaster relief, immigration emergencies, transport or other support of presidential visits and events, wildland firefighting, civil disturbances, and military assistance to safety and traffic. DOD has supported more than 200 domestic disaster-relief operations since 1975 and was involved in at least 50 different support activities in 1999 alone. Support for civil authorities involves all military services and requires active and Reserve component (RC) forces as well as civilians. Often overshadowed by higher-profile events, military support is a critical, longstanding mission that continues to grow.6

Although the DOD has no "military support to the nation" battalions or other dedicated force structure elements, the requirements can be dramatic.7 For example, supporting the 1996 Atlanta Olympics required 14,653 active and National Guard personnel from 47 states and territories, over 300 aviation support missions, and more than 300,000 items of equipment for use by state and local authorities. Over 1,200 active-duty soldiers and Marines fought fires in California and Oregon during 1996. Thirteen thousand military personnel (active-duty and National Guard) were employed to help restore order in the Los Angeles metropolitan area during civil disturbances in 1992.8

DOD also enhances the capability of the federal government to prevent and to respond to terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction and helps support the capabilities of state and local emergency response agencies with regard to such incidents. (Homeland security issues are covered in chapter 3 on asymmetric threats.) Such missions are important, and the military is often the only federal agency that can provide immediate response, but each operation requires time, personnel, training, and funding. These activities must be integrated with the demands of other missions, including SSCs and MTW.

Smaller-Scale Contingencies

Defense Planning Guidance requires planning for a variety of potential SSCs. No two will be the same, and variables include duration, forces required, location, participation of allies and other interested parties, linkage to U.S. national interests, political and military conditions, and resources available. Demands on a specific service can approach the magnitude of effort planned for an MTW, as in Kosovo, while other services may have smaller commitments but for longer duration.

Selective participation in SSC operations can serve a variety of U.S. interests. Swift military action sometimes may be the best way to prevent, contain, or resolve conflict or humanitarian crisis, averting greater effort and increased risk later. Commitment of U.S. military forces represents a significant demonstration of the NCA leadership and interest.9 The post-Cold War trend clearly is toward more U.S. involvement in SSCs and more operations of longer duration. One study of the two decades between 1975 and 1995 noted that the highest number of U.S. responses (over 40) was in the last period (1991-95), along with an increased proportion of such responses requiring a longer time to complete (approximately one-third extended beyond 12 months in duration).10 Data to facilitate review of the various issues (such as short- and long-term operating costs, forces and skills required, and the contributions of other nations and organizations) are not readily available. The wide variety of unique criteria and circumstances posed by each SSC compounds the challenges of understanding their impact. For example, one service database has listed 200 SSCs of varying size and duration, while a contractor has listed over 500.11 A DOD report to Congress submitted in March 1999 reported approximately 50 named major overseas SSCs since the Gulf War.12 The reporting criterion was the deployment of 500 or more U.S. Armed Forces personnel. These SSCs are summarized in table 10-2. This summary does not include some important recent SSCs, such as Operation Allied Force in Kosovo; unnamed operations (such as the two-carrier battle group deployment to Taiwan in March 1996 in response to Chinese force movements and missile firings); domestic support operations, to include disaster relief; or force protection, counterdrug, and counterterrorism operations that have not met the deployment criteria of 500 or more military personnel.

Points of Friction: Can Today's Force Structure and Resources Continue to Meet the Demands?

The U.S. military is having difficulty meeting its wide variety of operational and programmatic requirements, despite a significant DOD budget and a large military force. Many demands are competing for people and dollars. Three notable challenges are costs, increasing demands ("doing more with less"), and unavailability of assets.

DOD faces the same challenge as any large organization with people, equipment, and infrastructure: containing the rising costs of doing business. Pressures that generate increasing demands for funding include a dwindling population base (higher recruiting and retention costs); higher operating and technology costs; growing environmental management responsibilities (including hazardous waste cleanup, environmental damage mitigation, and weapons demilitarization); excess infrastructure and aging facilities (such as housing); and higher manpower costs. Although addressing these issues is well beyond the scope of this chapter, higher costs do affect the manpower and resources available for peacetime operations.

Meanwhile, as the pace of operations has quickened, available forces have been reduced substantially. Since the end of the Cold War, DOD has been involved in nearly 100 major commitments of Americans in uniform, both active and Reserve, to almost every corner of the globe. Over the same period, about a third of the military's personnel and budget were eliminated.13

Finally, although active conventional forces (particularly those overseas) may be the most visible sign of U.S. military power, they do not constitute the majority of U.S. force structure or resource allocation. Roughly 40 percent of DOD end-strength is associated with institutional missions, such as recruiting, training, acquisition, maintenance, and management. Active component operational end-strength comprises approximately 30 percent, including the significant overseas presence commitment. The rema?ning 30 percent are RC forces. Over half of the fiscal year (FY) 1999 Total Obligation Authority was associated with institutional requirements, such as research, development, testing, and engineering, military construction and housing, civilian and retired pay, environment, and health.14 Thus, a large force and big budget numbers do not guarantee unlimited numbers of deployable personnel and units.

The responsibilities and simultaneous activities that DOD must balance range from its force-generation effort to its current worldwide presence of some 340,000 personnel overseas or afloat in more than 140 countries.15 U.S. military forces must simultaneously be committed in various peacetime engagement and shaping activities; trained and postured to execute rapidly and to sustain SSC operations; and trained, ready, and available to meet the demanding deployment and operational requirements to fight two overlapping MTWs. Practically speaking, however, only one pool of U.S. military personnel and equipment is available to meet all of these important security requirements. As a result, points of friction have developed in such areas as funding, unit readiness, and the pace of activity, including operations tempo, personnel tempo, and low-density/high-demand (LD/HD) assets. The high demand for forward-deployed and U.S.-based forces has often put the training, resource, and deployment demands of SSCs in competition with readiness for MTW.

Funding

The funding process for contingency operations is problematic. The bulk of SSC costs is financed from within service operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts but is not programmed in advance. Thus, SSC funding is generally reactive and creates two significant problems. First, higher costs from the increased pace of unplanned and unbudgeted operations cause commanders to disrupt programs by robbing O&M training and maintenance accounts to meet up-front funding requirements of SSCs. Second, the reimbursement process allows the potential for funding dissipation from the original programs as well as lost opportunity costs. In other words, by the time the reimbursement occurs, the original program already is behind schedule. Higher repair-parts costs compound this problem, leading to shortages and maintenance backlogs. The end result is a less prepared warfighting force due to lost training opportunities as well as degradation of various operations and maintenance programs. The RC is similarly affected by this funding issue and may even be underutilized as a result of the fiscal uncertainties.16

Tempo: Rotation and LD/HD Assets

The first broad tempo issue that the military faces today is that of operational tempo of units, such as the commitment of fighter squadrons and infantry battalions to operational missions or required training. The second is PERSTEMPO of individuals, which is the amount of time military members spend away from home. Tempo is basically a matter of supply and demand for units and personnel, and problems occur when the demand is greater than the available supply. Tempo problems manifest themselves as readiness problems and generally are the effects of deployments on people, equipment, and units, both those deployed and those that stay behind. Senior DOD leadership frequently has expressed concern that in the long term, high tempo rates can erode readiness dangerously across the board.17

The demands of engagement and SSCs require significant unit and personnel rotation requirements, which affect a much larger number of personnel and units than only those deployed. Moreover, many types of deployments or SSC operations have common requirements or needs, creating a high demand for certain capabilities and units, some of which are in short supply (LD/HD assets). Extensive deployment of high-demand units and personnel can degrade unit readiness.

Rotation

Military personnel and units need to rotate their responsibilities; one unit cannot be on the front line all the time. The military also has numerous tasks that cannot be accomplished adequately under extended deployments, such as equipment maintenance, developmental training and schooling, personnel reassignments, and some logistics operations. Thus, rotations are essential for units that are forward-deployed on an extended basis, such as naval and Marine forces at sea and air or ground forces in field conditions.

Typically, large-scale rotations have three phases. A preparation and predeployment phase involves organizing and equipping the forces for planned operations, training them, and conducting rehearsals of anticipated missions. The operations phase involves the actual deployment activities, such as training and sustaining the force; these operations can involve lengthy away-from-home periods. The redeployment and recovery phase facilitates personnel actions (reassignments and schools), maintenance and recovery (to include time off), resupply, and a return to general mission training.

Theoretically, this three-phase rotation base calls for only three similar force elements to be committed to a specific operational requirement. However, several factors necessitate a larger number of personnel, equipment, and units to be available to support such rotations. For example, maintenance programs remove equipment for periodic refurbishment or upgrading. Additional forces may be required for operational reasons, such as overlapping coverage as units replace each other, staging and deployment time considerations, and CINC readiness requirements. Additional forces outside the rotation, such as those that help train and deploy others (for example, troops playing the enemy for field exercises and simulations, or the guides and tiedown crews for railcars) also are vital. Personnel and smaller elements may be pulled out of larger units to meet other missions and requirements. Coupled with these factors is the challenge of managing the time that individual soldiers are away from home for training, schooling, SSCs, or other long-duration commitments, such as tours requiring separation from family. In many cases, these activities will preclude availability in rotations. The services have specific policies to manage peacetime engagement and SSC deployments to help to build more predictability and control over units and personnel and to address the unique operational requirements of each service. But the practical lesson of long-duration commitments is that three similar force (and personnel) elements reflecting only what is actually deployed are insufficient.

In general, four or five of a specific asset or unit are necessary for each element committed. For example, the Navy currently requires 12 aircraft carriers to ensure that 3 are consistently forward-deployed under Naval Global Force Military Policy.18 The Marine Corps has a similar rotation deployment program for its expeditionary units. The Air Force uses four to five fighters for each one deployed under an expeditionary concept that establishes a rotational AEF assignment for contingency operations support.19 The Army is not designed as a rotational force and does not rotate its combat divisions; instead, it rotates forces below the division level by crafting tailored deployment packages from its active and Reserve components.

Rotating units also creates a turbulence problem. Several subordinate units can suffer significant personnel losses as the parent unit seeks to deploy a stable force from which personnel will not have to depart in mid-rotation (for such things as reassignment, retirement, or separation) or be forced into back-to-back extended deployments (such as using personnel recently stationed in Korea or Bosnia). Tailoring forces for a specific SSC also may lower the readiness of subordinate elements that lose a support unit or capability important to its internal operations and training. The end result is that one or two similar units might be significantly degraded to make a third unit deployable.20

LD/HD Assets

Scarce assets with unique mission capabilities frequently are desired to support CINC warfighting requirements and SSCs. Joint Staff Global Military Force Policy currently lists 23 LD/HD assets to help manage the impact of sustained high operations tempo, balance CINC requirements against available resources, and preserve a surge capability for crisis and contingency response. Current LD/HD assets grouped by unique mission capabilities are shown in table 10-3.

Other units also can be in high demand to meet operational requirements. Logistical and medical units, communications elements, and lightly armed ground units (such as military police, engineer, air traffic control, airfield security, and light infantry) typically are in high demand for force protection and to sustain air and ground operations in missions such as humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping.21 Support units can be called upon to provide area coverage for deployed forces of all services as well as forces of other nations and civilians. Some SSCs also make high demands on specific types of capabilities. For example, current no-fly zone enforcement has placed higher demands on specific types of fighters and support aircraft. Humanitarian operations may require significant airlift, and the demand may change over time. For example, humanitarian operations initially may call for significant naval or air transport and later for larger ground force operations. Peace enforcement may begin with expeditionary air and ground forces and evolve to more permanent armored or light forces with larger force protection and logistical support requirements.

Warfighting Readiness

Beyond the basic wearing out of personnel and equipment through tempo, other adverse effects can occur as SSCs conflict with efforts to keep potent military forces postured for rapid, high-end combat operations. First, many individual and unit combat skills are perishable; when they are not practiced routinely, proficiency will degrade. For example, infantry units must practice assaulting a bunker, gun crews must practice acquiring targets and firing weapons, and combat pilots must practice air-to-air combat and ordnance delivery. Timing, teamwork, and skill are essential in most warfighting tasks. Generally, a train-up period is essential when units are being prepared for operational deployments. The loss of training opportunities because of SSCs can degrade unit readiness.22

Moreover, U.S. forces must be able to transition from a posture of global engagement--that is, from substantial levels of peacetime engagement overseas as well as multiple concurrent SSC operations--to fighting a major theater war.23 With much of the U.S. strategic sea- and airlift based in the United States, linkup and redeployment of units in an overseas SSC could be extremely complicated. Synchronizing the disengagement or replacement of SSC units as well as their recovery, retraining, and recommitment stresses and complicates operations at all levels. It also affects equipment arrival times in theater.

Major Peacetime Challenge: SSCs

SSCs and readiness for major theater warfighting are likely to continue generating points of friction for the military. These requirements of U.S. defense strategy must be integrated into other imperatives, such as transformation, strategic nuclear forces and deterrence, and homeland security. In chapter 5, alternative defense strategies reflect possible broad approaches to the roles and emphasis of peacetime operations in national security strategy. The Bush administration will face the challenge of meeting the demands of whatever strategy it pursues with a finite force structure and capability. Unless DOD chooses to accept the level of friction generated by current force structure and requirements, it has two choices: reduce the demand for forces and commitments, or increase the availability or supply of forces.

Overall, SSCs generate the most problematic levels of unpredictability, turbulence, and tempo. However, this problem does not exist in a vacuum. The primacy of MTW readiness in current U.S. strategy, coupled with a robust peacetime engagement and overseas presence effort, are key components of the equation for which the United States has but one military force. Thus, SSCs represent a significant category of military effort frequently linked to vital or important national interests. Redefining what is important is the quickest way to divest SSC commitments. On the other hand, a future with continuing high commitment to SSCs may signal a need to better adjust military structure and policies to accomplish SSCs.

Convincing allies to carry significantly more of the SSC burden in this era of declining defense resources, particularly when vital and important U.S. interests are at stake, may prove daunting. "Just saying no" may not be an option, and we must not limit U.S. ability to act unilaterally. Today's posture of engagement and force structure often can absorb short-duration SSCs of vital interest without major difficulty (noncombatant evacuations and strikes, for example), although the cumulative effect of numerous short-duration activities still can affect training, costs, and turbulence. Longer-duration SSCs appear to pose the greatest near-term challenge. These operations impose substantial rotational requirements that significantly stress much more than the committed force.

Making Choices about SSCs

The NCA ultimately decides to commit U.S. military forces to SSCs. Analyzing the military's recent experience with SSCs suggests how much flexibility the Bush administration may have--or may choose to create--with regard to SSC decisions. This analysis also can provide insight on potential impacts for the military of the SSC choices made by the National Command Authorities.

Category 1 SSCs are those linked to vital U.S. interests or to highly compelling security imperatives such as the lives of U.S. citizens or maintaining stability in a key region (see table 10-2). These SSCs appear uniformly nondiscretionary and unavoidable under today's perspective of what is vitally important.

Category 2 SSCs are not explicitly linked to vital U.S. interests, but they may involve important interests, such as contributing to coalition or alliance security objectives. Decisions about these SSCs are likely to be difficult for the NCA, and the predominant considerations will be political, not military. However, this is the most fertile category for reducing costs and tempo.

Category 3 SSCs that are not linked to vital or important U.S. interests afford the NCA a higher degree of discretion with regard to military involvement. However, these SSCs often have humanitarian implications and potentially high media interest. Thus, a political price may have to be paid for avoiding Category 3 SSCs.

Whether more selective policy regarding U.S. military participation in SSCs would significantly reduce operational commitments is uncertain. The most recent DOD experience, as reported to Congress in March 1999, reveals that over 80 percent of the reported SSCs were linked to Categories 1 and 2, with one-third of them vital (Category 1). Thus, substantial reduction in SSC participation appears unachievable without a new definition of what constitutes important national security interests.

Also unclear is whether more selective participation would result in a major reduction in tempo. Long-term peacetime engagement does pose challenges for the services, but they are fairly predictable and can be managed. Forward-deployed forces or specific deployments of available forces often can absorb short-duration SSCs. Long-duration SSC operations are the ones that create demand for rotations and prolonged higher usage of equipment. Assuming rotations for SSCs are needed for durations greater than 5 months, the 1999 DOD report reveals that over one-half of the named long-duration SSCs support either a vital or an important national interest (this was still true of every current operation as of late 2000). Thus, unless these operations are avoided or curtailed, tempo will remain high.

Nor is it clear that more selective participation in SSCs would result in a substantial cost savings. From FY91 through FY99, DOD has spent over $21 billion on various contingency operations (not counting Yugoslavia and recent air operations in Iraq).24 This figure probably does not account for a myriad of other costs and impacts, nor do these costs reflect the significant second-order effects of troop and equipment rotations, such as turbulence. However, just over one-quarter of all costs appear unavoidable (linked to vital interests in Category 1); an additional 57 percent of funding is linked to important national interests (Category 2). Less than 15 percent of all contingency funding appears to be clearly avoidable under Category 3. It should be noted that the costs for Bosnia and Iraq--two long-duration operations with significant force structure requirements--dominate the spending (roughly 75 percent). Unless long-duration operations are avoided or curtailed, notable cost savings are doubtful. Even then, the percentage of the DOD operating budget affected would be very small.

Options for Forces and Commitments in SSCs: Reducing Demand or Increasing Supply

Options to address the points of friction generated by SSCs are offered as examples of how to reduce the demand for forces and commitments in SSCs or to increase the supply. Demand could be reduced by:

• Changing the criteria for intervention or participation in SSCs;
• Increasing the use of civilian contractors, non-DOD U.S. Government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations;
• Limiting SSC commitments based on a preset force ceiling;
• Reducing force commitments to long-duration SSCs based on revised operational concepts or standards of performance; or
• Reducing level of engagement overseas.

Supply could be increased by:

• Resolving U.S. force structure imbalances and inadequacies to enhance military capability for SSCs;
• Implementing new force management and deployment initiatives;
• Establishing a dedicated SSC force; or
• Establishing a new funding mechanism for SSC operations.

Changing Criteria for Intervention or Participation in SSCs

The United States has several particular comparative advantages over other friendly nations. For example, U.S. strategic lift, electronic jamming and reconnaissance, and communications capabilities often are cited as superior to those of its allies.25 The Armed Forces arguably also have a comparative advantage in the planning and execution of complex military operations given their command and control technologies and training. However, exploiting such an advantage would generate expectations of a leadership role. Using comparative advantages as the basis for selecting commitments to SSCs, the United States can leverage the strengths of allies to pursue common interests. Through coordination with key allies (which may require negotiations about what U.S. comparative advantages are and what capabilities allies are willing to supply), the United States could reduce stress on other warfighting capabilities, such as combat aircraft and ground forces. Implicit in this policy is greater and more predictable participation in SSCs by allies and other interested nations.

A key component of this policy is identification of U.S. capabilities that are comparative advantages for the Nation. Two recent operations can serve as a departure point for analysis. Under NATO in Operation Allied Force, vital U.S. capabilities included strategic lift and deployment, intelligence collection and reconnaissance, and secure long-range communications. For UN operations in East Timor, the United States provided airlift, logistics, command and control, communications, and intelligence support.26

This policy option would require a climate of bilateral or multilateral understanding with key allies regarding this new burdensharing approach to SSCs. It also would require a U.S. commitment to plan and to conduct multinational training for likely SSCs and to ensure interoperability with American assets as well as enhance the performance of others.

This policy could improve the predictability, limits, and focus of U.S. military resource requirements in SSCs. It also could substantially reduce tempo and cost if it could eliminate extended commitment of combat air and ground forces in peacekeeping operations and other resource-intensive environments.

This policy might fail to meet alliance or coalition expectations for full partner risk-sharing and commitment. It could undermine the spirit of cooperation needed to execute SSCs successfully, and it also might require greater U.S. resource commitments for those comparative advantages that we intend to employ (which often are already LD/HD assets). Pursuing this policy could have the unintended consequence of encouraging growth in this existing capability gap with allies. A greater commitment of U.S. military resources might be necessary to reinforce the training and capability of allies. A final policy challenge would be the complexity that it might pose for unilateral or timely action when a predominantly U.S. interest is at stake. The greater reliance on alliance participation requires a level of collaboration, consensus, and policy adherence that could limit U.S. flexibility and slow response to crisis. In the end, the complexities of implementing this policy are significant and depend greatly on the expectations, actions, and capabilities of U.S. allies.

Increasing Use of Contractors, Non-DOD Agencies, and NGOs

SSCs can involve the use of labor-intensive logistics, engineering, and communications support activities, frequently for long periods of time. These same capabilities often are required to maintain the combat readiness of today's deployed forces or are found in greater numbers in the Reserve components. Divesting these support activities through contracting or commitment of non-DOD or NGO capabilities would free critical LD/HD units and other frequently deployed capabilities from the stresses of SSC operations. Contractors already are an important support mechanism for the U.S. military, and precedents exist for successful contractor support during deployments and even conflict. Similarly, NGOs and non-DOD organizations can fill an important role in the management and execution of many humanitarian efforts around the world. Implicit in this policy is greater and more predictable participation by non-DOD organizations that traditionally have not assumed a highly assertive role.

This policy would involve identification of specific competencies that reside in non-DOD and NGO groups. This list may closely track current functions of various logistical units today, such as feeding, housing, engineering, transportation and storage, fuel support, water production and distribution, medical care, sanitation, communications, police and other civil affairs, and psychological operations. The option would require contractor capability to execute desired missions and tasks rapidly, with a prearranged funding strategy to facilitate contract execution without disruption of existing defense funding and programs. It would require an interagency strategy to build up needed expeditionary capabilities of non-DOD agencies, including gaining necessary support and funding from Congress; to establish interagency agreements (and funding) for responsibilities assumed by non-DOD agencies (such as the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and others); to coordinate implementation of contracting mechanisms with allies and other international organizations; and to pursue informal agreements and commitments with NGOs and other international organizations to ensure coordinated and timely support in the conduct of SSCs.

This policy could reduce U.S. military participation in SSC commitments significantly, particularly for logistics and support units. The highest payoff would occur if military support forces were not committed beyond the first rotation of long-duration SSCs. Such a policy also facilitates quicker transition of SSC operations from military to civilian control and creates a more effective effort overall because of an institutionalized approach for integrating non-military capabilities into planning and execution. A premise of this policy is that other organizations can achieve the responsiveness and agility normally provided by U.S. military logistics and support organizations.

Several circumstances could limit full implementation of this policy. First, the policy would require robust and stable funding to ensure that contractor capability is developed and sustained over time. This may be difficult to achieve if SSCs are unpredictable or funding support is erratic. At the same time, higher costs and slower support could result if contract mechanisms are unfavorable or if the contractor is unable to mobilize rapidly. Should an unstable or hostile threat environment emerge, degraded contractor effectiveness could pose new challenges and risks for supporting U.S. forces. A current limitation is the general lack of expeditionary capability within most non-DOD agencies. For optimum implementation of this policy, the interagency process must build effective and responsive teams across both organizational and international boundaries, particularly with regard to loosely structured groups. Because NGOs often prefer to retain their independence in operations, special collaboration between the U.S. government, NGOs, and those military and non-military organizations they work alongside may be required.

Limiting SSC Commitments

Creating a top line for the level of commitment to nonvital SSCs would set a predictable requirement for military planners to meet. A policy might limit the number of these SSCs conducted simultaneously, the length of the operations, or the cumulative size of U.S. forces that could be committed at one time. These or other efforts to tighten criteria for participation in nonvital SSCs could make that process more selective. The policy also could assist planners in determining force structure surge requirements and balancing resources for SSCs against those for major theater warfighting. Implicit in this policy are the ability to define a military force that is sufficient for nonvital SSCs and the willingness to turn away requests that exceed it.

A key component of this policy is specific ceilings on naval, air, and ground forces that would be deployed at any one time to nonvital SSCs. For example, a planning ceiling of one long-duration or two simultaneous short-duration operations represents a modest yet visible commitment of U.S. forces to nonvital SSCs. Historical data and modeling insights on the anticipated levels of SSC forces would have to be integrated into development of these ceilings. This option also would require an interagency implementation strategy to address the concerns of allies, international organizations, and affected parties.

This policy could significantly improve the predictability of nonvital SSC obligations and reduce overall U.S. military SSC commitments. It would establish tempo and readiness impacts as an up-front consideration to guard against unanticipated consequences of nonvital SSC involvement. Cost and tempo savings would be achieved based on the ceilings ultimately established. This policy could be expected to generate a rigorous analysis for each SSC commitment under consideration.

Rigid SSC ceilings could, however, cause several undesirable conditions. First, they could result in unwarranted abstention, should policymakers choose to avoid one SSC believing another more important nonvital contingency might come along. Second, a larger force package requirement could result in overcommitment of one service's forces beyond its specified ceiling. Since no two SSCs are alike, inflexible criteria may be problematic. DOD must acknowledge that decisions to conduct nonvital SSCs are ultimately political, not military. The distinction between vital and nonvital may be difficult to establish and to sustain. If forces are structured to this policy and the ceilings are not observed, the tempo and readiness impacts could be even more serious than today.

Reducing Force Commitments

If U.S. involvement in long-duration SSCs is unavoidable, a deliberate strategy to reduce the cost of doing business in these operations might reduce current stresses. For example, innovative strategies for patrolling no-fly zones and maintaining ground force presence may be possible. By deliberately lessening expectations, we also may be able to reduce commitments to SSCs. Implicit in this policy is a willingness to exploit new concepts and enabling technologies as well as possibly revising the definition of success in the execution of SSCs.

The key policy component would be those operational concepts, capabilities, and policies that reduce military commitments in the employment of naval, air, and ground forces in specific long-duration SSCs. For example, a new conceptual approach for no-fly?zone and maritime sanctions operations could include reducing platform requirements (leveraging unmanned systems and sensors), surveillance through more random and limited activities (with substantially reduced platform requirements), and an unambiguous retaliation/strike policy to deter cheating. Similarly, a concept for ground force peacekeeping operations could include monitoring and surveillance through sensor webs of technologies (platform- and ground-based radar, video, and acoustical systems) linked to dispersed forces, both positioned and roaming. Response to violations might trigger rapid application of ground forces, containment barriers (to include nonlethal technologies), or precision fires through prepositioned or loitering assets. This policy also would involve integration of operational concepts into technology and doctrine development programs and alliance interoperability doctrine.

Using such concepts, this policy could reduce significantly the commitment of U.S. military forces in selected SSCs; the focus is assumed to be long-duration operations. Efforts to pursue this policy could lead to new and effective operational concepts for broader application.

This policy has programmatic implications and possible operational shortcomings. It requires DOD commitment to the development and fielding of new concepts and technologies with uncertain timelines and uncertain utility, should alternative concepts prove to be less effective or more susceptible to challenges by opposing forces. From a pragmatic standpoint, unavoidable aspects of some SSCs (such as the manpower-intensive interactions between military and civilians in the Balkans today) would not be resolved under this approach.

Reducing Overseas Engagement

By deliberately scaling back expectations and requirements for engagement, we could reduce the demand for peacetime deployments of forces from both the active and Reserve components. This would facilitate a reduction in tempo and encourage events that reinforce only essential warfighting and deterrence requirements. Emphasis would be on using in-place forces to minimize deployments from outside the CINC area of responsibility. Standardizing and streamlining initiatives of the regional CINCs may be necessary. Implicit in this policy is a willingness to reduce opportunities to interact and to influence the political-military institutions and militaries of other countries.

This policy would include developing guidance for each regional CINC regarding the highest-priority high payoff engagement activities to be supported within available resources. It should develop programs to use civilians or contractors for selected engagement activities that currently occupy military personnel and resources. The policy also requires a revised strategy for forward presence and deployment policies consistent with a reduced level of engagement. It may generate a reduced training events calendar, concentrating on the accomplishment of essential alliance or coalition security and interoperability tasks; reduced force packages for engagement, such as streamlined carrier battle groups or other forward-deployed combat forces, including substitutions for high-cost platforms and units; and shortened presence and engagement missions (visits and exercises).

The principal advantages of this policy are an anticipated reduction in deployment commitments for engagement activities and a more controlled operating tempo in the planning and conduct of these events. It would facilitate more focused and productive engagements because officials will have more time to plan each engagement if there are fewer of them. Actual benefits would be determined by the extent to which engagement plans and operational commitments are revised.

This policy's potential benefit might be its most significant disadvantage: a reduced level of interaction and interoperability with military partners and allies. Such a policy provides less opportunity to influence, monitor, and otherwise shape events. It also could lead to degraded alliance capabilities and more interoperability shortfalls. The U.S. ability to respond to crises could be significantly hampered, particularly if this policy led to smaller or less capable forward-deployed forces, but careful planning could mitigate this drawback.

Resolving Force Imbalances and Inadequacies

This policy, rather than reducing demand, seeks to increase supply. In the past, SSCs were often considered lesser-included tasks accomplished by a force structure sized to conduct two near-simultaneous MTWs. These SSCs can be long and labor-intensive, taxing certain operational and support forces and affecting overall unit readiness. Building more units and capabilities currently identified as LD/HD or in constant need could relieve the stress of unit rotation requirements and posture the U.S. military more effectively across the full spectrum of possible operations. Reductions in less-utilized units also should be considered. Such force structure adjustments must be based on clear criteria for SSC involvement. Tailoring or consolidation of specialized skills and units drawn from larger support organizations may be necessary to avoid the incremental commitment of a variety of personnel and subunits and the subsequent erosion of overall capability. Both active and Reserve structure adjustments are envisioned, since the latter already contributes substantial forces to many SSC operations. Implicit in this policy is the willingness to make specific force planning and resource allocation decisions based principally on the requirements of SSCs.

An essential component of this policy is a program to nominate, assess, and create or restructure both active and RC units and capabilities to facilitate SSC operations. Consideration should be given to Global Military Force Policy LD/HD assets; Army and Air Force high-use combat, logistics support, and command and control elements; Navy medical and construction capabilities; and Army civil affairs and psychological operations units.27

For this policy, modular SSC logistics support forces may be beneficial. Common support elements for transportation, general repair, supply, fuel, sanitation, personnel and ordnance disposal capabilities may be particularly helpful to plan and to optimize ground force operations.

Funding to support acquisition and force structure changes (including impacts on personnel programs) also will be required. Until specific types and quantities of forces and capabilities are identified, however, projecting potential costs of this initiative is difficult.

The principal advantage of this policy is that it would reduce current stresses on U.S. military operating forces conducting SSCs, particularly LD/HD units and capabilities. In short, CINCs would have more of what they are asking for, and tempo for these forces would be more manageable. In many respects, U.S. military forces would be optimized for the operations they are most likely to face.

This policy has two notable implications. First, the costs to build and to sustain new forces or capabilities for SSC requirements could be substantial. Second, care must be taken to ensure that high-end combat forces necessary for MTWs are not excessively affected by any force restructuring.

New Management and Deployment Initiatives

A second policy to increase supply addresses force management policies and the stationing and commitment of forces to engagement and major theater warfighting requirements. New rotation policies, stationing approaches, or other practices may mitigate con?traints on participation in SSCs. For example, a new policy on stationing forces and equipment abroad could reduce travel and separation times. New rotation policies could reduce turbulence and improve predictability in deployments. Implicit in this policy is the willingness to pursue substantial changes to longstanding force management practices.

Four areas of this policy need to be developed. The first is new concepts for overseas stationing of forces and equipment that reduce deployment requirements and improve the ability for broader-based SSC capability. For example, permanent stationing facilitates longer tours of duty in lieu of continuous temporary rotations of shorter duration. Personnel deployed in one year could be cut 75 percent if a rotational deployment of 100 people every 90 days were replaced with 100 people on one-year tours. Analysis of permanent stationing aimed at reducing short-deployment requirements should include Southwest Asia (all types of forces), LD/HD units and capabilities (globally, all services), Southeast Asia (principally maritime), and the Balkans (ground and air forces). (U.S. overseas presence issues are discussed in more detail in chapter 9.)

Second, new concepts for force management also may yield greater efficiencies. Examples include standardized design and rotation policy for Army operational forces, standardized "away from home" deployment time for all services, or naval rotation practices that retain deployment of major platforms and assets forward and rotate personnel to them.

Third, new policy on personnel management during overseas deployments may better mitigate turbulence and rotations. Changes might include additional unaccompanied tours (those in which a servicemember is separated from family) in more forward-deployed locations or in long-duration SSCs, as well as pay differentials for those volunteering for tour extensions.

Fourth, greater availability and use of RCs for engagement and SSC missions should be considered. The manpower, skills, and equipment of Guard and Reserve forces increasingly are being tapped to fulfill a variety of roles, such as providing military support to civilian authorities, conducting and supporting peacetime engagement and SSC operations, and preparing for mobilization and MTW.28 The Reserve Component Employment Study 2005 already is seeking ways to enhance RC participation in SSCs.29 Expanded RC activity should be explored in such areas as providing homeland defense capabilities (for example, consequence management, protection of critical U.S. infrastructure, and national missile defense operations); participation in SSCs through su--h initiatives as providing additional LD/HD capabilities and greater support to sustained operations in Bosnia; and revision of RC roles in MTW plans.30

This policy's principal advantage is more efficient disposition and employment of forces, which should reduce tempo while enhancing readiness. The short-term impacts of implementing various parts of this policy could be substantial. Changes in basing and personnel management overseas would be expensive. Such changes also would require host-country support, which might or might not be forthcoming. Lower readiness could occur if rotation policies that optimize cost savings result in less training time or adversely affect recruitment and retention. Approaches that expand use of the RC in active operations also may degrade RC recruitment and retention.

Establishing a Dedicated Force

A select force focused only on SSCs would minimize training and proficiency issues that occur when cycling wartime-postured units into such missions. Streamlining of equipment and doctrine also could be accomplished. These specialty units could establish a valuable base of expertise for meeting important SSCs undertaken by the United States. Once that force is fully committed, additional contingencies generally would not be undertaken. Without the threat of unlimited SSC obligations, the rest of the for?e could concentrate on key engagement and warfighting requirements. Implicit in this policy is a willingness to establish and to maintain specialty units and priorities not oriented toward MTW missions.

The major component of this policy is a defined mission set and size for the SSC force. For example, a specialty SSC force might be defined in terms of general functions that it will perform. Ground forces might include a combat and force protection force; a logistics force capable of sustaining large-scale multinational area support operations; a command, control, communications, and intelligence force; and a civil-military assistance force with engineers, military police, and medical capability. Air forces might include a strategic lift force; combat and support aircraft; and a reconnaissance/intelligence force (with key command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms). Naval and Marine forces might include a maritime operations force and an expeditionary force. Analysis should include both active and Reserve components. Also needed are a program and funding to establish and to sustain this force, and interagency-approved policy and criteria for its commitment. This policy's principal advantage would be a viable, dedicated SSC force with adequate resources, available to meet policy needs. It also would provide predictable allocation of force and workload between SSCs and major theater warfighting requirements.

This policy has several significant challenges. Each contingency is different and would dictate equipment and personnel requirements. SSCs also can change significantly over time, from combat-capable forced-entry operations to logistical support. The cost of maintaining a robust, dedicated SSC force could be substantial. A tailored SSC force could have a potentially diminished role in high-end MTWs, thus posing additional overall risk for the military force structure. The policy also might introduce the need for specialized recruitment, retention, and personnel management considerations. Reserve component linkages and training strategies would have to be re-examined. Specialized forces built to ease the burden on the remainder of the military must not be overcommitted. Even a small force would require a large rotation base. This option would not be feasible unless the United States was willing either to build a much larger force structure or to reduce its warfighting requirements significantly.

A New Funding Mechanism

Funding procedures for contingency operations could be improved, and the practice of diverting funds from other critical accounts to support SSCs could be avoided. Currently, DOD budgets for the cost of ongoing contingency operations, and Congress appropriates funds for these operations to service personnel accounts and the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. DOD then transfers funds to the components' appropriation accounts as operations unfold during the year. New, expanded, or otherwise unfunded operations force DOD components to borrow funds from other budgeted activities. To minimize degradation of readiness programs, lower-priority O&M and investment accounts are the primary source of borrowed funds. If supplemental appropriations or reprogramming of funds does not occur, the components must absorb the costs within regular accounts.31 Providing stable funding levels and processes can eliminate the need for diversions and reprogramming. This would improve DOD ability to provide timely support for current and potential contingency operations.

This policy requires budgetary processes and procedures that ensure full and independent funding of ongoing SSC operations, without the need to borrow from other accounts. A dedicated prior-year appropriation of funding would be necessary to support new SSC requirements until the operation could be integrated into the budget. It would require processes and procedures to account for any uncommitted funding.

This policy could improve current budgetary and funding practices for SSCs. It could eliminate uncertainties with respect to supporting future operations and protect operations, maintenance, and investment accounts from raids to support SSC needs. Few shortfalls can be found in this policy beyond the challenges that it poses politically. Advance funding of SSCs could hinder the level of appropriations discretion that Congress now has. A second concern may be the opportunity costs lost through the withholding of funds for SSCs that never take place.

Conclusion

Not all SSCs are the same, and U.S. experience since the end of the Cold War reveals that the NCA determination of vital and important national interests can dramatically affect the level of SSC commitment and the resulting tempo, cost, and readiness impacts for the military. Redefining what is important is the quickest way to divest SSC commitments, but a continuing high commitment to SSCs may signal a need to adjust military structures and policies to accomplish them. The next QDR has several options to consider, either to reduce the demand for U.S. military forces and commitments for SSCs or to increase the supply of such forces. Each option has advantages and disadvantages, and each merits additional analysis. In the end, the military is likely to achieve its highest payoff by investing in forces and capabilities that are sufficiently flexible and adaptable to accomplish a wide range of missions across the full spectrum of operations.

Notes

Chapter Eleven

Modernizing and Transforming U.S. Forces: Alternative Paths to the Force of Tomorrow
by Michael E. O'Hanlon

Due to the excellent performance of American high-technology weapons in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, as well as the phenomenal pace of innovation in the modern computer industry, many defense analysts have posited that a revolution in military affairs is either imminent or already under way. The RMA thesis holds that further advances in precision munitions, real-time data dissemination, and other modern technologies can help transform the nature of future war and with it the size and structure of the U.S. military. RMA proponents believe that military technology, and the resultant potential for radically new types of warfighting tactics and strategies, is advancing at a rate unrivaled since the 1920s through 1940s, when blitzkrieg, aircraft carriers, large-scale amphibious and airborne assault, ballistic missiles, strategic bombing, and nuclear weapons were developed. For most RMA proponents, this set of judgments translates into the belief that the United States should transform its military weaponry, other hardware, organizational constructs, and operational concepts to take proper advantage of what new technologies now make possible--and to make sure that others do not exploit them at U.S. expense.

While in the abstract it is unobjectionable to favor innovation, the prescriptions of some RMA proponents would have major opportunity costs. As the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review pointed out, and as the Congressionally-mandated National Defense Panel subsequently concluded that same year, pursuing an RMA aggressively would require cutbacks in other areas of defense activity, given likely political and fiscal constraints on defense spending. The United States might need to disengage from military operations in places like the Balkans to devote more resources to experimentation and investment; it might even need to curtail U.S. abilities to deter or wage war in Korea, the Persian Gulf, the Taiwan Strait, and elsewhere. With another Quadrennial Defense Review looming in 2001, these are not tradeoffs to take lightly. Any RMA transformation strategy needs to be carefully constructed, and the associated benefits and risks assessed.

Increasingly large projections for the federal budget surplus may make it possible for the Pentagon to avoid tough choices--to have its RMA cake while keeping its current force too. However, it seems more likely that tough choices will still be necessary, even if they will not be as difficult as once appeared likely. Keeping the current force of 1.36 million active-duty personnel will probably require an annual real defense spending level $30 billion to $50 billion higher than the 2000 level of $290 billion, even without adding in any extra costs for revolutionary new technology. Moreover, DOD must compete for its share of the federal surplus with domestic programs, tax cuts, and any expansion of federal entitlement programs in areas such as health care. Even if the non-Social Security budget surplus averages $300 billion a year in the coming decade, as currently projected, the Pentagon is unlikely to receive much more than half the amount it would probably need to retain its existing force structure and weapons modernization agenda. (During the 2000 presidential campaign, Governor George Bush promised about a $5 billion real increase in annual defense spending; Vice President Al Gore promised about $9 billion.) Money may not be as tight as in 1997, at the time of the last QDR, but sound defense budget priorities will still be essential.

This chapter focuses on the so-called transformation issue, and most notably on the hardware side of any revolution in military affairs that may be in the offing. Specifically, it develops and assesses two options for future U.S. forces. In doing so, it focuses on the investment or acquisition accounts, including concept development and experimentation, and emphasizes the medium-term time horizon looking roughly 5 to 15 years into the future.

The two options differ in their assumptions about the nature and scope of any incipient revolution in military affairs, the urgency with which U.S. military forces should be transformed, and the total amount of resources that should be directed to acquisition accounts. They take as their point of comparison DOD policy as of mid-2000 reflected in the 1997 QDR and subsequent policy changes. One of the options would emphasize electronics, computers, and communications technologies as well as basic research and experimentation. The other would reflect a more sweeping transformation philosophy, replacing not only electronics systems, sensors, communications networks, and munitions, but also most military vehicles and major weaponry. The first approach would tend to see innovation as a continuing process; the second would work toward a specific end-state radically different from today's in what would amount to a transformation.

Before developing these options, it is important to examine the concept of transformation, and the hypothesis that a revolution in military affairs is now attainable or under way. The concepts have become so important to the American defense debate that they require clear definitions and critical analysis before influencing any debate about force planning and modernization programs.

The RMA Hypothesis

Is a revolution in military affairs under way or within reach? If so, what is its nature? The answers to these questions are of critical importance for developing a defense transformation strategy--and, in fact, for deciding if there should even be one.

There are many different versions of the contemporary RMA hypothesis. They range from relatively technical military concepts to more sweeping prognostications about radical changes in human society, the global economy, and warfare such as those advanced by Heidi and Alvin Toffler.1 The following discussion focuses on RMA concepts that are concrete enough to be directly related to mid-term defense planning. It groups them into two main schools of thought and a third category that is an amalgamation of several RMA concepts from various schools that, collectively, amount to the existing DOD plan:

The C4ISR school emphasizes the potential of modern computers, electronics, and related technologies.2

The global reach/global power school is much more sweeping. It envisions radical change across a whole spectrum of military technologies and military organizations, doctrines, and tactics. Although the term was originally coined by the Air Force, it can be (and is here) applied more generally.

The existing DOD modernization plan as an RMA framework is somewhat confusing, in that its rhetoric far exceeds its substance, but it is an important baseline for comparison.

Within all three main categories, there are individuals who emphasize the opportunities that an incipient RMA might offer the United States, and others who dwell on opportunities for potential enemies. The global reach/global power school is motivated in large part by the concern that fixed military bases and large armored formations will become increasingly difficult to protect in the years ahead. It holds that the spread of missile, mine, and satellite-reconnaissance technology necessitates that U.S. forces be capable of projecting power from greater distances, outside the range of enemy weaponry, and that they minimize their footprints within combat theaters.3 The C4ISR school, by contrast, is less optimistic about high-technology solutions to the vulnerability problem but holds that, by focusing traditional defense investment dollars on those weapons systems offering the greatest payoff per dollar, more money will be made available for other critical defense and nondefense investments to mitigate the vulnerabilities of not only U.S. combat forces but the American homeland as well.4 Those investments could range from roll-on/roll-off ships and vertical takeoff airplanes (which would reduce U.S. military dependence on large, fixed infrastructure in overseas theaters), to chemical protection gear, greater counterterrorism efforts, and stockpiles of antibiotics and vaccines against various biological warfare agents.

Before analyzing these alternative notions of a contemporary RMA, however, it is appropriate to subject the RMA hypothesis to critical scrutiny. If the hypothesis that a revolution in military affairs was attainable or under way amounted only to a prediction, it would matter little whether its proponents were proved right. We could view the subject as intellectually interesting but not particularly important and simply wait to find out.

However, as RMA proponents frequently claim, military revolutions are the purposeful creations of people. They are created by a combination of technological breakthrough, institutional adaptation, and warfighting innovation.5 They are not emergent properties that result accidentally or unconsciously from a cumulative process of technological invention. They ultimately require a major investment of effort and money.

For this reason, the RMA debate matters. If the proponents of the RMA hypothesis are right, it could be dangerous for the United States not to heed their counsel.6 By contrast, if they are wrong, it could be harmful to the country's security interests to adopt their recommendations, since doing so would divert large amounts of money and attention from other defense priorities.

RMA proponents tend to argue that more budgetary resources should be devoted to innovation--research and development, procurement of new hardware, frequent experiments with new technology--and, to the extent necessary, less money to military operations, training, and readiness. To free up funds for an RMA transformation strategy, some would reduce U.S. global engagement and reduce the military's deterrent posture.7 For example, in its 1997 report, the National Defense Panel (NDP) dismissed the current two-war framework as obsolete (without, however, suggesting what should replace it). The NDP also suggested that U.S. military retrenchment from forward presence and peacekeeping operations might be needed simply to free up money to promote the so-called RMA.8 These suggestions, if adopted, would have important effects on U.S. security policy; and they should not be accepted simply on the basis of vague impressions that an RMA may be achievable. To use the lexicon of current official strategy, articulated in Secretary of Defense William Cohen's 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, RMA proponents would put more resources into preparing U.S. forces for an uncertain future. Applying a term popularized by the NDP, they support a U.S. military transformation, which implies a managed and controlled process, but still a radical one.9 Assuming a given Pentagon budget level, they would therefore put less emphasis on shaping the future military environment through American military engagement overseas, and on being ready to respond to near-term challenges to U.S. interests by the likes of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-II. The 1997 QDR struck a balance between preparing, shaping, and responding. Therefore, conducted as it was in a period that lacked the rosy budget forecasts we now take for granted, it did not promote an all-out transformation strategy.

This chapter attempts to sketch out the competing transformation visions, and then to assess their relative advantages and drawbacks.

The Electronics or C4ISR School

The C4ISR school of thought on the RMA focuses fairly narrowly on the potential of modern electronics and computers, the defense-related technologies undergoing by far the most rapid change in the world today. It also tends to be a somewhat cautious and skeptical school of thought.

Many members of this school emphasize the concept of a system of systems, a term popularized by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens. (However, Owens himself is now more ambitious in his RMA aspirations than most proponents of this school of thought.10) They argue that future warfare will be dominated less by individual weapons platforms and munitions than by real-time data processing and networking that tie U.S. forces together synergistically. Proponents point to the fact that computers have been getting much faster for years. Supercomputer computational power has been increasing by a factor of ten every 5 years.11 Personal computers have improved almost as quickly, roughly doubling in speed every 2 years since IBM's personal computer was introduced in 1981.12 Although the computer's benefits for the economy were unclear for the 1980s and the early 1990s, recent economic evidence suggests that information technology may be largely responsible for the prolonged U.S. economic expansion of the mid to late 1990s. If this effect is real and sustainable, perhaps computers will soon be just as beneficial for military operations.13

Trends in computing power, speed, cost, and size have made it possible to put computers on ballistic missiles, fighter jets, and phased-array radars in the last few decades. Further advancements now make it possible to put computing capability on all significant platforms and to network the systems together. This will allow such systems to gather information from many sources, process it in real time, and exchange data rapidly on the battlefield.14 Automatic target recognition capabilities may finally become useful if trends in processing power continue. In sum, radical progress is under way in command, control, communications, and computers technologies, and the U.S. military should be able to derive great benefits from that progress.

Other RMA proponents who focus principally on the potential of modern-day electronics technologies go further. Convinced that radical improvements are under way not only in computers but also in sensors that gather information, they have invoked the term dominant battlespace knowledge (DBK) to describe a future combat environment in which the United States would be able to find promptly and continuously track virtually all important enemy assets within a combat zone, often specified as being 200 nautical miles square (roughly the size of key battlefield areas in a place such as Kuwait or the Korean Peninsula).

As its name suggests, the DBK school is much more bullish and ambitious than the system-of-systems school. It not only presupposes the rapid processing and exchange of information on the battlefield, but also the availability of much better information to process and exchange.15 In other words, it expects breakthroughs not only in C4 technologies, organizations, and capabilities, but also in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, making for a complete C4ISR revolution in military affairs. As General Ronald Fogelman, a former Chief of Staff of the Air Force, put it before Congress in 1997: "In the first quarter of the 21st century you will be able to find, fix or track, and target--in near realtime--anything of consequence that moves upon or is located on the face of the Earth."16

Clearly those who subscribe to the more limited system-of-systems concept understand that sensors will continue to improve. For example, the miniaturization of electronics, on-board information-processing capabilities, global positioning system receivers, and secure, high-data-rate radios now make possible such devices as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), useful in reconnaissance missions. In addition, improvements or innovations in sensors will probably take place in such areas as multispectral imaging and foliage-penetrating radar, which will be important in certain circumstances. Proponents of the system-of-systems concept do not, however, anticipate that sensors will improve so drastically as to make the battlefield transparent.

Whatever their differences of opinion, all of these RMA proponents tend to emphasize defense capabilities within the broad conceptual framework of C4ISR. Some hold out hope that military vehicles and major weapons platforms will also improve radically in the years ahead, but are not sufficiently confident to commit to a wholesale replacement strategy for such equipment. Instead, they prefer prototyping, experimentation, and patience within the realms of weapons platform modernization. Indeed, many see the Pentagon's traditional emphasis on buying large amounts of expensive, major combat equipment as being at cross-purposes with the proper goals of an RMA transformation agenda. They would instead favor more selective and economical modernization of large platforms.17

Global Reach/Global Power School

Other RMA schools of thought see no tension between C4ISR capabilities and vehicles and major weaponry. In fact, they argue that the United States should place a large premium not only on electronics, sensors, and munitions, but also on new types of weaponry to deliver ordnance extremely quickly and in new ways. Proponents of this vision contemplate being able to base forces in the United States but deploy them rapidly and decisively overseas within hours or at most a few days; they also see the United States being able to avoid dependence on large fixed bases in combat theaters. They extend the technological bullishness that characterizes the C4ISR school to the realm of most types of military platforms as well, ranging from ships to airplanes and from combat vehicles to rockets. They do so partly out of technological optimism, and partly out of the conviction that without such a transformation, U.S. military forces will be too vulnerable when deployed to combat theaters in large numbers in future conflicts.

The Air Force first coined the term global reach/global power, and used it to argue for more resources for certain types of Air Force programs.18 Other advocates of airpower have offered similar arguments. These airpower-oriented visions generally emphasize the firepower and rapid-response capabilities of systems such as stealthier air-to-air fighters, B-2 bombers, advanced reconnaissance capabilities, such as UAVs, and so-called brilliant munitions, such as the sensor-fused weapon with autonomous terminal homing capabilities, that do not require human operators in their final approach to a target.19 They also sometimes include specific force structure proposals that would require cuts in the other services, and would entrust the Air Force with more than the 30 percent of total Pentagon resources it has typically received over the last three decades.20 These proposals make the Air Force few friends in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. Be that as it may, Air Force proponents offer specific suggestions that can be scrutinized and evaluated. The alternative is to give each service its standard share of the budget--in essence making defense strategy in the comptroller's office.21

The concept of global reach and global power goes well beyond the Air Force, however. For example, some envision that ground combat units could be organized in radically different ways, permitting them to deploy very rapidly with only modest amounts of equipment and supplies. They might function in very small mobile teams that conduct tactical reconnaissance and call in precise strikes from distant ships or aircraft as they locate enemy assets difficult to identify from air or space. According to a 1996 Defense Science Board task force: "There is a good chance that we can achieve dramatic increases in the effectiveness of rapidly deployable forces if redesigning the ground forces around the enhanced combat cell [light, agile units with 10 to 20 personnel each] proves to be robust in many environments. There is some chance all this will amount to a true revolution in military affairs by eliminating the reliance of our forces on the logistics head, much as Blitzkrieg freed the offense after World War I from its then decades-old reliance on the railhead." 22

The Marine Corps espouses a related concept. The Marines are experimenting with making future units smaller and basing much of their logistics support on ships, or perhaps on mobile offshore bases that have enormous carrying capacity, airstrips, and resilience to attack. Those capabilities, combined with longer-range airpower, such as the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, would supersede the traditional notion of storming the beach, purportedly allowing the Marines to keep many weapons and logistics assets at sea while sending maneuver and scout forces deep into enemy territory directly from their ships.23

More recently, the Army has gotten into the act as well, with the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Eric Shinseki, promoting acquisition of armored vehicles only one-third as heavy as today's that would eventually erase the distinction between light and heavy forces, eliminate tracked combat vehicles from the U.S. military inventory, and permit deployment of a five-division force in 1 month rather than 3.24

Some imagine going even further with more futuristic weapons. They envision capabilities such as intercontinental artillery, space-based weapons that could attack targets on earth only a few hundred kilometers below, and directed-energy weapons, such as lasers.25

The Pentagon and Joint Vision 2010

Where does DOD stand in the RMA debate? In terms of its rhetoric, it merges all of the aforementioned schools of thought into an aggregate position that reflects a highly ambitious interpretation of what a contemporary revolution in military affairs should entail. Force structure, weapons programs, and budgets, however, provide little evidence that DOD is trying to transform forces rapidly. To a large extent, the Pentagon is offering old wine in new bottles: a traditional set of budgetary preferences and priorities dressed up as a blueprint for a revolution in military affairs.

In 1997 the reports of the Pentagon's own Quadrennial Defense Review and the independent National Defense Panel gave strong support to the RMA concept. Both reports used the phrase revolution in military affairs repeatedly, leaving no doubt that they accepted that an RMA is under way. The long-term joint and service vision documents had already done the same, so 1997 was, in effect, the culmination of RMA acceptance in mainstream U.S. defense thinking.26

The official DOD version of the RMA is, as noted, remarkable for its ambition. It focuses on information systems, sensors, new weapons concepts, much lighter and more deployable military vehicles, missile defenses, and other capabilities. The watchwords for effecting this transformation, employed earlier in Joint Vision 2010, begin with information superiority or dominance. They also include the terms dominant maneuver, precision engagement, full-dimensional protection, and focused logistics. Dominant maneuver and focused logistics imply light, agile, deployable, main combat forces. Precision engagement conjures images of accurate and lethal long-range firepower. Full-dimensional protection suggests, among other things, highly effective missile, air, and anti-submarine and anti-mine defenses.27

There is a certain irony in the fact that the cautious Pentagon has become, rhetorically at least, one of the most prominent proponents of the RMA concept. In fact, the same QDR report that espoused information superiority, dominant maneuver, precision engagement, full-dimensional protection, and focused logistics also included an explicit decision not to pursue these goals too quickly. The report adopted the rhetoric of the RMA movement without endorsing its sense of urgency or imminence. Given limited resources for defense, and the competing needs of deterring regional war and supporting an activist U.S. foreign policy, that decision is understandable and possibly sound, but it does tend to belie the claim that transformation is rapidly achievable and urgently needed.

To put it differently, even as it accepted the RMA hypothesis, DOD made few plans to reorganize main combat units, increase their interdependence and jointness, or alter priorities within the weapons modernization program. Nor did it increase the total amount of resources devoted to acquisition accounts--research, development, testing, and evaluation.28 In fairness to the Pentagon, a cautious approach, even if not internally consistent, may be preferable to adopting a wrongheaded and impetuous RMA agenda. In addition, as Stephen Rosen has argued, RMAs in their early phases depend more on high-quality research, concept development, and experimentation than on massive amounts of money or immediate organizational change.29 But one thing is clear: it is hard to call current Pentagon policy a transformation plan.

Observing DOD inertia, the National Defense Panel tried to push the military to do more and do it faster. Its 1997 report critiqued the QDR for not adopting a sufficiently ambitious reorientation of Pentagon priorities. But just what the NDP had in mind as a roadmap for the revolution was difficult to discern. It did little to specify which programs and efforts should be accelerated and which should be cut to make resources available for new priorities.30

Strategies for Transformation

Given these schools of thought, what is the reasonable range of transformation strategies for Pentagon leaders to consider in the next QDR? It is appropriate to include the existing Pentagon modernization agenda as one approach, rather modest in its substance even if ambitious in its rhetoric. For a study focused on Pentagon force planning, it also makes sense to analyze the C4ISR and global reach/global power or radical transformation schools. The first suggests that emphasis on better information, sensor, and communications technologies may be appropriate, both for purposes of buying weaponry and for reorganizing U.S. military forces and operational concepts in generally limited ways. The radical transformation school goes much further, envisioning a wholesale restructuring and reequipping of major combat units. Not only would radios, sensor suites, computers, and munitions change, but also vehicles and major weapons systems would, and perhaps main combat formations. It can be difficult to translate such radical RMA visions into a concrete agenda for decisionmaking; most proponents do not spell out in detail what their views would imply. But an illustrative set of technologies and new military units can be sketched, nonetheless.

Although they do not always acknowledge it, members of the C4ISR and global reach/global power schools disagree with each other. They all use RMA rhetoric but their policy recommendations differ widely, particularly in their implications for defense resource allocation and force planning. Sometimes the differences are explicit; more frequently they are implicit and must be ferreted out by analysis. The second of the two schools calls for a much more radical and more expensive restructuring of the U.S. military than the former and is plausibly affordable only if the U.S. defense budget increases substantially, or if the size and deployment tempo of U.S. military forces are substantially reduced.

A Baseline: The QDR Plan

A starting point for considering transformation strategies is to begin with one acquisition agenda that few would actually describe as a transformation approach. It is the existing modernization agenda, based principally on the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review but also incorporating subsequent changes--most notably, the Army's 2000 plan for developing a lighter, more deployable force.

Much of the DOD plan consists of a traditional approach to procurement. Major platforms such as combat aircraft, surface ships, and transport vehicles constitute the core of the plan. The services intend to continue to modernize their major distinguishing types of combat capabilities largely independently of each other. If there is a greater relative emphasis on munitions, sensors, advanced communications, or other key defense technologies that are advancing most rapidly today, that fact is not obvious from an examination of standard Pentagon budget documents, which still tend to focus on major weapons platforms and do not present any new categories of technology investment that allow the external observer to discern a shift in basic investment approach. In fact, most evidence suggests that major weapons platforms will receive just as great a share of total funding as in the past--witness fighter and helicopter modernization plans and navy shipbuilding programs.31 In its recent study of the defense budget, the Congressional Budget Office made similar assumptions, based on its understanding of current Pentagon budgeting.32 Revealingly, in their budget presentations to Congress for the 2001 budget, all four service chiefs began with and highlighted platforms--rather than advanced munitions, or new types of reconnaissance assets, or C4 infrastructure--in their discussions of procurement and modernization.

Joint and service experimentation has a higher priority than it once did but is still a small budget item. In the years ahead, research and development budgets are expected to decline, even in the relatively inexpensive and critical areas of basic science and technology.

Redressing U.S. vulnerabilities is a somewhat greater priority than it was 5 to 10 years ago. Notably, expenditures within (and in some cases, outside) the defense budget have increased substantially for mine warfare, ballistic missile defense, chemical and biological weapons protection, and computer security. Counterterrorist efforts, particularly in the area of intelligence, also appear to be vigorous.

In fairness to the Pentagon, it should also be noted that the current acquisition plan includes a large number of systems that, while frequently derided by critics as legacy capabilities, can be justified using the rhetoric of the RMA movement. Stealthy aircraft, for example, use advanced technology to evade defenses; tilt-rotor planes are intended to use speed and range to outflank prepared enemy positions; new destroyers will reduce their detectability while also reducing crew size and packing large numbers of smart munitions. The simple fact that the military services have invented most of these systems in traditional ways does not automatically make them bad ideas, even in a purported RMA era. But the longevity of traditional ways of doing business does raise warning flags about whether the services really have committed to the concepts of Joint Vision 2010 and the 1997 QDR.

The overall Pentagon procurement program typically cost $80 billion annually in the Cold War years (in constant 2000 dollars), rose to $100 billion in the 1980s, declined to $45 billion in the mid-to-late 1990s, and is now about $60 billion in budget authority. It is likely to have to climb again to $80 billion--and perhaps more--under the existing Pentagon programs. Combined with a research, development, testing, and evaluation budget of more than $30 billion, that translates into a total acquisition budget of roughly $115 billion, relative to a 2000 level of just under $90 billion. That figure applies for a steady-state situation; it would not have to be attained immediately. But given the gradually declining readiness of U.S. military hardware, the sooner these increases are made, the better.

The reasons for this expected increase are essentially two-fold. First, modern weapons systems, particularly larger platforms, continue to grow significantly in cost, and we have every reason to expect that their costs will keep climbing in the course of development programs and production runs. Second, the so-called post-Cold War procurement holiday must end; after a decade of enjoying the luxury of having large stocks of relatively new equipment that did not generally require immediate replacement, the Pentagon will soon need to begin procuring systems at sustainable rates. (For procurement budget details, see chapter 4.)

What end-state for the U.S. military does this option envision? The short answer is that there is no such end-state. There is no road map for actually carrying out and completing a true transformation. The goal is to shift somewhat more money into experimentation, joint activities, and programs designed to address certain U.S. vulnerabilities, but otherwise to continue a traditional, generation-by-generation approach to major weapons modernization. Again, while this is at odds with the transformation rhetoric of the RMA movement, it is not necessarily a bad thing, if no radical transformation strategy can be clearly identified and pursued at present. However, it does lead to questions about why the Pentagon plans to allow R&D budgets to decline in the years ahead.

C4ISR Transformation Strategy

A transformation strategy for C4ISR would focus on areas of defense technology where trends in innovation appear to offer the greatest benefit for the dollar, notably in electronics and computer-related sectors. It would also take steps to reduce the ability of adversaries to exploit technology against American vulnerabilities. It would otherwise take a relatively agnostic view of transformation, conducting prototyping and experimentation, but meanwhile awaiting clear proof in the laboratories or test ranges that new types of technologies are truly promising before rushing large amounts of resources into buying new vehicles and major weapons systems. The armed forces would still have to be recapitalized, since hardware is aging and requires replacement. But in many cases, less expensive equipment would be purchased, such as F-15s instead of F-22s, F-16s instead of joint strike fighters, helicopters instead of V-22 Ospreys, and so on. Sophisticated equipment would still be purchased, but generally in modest numbers and as part of a high-low mix of weaponry.

This approach would not offer as clear an end-state as the more radical option discussed below. Transformation would be seen as an ongoing process. The most likely immediate benefits would be in areas of C4ISR. Only over time would such large weaponry as ships, combat aircraft, and armored vehicles be replaced. The U.S. military would become lighter, more deployable, more survivable, and more lethal--but only gradually, because vehicles, engines, and large weapons are unlikely to experience radical rates of technological change in the years ahead.

However, a number of capabilities would likely receive important support under this approach. They would include advanced munitions; reconnaissance systems, such as the joint surveillance, target attack radar system (JSTARS), UAVs, and new types of sensors on existing platforms; and integrated joint-service digital communications systems, as well as software to perform real-time data analysis (including automatic target recognition algorithms) and distribution.

This approach would also keep basic research budgets, including science and technology efforts, at or above historic highs in real dollars. That policy would be based on the belief that even if current technology trends and overwhelming American military dominance make it less than essential to modernize fully all major weapon systems immediately, more revolutionary and geostrategically challenging eras cannot be ruled out in the future.

Part of the robust R&D spending would be in the area of joint-service experimentation, which would be likely to grow to several hundred million dollars a year and remain there (in contrast with the all-out transformation option discussed below, which would boost experimentation spending more in the near term and reduce it once the end-state force had been identified). Over time, it is quite likely that experimentation would grow to include dedicated units that would thus not be otherwise deployable--perhaps a fighter squadron, a brigade of ground forces, and a group of ships--with associated annual costs exceeding $1 billion.

This approach would also increase funds for key areas of homeland and theater defense where current levels of funding appear inadequate. These could include certain missile defense efforts, such as the airborne laser and Navy theater-wide system, that may not now be fully funded; cruise-missile defense architectures; redundant technologies for providing national missile defense rather than just the land-based system now under development for deployment in Alaska; and greater hardening of electronics to deal with potential enemy threats ranging from radio-frequency weapons to high-altitude nuclear bursts. They could also include civilian homeland defense measures, such as greater security for key public and commercial information infrastructure as well as larger stocks of vaccines, antibiotics, chemical weapons antidotes, and protection gear for the nonmilitary population.

Lighter tanks, combat-capable unmanned aerial vehicles, and perhaps arsenal ships would be bought in modest quantities to serve special purposes or to be thoroughly tested as prototypes. However, large numbers would not be purchased until the case for doing so was strong.33

Organizationally, this agenda would not necessitate fundamental changes in main combat structures. It would, however, require that their joint-service integration be improved. In addition, some combat structures might need to be scaled back slightly in size or number to save money for transformation efforts. Such changes would not reflect a radical transformation so much as a modest adjustment made in recognition of the improving capabilities of modern weaponry. Some new units would be established for experimentation and prototyping; others might be created to serve specific C4ISR roles. But otherwise, the Army might well retain its divisions, the Air Force its air expeditionary forces, and the Navy its carrier battle groups under this approach.

This basic option could have higher-cost and lower-cost variants based on available funding. The general philosophy of the approach would place less emphasis on modernizing major weapons platforms than the Pentagon currently does in its weapons plans, allowing silver bullet purchases of modest numbers of advanced platforms, and perhaps even the outright cancellation of some currently planned programs. However, as noted above, many existing weapons modernization programs can be justified--at least rhetorically--on RMA and military transformation grounds. That means there would be strong resistance to curbing them, even if transformation became the guiding Pentagon watchword more than it is today. Many would see the notion of transformation as an addition to the existing modernization agenda, rather than a substitute for it. Thus, this option could exceed the cost of the QDR baseline by about $10 billion annually. But if difficult decisions were made, annual acquisition costs could be held to the same $115 billion vicinity as the QDR plan, or perhaps even somewhat less.

Like the Pentagon's existing plan, this option would not imply a fixed, discrete end-state as much as a quasi-permanent change in the way the armed forces pursue innovation. It would shift more resources into electronics, computing, and other subsystems, and less into platforms, and would keep doing things that way indefinitely. Concept development and experimentation would be further bolstered, but without any expectation of completing a transformation by a certain date. This RMA approach is somewhat more tentative, and somewhat less confident, than a true transformation strategy would be. The global reach/global power school, by contrast, envisions a more radical and definite transformation of the U.S. armed forces. It is RMA with a finish line, rather than a process.

Global Reach/Global Power Transformation Strategy

The global reach/global power transformation strategy would incorporate virtually all elements of the C4ISR modernization agenda, but it would also go beyond them. Specifically, both its scope and pace would increase, particularly in areas of major platforms, such as vehicles, ships, missiles, and aircraft.

The implications would be numerous. Prototyping would be far less cautious and exploratory; the goal would be to build a transformed force fairly quickly, even if that meant accepting greater technical risk. Concept development and experimentation would be intense over a several-year period, perhaps involving several fighter squadrons, brigades, and surface ship groups in dedicated efforts, with a total cost of several billion dollars annually, counting the costs of maintaining these units.

Intensive R&D, prototyping, and experimentation would last for a finite period, then presumably be scaled back as a concentrated procurement phase began. New concepts, such as arsenal ships and mobile offshore bases, would be built in quantity within service planning horizons (typically about 15 years). Lighter armored vehicles, some possibly using new types of power sources, and some possibly unmanned, would be built to replace M1 tanks and other armor of that vintage. Many combat aircraft would be replaced with UAVs, and new types of stealthy bombers and similar systems might be built.

More exotic weaponry, such as directed-energy weapons, intercontinental artillery, and orbiting kinetic-energy weapons, would be vigorously researched.34 However, it is difficult to speculate about whether such weapons could really be part of the near-term transformation agenda, given the technological uncertainties surrounding them at present. A wide range of nonlethal arms would be developed as quickly as possible.

New military organizations would be built as well. Some of the ideas that have been proposed include eliminating the Army division, organizing the military into joint-service task forces, and drastically streamlining support capabilities.35 New units could include small formations of ground soldiers primarily responsible for conducting reconnaissance and targeting for long-range strike systems. They could include groups of pilotless combat aircraft and unmanned tanks. They could be forces tailored to operate from mobile offshore bases with a combination of airpower, special-operations activities, and larger ground-combat formations.

Proponents of this school of thought tend to envision a specific end-state that would be reached when systems and units like those noted above were procured in large numbers. Military change would not, of course, stop once the end-state was reached and the transformation complete. But changes from that point on would generally be of degree, not of kind. They might consist of simply improving new unmanned fighter jets, mobile offshore bases, and hunter-warrior, ground-combat teams. The basic transformation in types of military weaponry and organizations would only happen once, and it would be the sort of thing that could be recorded as a discrete set of events in history books. In that sense, this global reach/global power school truly does tend to believe in transformation of the U.S. military, rather than simply a new process and set of priorities for pursuing defense innovation and investment.

Nonetheless, beyond a certain point it is difficult to spell out this option in detail. Proponents of radical transformation sometimes assume technologies that, if truly available, could well be worth buying--but they may in fact not become available. The problem here is that rhetorical goals and RMA enthusiasm, and even budgetary reallocations, do not themselves produce revolutionary physical results.

This option is sometimes touted as being a way to save money and get the Pentagon out of its looming budgetary shortfall. Quite the opposite seems probable, however.36 Global reach/global power proponents wish to remake the military more rapidly and more dramatically than would happen under existing Pentagon plans, meaning that they would need to replace weapons not now slated for near-term replacement. Radical RMA proponents hold out the hope that systems, such as unmanned aircraft, may become more affordable as well as more capable than systems, such as the joint strike fighter, now on the defense drawing board. They also sometimes claim that smaller, higher-technology forces may supplant larger current units, saving money in that way. If they are right, their vision may prove affordable. But no such transformation proponent has, to my knowledge, made a calculation to show how this might be possible for even one narrow area of military technology and capability. Global reach/global power advocates have sometimes described how an enemy might be stopped during the halt phase of battle by such high-technology forces, assuming the United States responds quickly, munitions work as hoped, and so forth. But they have generally not considered the full range of possible scenarios. For example, to conduct counteroffensives into enemy territory that could involve urban or forest fighting, followed by large-scale occupations of another country, substantial numbers of traditional forces would be required. High-tech standoff weaponry probably cannot replace them. Whether the country needs the capacity for two such all-out counteroffensive operations at once can be debated, but global reach/global power advocates rarely engage in such debates.

To consider pursuing a global reach/global power capability, one would first need answers to the following types of questions:

How many aircraft carriers could one mobile offshore base replace?

When will unmanned combat aerial vehicles realistically be available, how capable will they be, and how can the Pentagon maintain its aging manned fleets in the meantime without spending huge sums of money doing so?

What technical breakthroughs will be needed to make lighter, wheeled combat vehicles as survivable and lethal as today's tanks, and how much are these lighter vehicles likely to cost, once available?

Proponents of radical transformation suggest that it is a straightforward matter to determine which existing defense programs or commitments to scale back in order to fund the new technologies. But it is doubtful that they could reach a consensus. For example, the 1997 National Defense Panel used sweeping rhetoric to criticize the existing DOD two-war concept and tactical combat aircraft modernization plan--but failed to offer specifics about how to change them. Its concrete recommendations were confined to several systems with a combined annual procurement cost of no more than several hundred million dollars.

Considering all these factors, an ambitious transformation agenda would almost surely cost more than the 1997 QDR plan. If platforms were replaced frequently, in the belief that revolutionary times were upon us, and that therefore no delay was tolerable in exploiting them, annual procurement could return to its $100 billion level of the 1980s, or even exceed it. It is not plausible that this approach would save money. On the whole, its total acquisition costs seem likely to range from $120 billion to $150 billion a year (again, in constant 2000 dollars), with the higher end of the range more likely than the lower.

Evaluating the Options

Which approach makes sense: the more limited C4ISR RMA vision, the more sweeping global reach/global power transformation strategy, or some other concept? In thinking about how to evaluate them, one should consider the technological underpinnings--and practicality--of each. One should also consider the geostrategic backdrop. Clearly, if an RMA were possible in a world with a hostile peer competitor, it would be risky not to pursue it. By contrast, in a world with lesser, vaguer threats, it could be counterproductive for U.S. foreign policy to reduce global engagement activities in order to fund an RMA effort.

In my judgment, the C4ISR/modest-transformation school is a better way to think about any contemporary RMA than the bolder global reach/global power concept. Part of the reason is the opportunity cost of the radical approach; it would necessitate either large increases in defense spending or a sharp reduction in U.S. overseas commitments that would probably leave the world less secure.

History provides ample grounds for caution. Most contemporary RMA enthusiasts make reference to the interwar years and claim that we are in a period of similar potential, promise, and peril. However, military technology advanced steadily and impressively throughout the 20th century, including its latter half. Helicopters radically reshaped many battlefield operations after World War II. Intercontinental ballistic missiles and space-launch vehicles followed. Satellite communications were first used militarily in 1965 during the Vietnam War. Aircraft-delivered, precision-guided munitions also made their debut in Southeast Asia in the early 1970s. Air defense and antitank missiles played major roles in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Stealth fighters were designed in the late 1970s.37 Infrared sensors and night-vision technologies were fielded in this period, as well.

History also tells us that radical military transformations only make sense when technology and new concepts and tactics are ripe. The C4ISR school, with its relatively modest transformation agenda, is akin to the military innovation spirit of the 1920s, while the more ambitious global reach/global power school is akin to the 1930s. In the 1920s, such major military vehicles and systems as the tank and airplane were not yet ripe for large-scale purchase. Advanced operational concepts, such as blitzkrieg and carrier aviation, had not yet been fully developed, so they could not guide hardware acquisition, military organization, or doctrinal development. Thus, research, experimentation, and prototyping were the proper elements of a wise innovation and acquisition strategy. In the 1930s, new operational concepts were better understood, technologies better developed, and geostrategic circumstances more foreboding. Under these circumstances, large-scale modernization made sense, and those countries that did not conduct it tended to perform badly in the early phases of World War II.

Because most radical RMA proponents cannot clearly specify what a near-term transformation should comprise, I am inclined to liken today's situation to the 1920s rather than the 1930s. It is far from obvious that military technology is now poised to advance even more quickly than it has in the last half century, as RMA proponents assert when they call for a radical transformation strategy for current U.S. armed forces. Yet no such radical DOD-wide transformation strategies were necessary to bring satellites, stealth, precision-guided munitions, advanced jet engines, night-vision equipment, or other remarkable new capabilities into the force in past decades.38

RMA proponents are certainly right to believe that a successful military must always be changing. But the post-World War II U.S. military has already taken that adage to heart. The status quo in defense circles does not mean standing still. It means taking a balanced approach to modernization that has served the country remarkably well for decades. Indeed, it brought about the very technologies displayed in Desert Storm that have given rise to the belief that an RMA may be under way.39 It is not clear that we need to accelerate the pace of innovation now.

Moreover, radical innovation is not always good. If the wrong ideas are adopted, transforming a force can make it worse. For example, in the world wars, militaries overestimated the likely effects of artillery as well as aerial and battleship bombardment against prepared defensive positions, meaning that their infantry forces proved much more vulnerable than expected when they assaulted enemy lines.40 Britain's radically new all-tank units were inflexible, making them less successful than Germany's integrated mechanized divisions in World War II. Strategic aerial bombardment did not achieve nearly the results that had been expected of it: airpower was much more effective as close-air support for armored formations in blitzkrieg operations.41 In 1961, the Army Pentomic division concept, intended to employ tactical nuclear weapons, was abandoned as unusable.42

But these are only historical arguments, uninformed by the realities of today's world. What does the current state of technology say about the prospects for an RMA? In my judgment, here, too, the case for the C4ISR approach is much more compelling than for a more radical remaking of the Armed Forces.

One type of evidence to support this argument is that, in their haste to push the revolution along, radical RMA promoters tend to lack clear and specific proposals for how to do so. In that light, even if they are right that an RMA may be within reach in the foreseeable future, they may be quite wrong about what should be done about it now. In practical terms, there is a major distinction between the early stages of a possible RMA and the later stages. As Stephen Peter Rosen has observed:

The general lesson for students or advocates of innovation may well be that it is wrong to focus on budgets when trying to understand or promote innovation. Bringing innovations to fruition will often be expensive. Aircraft carriers, fleets of helicopters, and ICBM forces were not cheap. But initiating an innovation and bringing it to the point where it provides a strategically useful option has been accomplished when money was tight. . . . Rather than money, talented military personnel, time, and information have been the key resources for innovation.43

To put it differently, conceptual innovations are often the most important and difficult elements in military revolutions--and they cannot always be hastened by throwing resources at procurement budgets in an effort to drive the transformation process.

Some members of what I have called the global reach/global power school believe that, the above arguments notwithstanding, the United States really has no choice but to rebuild its equipment inventories and combat units from first principles. They believe that future adversaries will make greater use of sea mines, cruise and ballistic missiles, chemical or biological weapons, and other means to attempt to deny the U.S. military the ability to build up forces and operate from large, fixed infrastructures, as in Desert Storm. As a result, they consider major steps to change the way that the Armed Forces deploy and fight to be not only desirable but essential.

However, the solutions to these problems may not be exclusively in the realm of advanced weaponry. Long-range strike platforms, missile defenses, short-takeoff aircraft, and other such advanced technologies may be part of the solution, but so might more ?inesweepers, smaller roll-on/roll-off transport vessels useful in shallow ports, concrete bunkers for deployed aircraft, and other relatively low-tech approaches to hardening and dispersing supplies and infrastructure. The military services are already biased in favor of procuring advanced weaponry at the expense of equally important but less advanced hardware. By emphasizing modernistic and futuristic technology, the most ambitious RMA concepts could reinforce this existing tendency, quite possibly to the Nation's detriment.

Most centrally, one should be skeptical about the revolution in military affairs hypothesis because many of its key technical underpinnings have not been well established and may not be valid. Proponents of the RMA concept often mention Moore's law--that computing power has historically doubled every 18 to 24 months--then extrapolate an exponential rate of progress to much different realms of technology. For example, in its 1997 report the NDP wrote: "The rapid rate of new and improved technologies--a new cycle about every eighteen months--is a defining characteristic of this era of change and will have an indelible influence on new strategies, operational concepts, and tactics that our military employs." 44 However, conflating progress in computers with progress in other major areas of technology is unjustified. To the extent RMA believers hinge most of their argument on advances in modern electronics and computers, they are at least proceeding from a solid foundation. When they expect comparably profound progress in land vehicles, ships, aircraft, rockets, explosives, and energy sources--as many do, either explicitly or implicitly--they are probably mistaken, at least in the early years of the 21st century.

The arguments of RMA proponents are also sometimes prone to a certain tension, if not outright contradiction. They often motivate their proposals by arguing that enemies will take advantage of U.S. weaknesses and vulnerabilities, avoiding traditional battlefield encounters, but they tend to focus on high-end heavy warfare rather than on infantry, urban, and irregular combat. It is the case, at least, that their common proposals would typically work better in the former arenas than in the latter. Specifically, they sometimes fail to note that trends in defense technology do not make it more feasible for the United States to fight in complex terrain using standoff weaponry, or to find adversaries hidden within buildings, forests, and civilian populations. These realities should temper expectations about just how much warfare really can and will change in the decades ahead.45

Conclusion

In 2001, the United States conducts another Quadrennial Defense Review, which will be affected by the large projected budget surpluses, but also by the need to replace large stocks of aging weaponry and to continue a high pace of global military engagement. That combination of growing resources and growing demands leads to the conclusion that difficult choices will still need to be made. In particular, the Department of Defense will need a smart way to think about the possibility that a revolution in military affairs is under way or within reach--and a wise agenda for what to do about it.

A modernization strategy for the U.S. armed forces should, in my judgment, be designed to focus principally on gaining maximum benefit from rapid progress (proven or plausible) in electronics and computers. That approach does not obviate the need to replace certain stocks of aging weapons platforms, or argue against limited purchases of more advanced fighters, ships, and armored vehicles. But it does suggest that fewer resources be devoted to comprehensively modernizing weapons platforms than the services now intend.

Additional measures would place greater emphasis on R&D and joint-service experimentation than Pentagon plans now forecast. Finally, this approach would also include increased efforts to redress U.S. military vulnerabilities in areas such as mine warfare, missile defense, and protection against chemical and biological agents.

This school of thought might be described as the C4ISR school, for its focus on communications, computers, and intelligence. It is analogous in some ways to the modernization efforts of the 1920s, a period in which a number of new military technologies and operational concepts were being envisioned and invented, but were not yet sufficiently mature to justify immediate, large-scale, military transformation.

A transformation strategy--if one wishes to call it that--focused on C4ISR systems, prototyping, experimentation, and alleviation of key U.S. military vulnerabilities makes the most sense. And it is affordable, if real defense budgets increase modestly while the current two-Desert Storm (two-MTW) framework and current service modernization plans are reevaluated and revised.

Notes

Chapter Twelve

Strategic Nuclear Forces and National Missile Defense: Toward an Integrated Framework
by M. Elaine Bunn

Both national missile defense (NMD) and strategic nuclear forces (SNF) will be topics with which the new administration will have to wrestle early on, either in the Quadrennial Defense Review or in a separate review. Indeed, whether it views these issues as opportunities or problems, the administration will have little choice but to address them, since they have been very much at play in proposals in the Presidential campaign, arms control discussions with the Russians, and commentary both foreign and domestic. The direction President Bush takes on these issues will have a profound impact on U.S. strategy and force structure, as well as numerous international ramifications.

President Clinton's announcement on September 1, 2000, that he would leave to his successor the decision about whether to deploy an NMD guarantees that it will be a major issue in the new administration (and one that probably would have been revisited even if he had made a decision).1 Two related categories of NMD questions will need to be addressed in any review: first, whether NMD is, on balance, a good idea from a strategic perspective; and second, how to deal with technical issues, such as the right architecture, countermeasures, cost, feasibility, and readiness of the individual technologies and system integration. The next QDR or other review must address both categories of questions, but this article focuses on the first question: whether NMD is wise from a strategy perspective, assuming the technical issues can be resolved.

After years of a relatively low public profile, SNF has again become a topic of policy debate as well. SNF returned to the spotlight after Russian ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) II and subsequent discussions on nuclear forces at the June 2000 U.S.-Russia summit, the concomitant hearings and press coverage, and the internal Russian debate about the future of its nuclear forces.2 Governor Bush's May 23, 2000, proposal to consider unilateral nuclear force reductions also made this a topic in the presidential campaign.3 In addition, Congress mandated a new nuclear posture review (NPR) to be completed by December 2001.4

In the past, nuclear and missile defense issues have too often been addressed piecemeal and in isolation from one another. For example, officials considered only nuclear issues, or just missile defenses, or only U.S.-Russian issues such as the ABM treaty or what the START III level should be, or simply the need to respond to rogue-state proliferation, or only how China might react to NMD deployments. Frequently, these issues also have been handled piecemeal in terms of time horizons, with decisions made only on near-term, pressing issues (both programmatically, and with regard to summit-driven arms control), with scant focus on long-term U.S. goals and objectives, and without adequate thought to the interaction of offenses and defenses in U.S. long-term deterrence strategy in the evolving security environment.

Whether in the QDR or in a separate forum, the next administration will need to address both nuclear posture and missile defense because of the relationships, real and perceived, between the two sets of issues. The consideration would in essence be a "strategic posture review," taking into account nuclear and missile defense strategy, policy, force structure, operations (including command and control, alert rates, confidence levels, and reliability of systems), and infrastructure. Also at issue is how the United States deals with other countries, both allies and potential adversaries, through cooperative endeavors, confidence building measures, arms control agreements, unilateral actions, declaratory policy, or other means.5

The complex nexus of offenses, defenses, and multiple actors can be seen as a set of interconnected gears. How the United States deals with one country or set of countries on nuclear issues and missile defense affects perceptions of and relationships with others, perhaps with unintended consequences. Although connections obviously exist, it is less clear in which direction and how far the gears will turn. China has had a slow but steady nuclear force modernization under way. How much would China build up nuclear forces, make them more survivable, or place multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) on its missiles only in response to U.S. defenses, and how much would it do in any event? Would a Chinese buildup of nuclear forces change the overall strategic equation if in the end China had approximately the same net nuclear capability over and above U.S. NMD as it has today absent NMD? What would India and Pakistan do, and how would their reactions affect U.S interests? Would Russia really scuttle START, other arms control agreements, and Cooperative Threat Reduction efforts over planned NMD deployments, or would it ultimately see further arms control agreements as in its interest--given the declines that will take place in its nuclear forces because of economics and its interest in getting limits on U.S. defenses? Can the United States balance an offensive drawdown with defensive limits and still be able to defend against proliferant states and reduce their ability to keep the United States out of their backyards by threats to the U.S. homeland?

Even though all outcomes cannot be predicted confidently, the potential interconnections must be understood in order to develop a comprehensive approach to nuclear deterrence and missile defenses. The United States will need to decide which issues it wants to consider the drivers. For example, a strategy that is more concerned about preventive defense and building partnerships with Russia and China would have a different emphasis than a strategy primarily focused on WMD threats to the U.S. homeland or one more concerned about the rise of a peer competitor.

Finding solutions that balance competing (and often contradictory) objectives will not be easy. Improving one set of strategic relationships may exacerbate problems in another set. No course of action will be problem-free. The United States will need to weigh all the implications and make a considered judgment about the costs and benefits of any action, as well as inaction.

U.S. decisionmakers need a new comprehensive framework for looking at the offense/defense nexus and its broad ramifications. Such a framework should integrate several elements: (1) new thinking about deterrence and stability, including identifying whom the United States is trying to deter from doing what, and the role of offensive and defensive forces in that deterrence strategy; (2) a recognition that how the United States deals with one country or set of countries on nuclear forces and missile defense affects its strategic relationships with others; (3) a U.S. decision about what type of deterrence future it wants to work toward, including explicit decisions, for each country of concern, about how much it wants to rely on offensive forces and how much on defenses; (4) what that decision means for nuclear and NMD forces (numbers, composition, and posture); and (5) a strategy for how to deal with other countries to get to the preferred future, whether through formal arms control agreements, transparency and cooperative measures, unilateral action, or some combination.

This chapter will review briefly where the United States is today on nuclear and missile defense issues; address alternative strategies and their implications; postulate possible future nuclear and missile defense force mixes; assess their potential effects on rogue states, Russia, China, allies, friends, and others; address options for dealing with other countries in getting to the future mix; and propose key issues for the Bush administration's review of missile defense and nuclear issues.

Current Strategy and Forces

The next QDR or separate review will not start with a clean slate on nuclear and missile defense issues. It inherits a long history in both areas, and actual forces in the nuclear area.

Strategic Nuclear Forces

According to the DOD Annual Report for 2000, "nuclear forces are an essential element of U.S. security, serving as a hedge against an uncertain future and as a guarantee of U.S. commitments to allies. Accordingly, the United States must maintain survivable strategic nuclear forces of sufficient size and diversity . . . to deter or dissuade potentially hostile foreign leaders with access to nuclear weapons." Under the START I agreement, the United States and Russia are each allowed 6,000 accountable weapons by the end of 2001. Under the START II agreement, both sides would reduce to 3,000-3,500 accountable weapons (originally by 2003, subsequently agreed for the end of 2007). Under the START III framework agreed to in principle at the March 1997 summit, both sides would reduce to 2,000-2,500 accountable weapons. DOD has said it is "confident that it can maintain the required deterrent" at those START III levels.

The United States has three types of delivery platforms for strategic nuclear weapons: ICBMs, SLBMs on submarines, and heavy bomber aircraft with air-launched cruise missiles and gravity bombs. The U.S. force structure for START II was defined in the 1994 NPR as 500 single-warhead ICBMs; 14 Trident submarines with D-5 missiles; a bomber force of 21 B-2s and 76 B-52s; and nuclear command and control assets.6 No decisions have been made about a force structure under START III.

The cost of current strategic forces is difficult to calculate. There is no single budget line, and costs are in various program elements, which are not always clearly labeled. Bombers would remain in the inventory for conventional use even if the United States gave up their nuclear role, so the marginal cost of having a nuclear role for bombers is minimal. For dedicated forces--ICBMs and nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)/SLBMs--funding is primarily for completing D-5 missile procurement and Minuteman III service life extension activities, and O&M of existing forces.7 One expert on nuclear force costs, who estimates the total FY2000 DOD cost of offensive nuclear forces at $9 billion (down from $27 billion in 1990), observed that: "Future savings are likely to be modest because the United States has cut its long- and short-range nuclear forces so steeply over the past decade that the cost of having nuclear weapons and delivery platforms has become dominated by the high fixed cost of staying in the nuclear business." 8

Outside the DOD budget, the Department of Energy spends approximately $4.5 billion per year on the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), the primary means of ensuring safety and reliability in the nuclear forces, absent nuclear testing.9 Because SSP infrastructure is needed no matter how few nuclear weapons the United States has, even drastic reductions in nuclear forces would be unlikely to produce a significant drop in spending by the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons.

National Missile Defense

Missile defense has had a controversial history dating back to the debates in the 1960s and 1970s over the U.S. deployment, then dismantling, of the Sentinel and Safeguard ABM system. Since President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative speech in March 1983, a number of major shifts of policy and objectives have occurred.10 The issue of NMD appeared to be headed for a more bipartisan consensus in the past several years, as evidenced by the fact that Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Missile Defense Act of 1999.11 The act states, "It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense against limited ballistic missile attack." However, any consensus on NMD may be fragile, since there is little agreement on the architecture that should be deployed or how to handle the strategic ramifications, including arms control and relations with other countries.

Countries pursuing WMD and ballistic missile delivery systems, and whose interests may run counter to those of the United States--North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and potentially others--are the driving factor for the NMD program as well as for the TMD program. U.S. strategy posits that proliferant states are likely to choose asymmetric challenges to the Nation rather than tackling it head-on in areas of strength. U.S. conventional superiority makes it unlikely that these nations would be successful in a conflict with U.S. forces in the air, on the ground, or in the waters in their region. Their first task is to prevent the United States from deploying or reinforcing military forces in the region. Access denial--attempts by potential adversaries to deny U.S. forces access to their regions--can take several forms. Use of WMD against ports and airfields where U.S. forces might deploy is one adversary approach and one reason that the United States is pursuing TMD. Another approach is to attempt to reduce national will to intervene in the region by threatening use of ballistic missiles armed with WMD against the United States. In this situation, NMD could prevent the United States from being self-deterred from involvement in regional crises.

In the last several years, factors have converged highlighting potential U.S. vulnerability to proliferant threats. For example, the Rumsfeld Commission report in July 1998 found that the ballistic missile threat to the United States is broader, more mature, and evolving more rapidly than originally surmised, and that it may emerge with little or no warning.12 The August 1998 North Korean Taepo Dong test (or attempted satellite launch) with a three-stage missile surprised the intelligence community. That surprise increased awareness of the missile threat and decreased the willingness to assume that the United States would have sufficient warning of the emergence of a threat to begin building defenses later. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said in March 2000:

North Korea already has tested a space launch vehicle, the Taepo Dong-1, which it could theoretically convert into an ICBM capable of delivering a small biological or chemical weapon to the United States, although with significant inaccuracies. It is currently observing a moratorium on such launches, but North Korea has the ability to test its Taepo Dong-2 with little warning; this missile may be capable of delivering a nuclear payload to the United States.

Most analysts believe that Iran, following the North Korean pattern, could test an ICBM capable of delivering a light payload to the United States in the next few years.

Given the likelihood that Iraq continues its missile development--we think it too could develop an ICBM capability sometime in the next decade with . . . foreign assistance.13

Other intelligence officials have said that "the missile threat will continue to grow, in part because they have become important regional weapons in numerous countries' arsenals. Moreover, missiles provide a level of prestige, coercive diplomacy, and deterrence that non-missile means do not." 14

Some are more skeptical of the proliferant-state ballistic missile threat and see it as a hypothetical issue that may or may not develop in the future. Critics of NMD have said that U.S. intelligence agencies "have dropped the bar for what they consider a threat." 15 These critics tend to believe that the threat of U.S. offensive retaliation will be an effective deterrent to these states if they should acquire a ballistic missile capability against the United States.16

Although no decision was made to deploy, the architecture the Clinton administration used for planning purposes had two phases.17 The first phase, to be deployed by 2007, was optimized for the most immediate threat, that from North Korea. Designed to be capable of defending all 50 states against the launch of a few tens of warheads, accompanied by simple penetration aids, the initial NMD system included 100 ground-based kinetic-kill interceptors based in Alaska, an X-band radar at Shemya Island in Alaska, and upgrades to five existing ballistic missile early-warning radars. It would also have used, for purposes of initial detection of missile launches, the space-based infrared satellite system (SBIRS) in high earth orbit. This initial phase could also defend 50 states against a limited attack of a few warheads launched from the Middle East. A threshold deployment of the first 20 interceptors in Alaska was planned for 2005, although the President's September 1, 2000 announcement recognized that it was unlikely any NMD could be deployed before 2006 or 2007.

The second phase, in the 2010-2011 time frame, would have had an enhanced but still limited capability: negation of up to a few tens of ICBM warheads with complex penetration aids launched from either North Korea or the Middle East. The second phase would include another interceptor site, more interceptors (250 total), several more X-band radars, and the SBIRS-low satellite constellation to help discriminate warheads from sophisticated penetration aids.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would cost $26 billion-$60 billion (depending on which capability and what is included) to build and operate the Clinton administration's planned NMD system over 15 years, with annual costs between $1 billion and $6.5 billion.18 As the new administration reassesses the NMD rationale, architecture, and timing, it will need to factor in the ongoing discussions with Pyongyang. If North Korea actually agrees to limit its program in such a way that the United States can be confident that its missiles are not a threat--a big if--then the timelines for deploying NMD may become less severe, depending on actions by other countries of concern, such as Iran's capabilities and relationship with the United States, lifting sanctions against Iraq's pursuit of ballistic missiles and WMD, and the nature of the leadership in Baghdad.

Nuclear and Missile Defense Implications

Any consideration of alternative defense strategies and their implications for nuclear forces and missile defenses should start with a set of basic questions:

About whom is the United States worried strategically?

What is it worried they will do?

How does it deal with and deter those worries? What if they are not deterred? What role do nuclear weapons and missile defenses play?

Defense planners need to ask themselves these questions on a regular basis and to be prepared for answers that change over time. The answers to those questions are different now than they were in 1972, when the ABM Treaty was signed, or in 1983, when President Reagan launched the original Strategic Defense Initiative designed to counter Soviet ballistic missiles, or in 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall but before the breakup of the Soviet Union. In each of those years, the answer to the first question was very definitively the Soviet Union. Now, the United States has three baskets of potential strategic worries.19

Proliferant states, formerly known as rogues and more recently as countries of concern--that is, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and potentially others--are the newest set of worries. Second is Russia: not today's Russia, but the uncertain Russia of the future, when the United States might have to deal with a Russia-gone-bad. Three scenarios for Russia would worry the United States. A more aggressive Russia whose interests conflict with U.S. interests might look on its large remaining nuclear force to influence such a conflict of interests. A Russia with a large nuclear force but with uncertain command and control over it might cause the United States to worry about accidental or unauthorized launches or intentional launches based on faulty information. A Russia hemorrhaging WMD or ballistic missile technology and know-how would be worrisome for other reasons. Any of these scenarios, or some combination of the three, would be bad from an American perspective, but how the United States would deal with each would differ. Finally, China is a hard case, because whether it will become a partner, an enemy, or something in between is unclear.

The concern about any of these countries is that they may use or threaten to use force against the United States, its forces, or its allies and friends. This is particularly troublesome if aggression involves nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons and their delivery means. The threat of use of WMD, particularly in regional crises, may be part of an enemy antiaccess strategy to deter or hamper U.S. intervention in the region.

Another of the basic questions is how to deter. The fundamental goal of deterrence is to prevent aggression by ensuring that, in the mind of a potential aggressor, the potential risks far outweigh the potential gains. Offensive deterrence and defensive deterrence affect different sides of the deterrence scale: offensive forces, whether conventional or nuclear, increase potential risks to aggressors by holding at risk what they value, while defensive forces decrease potential gains by denying an aggressor's ability to hold the United States at risk. The combination of offenses and defenses could, in some scenarios involving limited numbers of ballistic missiles, make an attack "not only fatal because of the certainty of retaliation, but futile because it would not actually succeed in carrying out the mission which was assigned to it." 20

The emphasis that the United States puts on the two sides of the deterrent equation has evolved since the end of the Cold War. The emphasis varies with the country to be deterred, the action to be prevented, and the tools thought to be effective in affecting that calculation in the adversary's minds. There is significant uncertainty about what various leaderships value and about how they calculate risks and gains--whether or not they do so methodically or consciously or in a way that is logical to U.S. thinking. The United States needs to devote significantly more effort to assessing this. The emphasis placed on offensive and defensive deterrence also is likely to have profound implications for both damage limitation and escalation control if deterrence fails.

Nuclear forces and NMD currently have different roles with regard to each basket of concerns. Proliferant states (rogues) are driving the U.S. NMD program; a limited missile defense can defend against a small use or threat of use but is not designed to defend against a large nuclear capability such as the Russian one. On the other hand, the Nation has in the past made a conscious decision to deal with the possibility of a future hostile, aggressive Russia with traditional nuclear deterrence; indeed, Russia is the driver of the size and posture of U.S. strategic nuclear forces. Although the United States has said it is not designing its NMD program to defend against Chinese nuclear capabilities,21 it has not tended to grant China the same status as Russia in the ABM Treaty, where Russia was guaranteed a nuclear capability that could overcome defenses. Indeed, even the proposed Phase I NMD system of 100 interceptors would cause Chinese defense planners concern, given their current nuclear levels. Some have suggested that the United States should not rule out the possibility of defending against China in the future.22 A consensus does not yet exist in the United States about how to treat China: whether to try to defend against Chinese nuclear capabilities (treat it like a rogue state); to continue to deter China with SNF and give it treaty or declaratory commitments that its future nuclear forces will be effective against U.S. defenses (treat it like Russia); or not to size NMD to defend against China, but also not give it formal or informal commitments that its nuclear forces can overwhelm U.S. defenses (treat China in a unique category).

For the future, the role of nuclear forces and missile defenses will be shaped by the overall defense strategy chosen in the next QDR. The six alternative strategies (A-F) presented in chapter 5 differ in important ways, including the worldview, the assumptions about the U.S. role, and judgments about where to put emphasis and where to accept risk. Consequently, the alternative strategies have varying implications for nuclear and missile defense issues. Key variables include the degree of concern about rogues who have or will get WMD and ballistic missiles for delivering them, and the implications for both nuclear forces and NMD. Also key is the degree of concern about a peer competitor in the mid- or long term, and what that means for nuclear force levels and posture and for NMD. Whether that peer competitor is expected to be China or Russia makes a difference, although the strategy alternatives do not address that explicitly. If it were a hostile and aggressive Russia, the United States would more likely choose to handle it with traditional offensive deterrence; if it were an aggressive China, the United States would need to choose whether to emphasize offensive deterrence, defensive deterrence, or some combination.

Deterrence Futures (2020)

Alternative force mixes, such as those presented below, depend on assumptions about the relationship between strategic nuclear forces and national missile defense. There are four ways of thinking about this relationship.

The first possibility is a direct relationship--that is, the more NMD a country has, the more nuclear weapons the other side will have, while the lower the level of NMD, the smaller the number of nuclear weapons (on both sides) can be. The exact slope of the line is not determined, but the general relationship of both up or both down is the primary characteristic of this view. Examples include the 1972 ABM Treaty/SALT, as well as the current Russian proposal for a reduction in SNF to 1,500 and no NMD (at least none beyond that allowed by the ABM Treaty).

The second possibility is an inverse relationship: one can trade off strategic nuclear forces and NMD. This relationship is most often implicit in budget discussions. An example of this view was the approach briefly considered during the last QDR to put strategic weapons (SNF and NMD) in one category and to reduce funds for one in order to fund programs in the other. Another example would be a possible arms control proposal to have an arms control pot of strategic ballistic missiles, with freedom to mix between ICBMs/SLBMs and NMD interceptors. This idea has been discussed in U.S. circles as well as appearing in recent remarks by the Russian strategic rocket forces commander, who suggested introducing "an unchanging general indicator of strategic weapons which would include anti-missile defence means as well as means of nuclear attack . . . A country that wishes to increase one of the components will cut the other." 23

The third possibility is that no logical relationships exist between the levels of the two because they are driven by different factors: NMD is sized by rogue state threats, while strategic nuclear forces are sized to deal with a potentially hostile Russia that might be viewed as a strategic threat again in the future. Because there are different drivers, both nuclear forces and missile defenses should be sized independently of each other, and therefore many combinations are possible (both high, both low, or one high, one low).

The fourth relationship between the two types of forces is characterized by the analogy of interconnected gears: there is a relationship, but it is nonlinear and unpredictable. Predicting cause and effect, or the extent of the effects, is difficult. Thus, with a number of possible ways to view the relationship between nuclear and defense forces, no single logic defines the appropriate mix of U.S. offenses and defenses.

Other cautions are in order. First, while defensive force levels in the force mixes presented below are denominated in terms of numbers of interceptors deployed, that term is used only as a proxy for defensive capability. Besides the number of interceptors, other key variables are the type of interceptors, where they are deployed, their robustness to countermeasures, and how many threat warheads the missile defense system can defend against, with what level of confidence. For example, salvos of four land-based kinetic-kill-vehicle interceptors may be required to defend against one warhead or other credible threat object (such as a decoy that looks like a warhead).24 Thus, in that case the negation capability would be about one-fourth of the number of interceptors. Where the interceptors are based--for example, land-based in the United States, land-based closer to the threat, ship-based, airborne, space-based--would have huge implications for their effectiveness (particularly against countermeasures), for ABM Treaty negotiations, and for the way they would be viewed by other countries. For instance, ship-based interceptors or forward-deployed land-based interceptors, as a complement to U.S.-based interceptors, might be more robust to countermeasures and protect others outside the United States but could raise other concerns.25 Because force mixes presented in this chapter address only relative levels of far-term defense capabilities generically, they are not specific as to the basing mode of the defense interceptor. Nor is the use of the number of interceptors to describe defense levels meant to rule out other types of technology in defenses. If a different type of technology (such as laser weapons) were deployed in the future, one would have to develop an "exchange rate" to determine where along the spectrum of force mixes that would fall relative to current hit-to-kill interceptor technology.

Second, none of the options below contemplates the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It would not seem to be feasible by 2020, particularly since the knowledge of how to design and make nuclear weapons cannot be eliminated.26 The verification standards would be incredibly high in a world in which declared nuclear powers had eliminated their nuclear weapons, since the leverage for a proliferant state that acquired just a few nuclear weapons--or even a single one--would be tremendous.27

Third, further significant reductions in U.S. strategic nuclear forces would require a fundamental change in the targeting policy that underlies U.S. strategy for nuclear deterrence of a potential future hostile Russia. Current U.S. policy on deterring a?Russia-gone-bad (or in the past, the Soviet Union) means being able to hold at risk what the United States believes a potentially hostile leadership would value. This has historically involved four categories of targets: nuclear forces, other military forces, economic and industrial targets, and leadership and command, control, communications, and intelligence assets.28 This type of targeting for deterrence is not based on what would deter the United States or on having enough weapons to kill a specific number of people, or on targeting cities, nor is it determined solely by what nuclear forces the potential adversary has deployed. Because being able to hold at risk Russia's strategic forces is only one part of the strategy, further reductions in Russian nuclear forces would probably not yield further significant reductions in U.S. nuclear requirements regarding Russia. Thus, options that look at levels below the START III framework levels of 2,000-2,500 strategic nuclear weapons would likely require a revision of what the United States would seek to hold at risk in order to deter a Russia-gone-bad; even lower options definitely would. This would require a fundamental change in the guidance by the civilian leadership, including both the President and Secretary of Defense.29 Such revised guidance might drop one or more categories of targets, relax the exacting damage criteria that affect strategic force levels (for example, by reducing the number of targets within each category that must be held at risk with strategic warheads), or adopt a strategy that targets population (a difficult choice, given American values).30

A fourth caution concerning the force mix alternatives presented below is that past U.S. decisions, such as in the NPR, were based on the intention to retain a substantial nuclear force in the face of an uncertain future for Russia. An implicit assumption in those decisions was that whatever the level to which the United States reduced, it would never have more nuclear forces or weapons than that, since increasing nuclear force levels would be both politically and technically difficult particularly under a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The view was that the new lower level would become a de facto ceiling for the United States. That assumption induced caution about going to lower levels. Another way to handle the potential future rise of a peer competitor deemed to require a substantial U.S. nuclear force would be to maintain a robust capability to rearm. This thinking resembles the NPR hedge (including platforms with upload capacity and retention of offloaded warheads). But in the NPR, the hedge was the difference between a START I-plus and a lower START II force. As planners get more comfortable with being able to deter a Russia-gone-bad with the lower START II level of forces, a future hedge might mean the difference between START III or lower levels of nuclear forces (whether treaty-mandated or not) and START II levels. It might mean having stored components or industrial capability and nuclear weapons complex infrastructure to increase nuclear capabilities within the period in which a threat might arise to merit implementation of the hedge. Ironically, the ability to retain such a rearming capability might be what would allow the United States to agree to substantially lower nuclear force levels in the face of strategic uncertainty about future peer competitors. However, the political difficulty of deciding to rearm--whether by putting more weapons on a downloaded system or by building new ones--should not be underestimated. Unless the situation were clear-cut and unambiguous (not often the case), such a step would likely be seen as escalatory.

A fifth caution is that of stability, a factor often cited in discussions of nuclear forces and missile defense. It refers to many different things, including arms race stability (do nations feel a pressure to increase force size or capability?); crisis stability (do postures mean rapid escalation in times of tension?), a subset of which is first-strike stability (in a crisis, is there an incentive to strike first with nuclear weapons?); and political or regional stability (often defined implicitly by the United States as maintaining the status quo). A strategic posture review that considers various alternative offensive and defensive force mixes will need to consider carefully their implications for all of these types of stability carefully.

Arms race stability has been the focus of much of the discussion to date regarding stability of NMD and nuclear forces. However, numbers of nuclear weapons should not be the only--or even the primary--consideration. More important is the posture of forces: for instance, how nuclear forces are deployed, on what platforms, and whether they are survivable in all types of situations, both day-to-day and in times of heightened tension when a nation may put more of its forces on alert (with the risk of escalating a crisis by that very action). Such factors have an impact on whether forces are stabilizing (particularly in the sense of crisis stability), or whether they invite escalation, by a large peer competitor, by a small proliferant nation, or even by the United States itself in its response to crisis situations. Security and stability, not numbers, should be the measure of merit. Lower numbers are not in and of themselves better; one can postulate a force with lower numbers that is very unstable.31 Additionally, early warning and command and control capabilities are important factors in considering crisis stability.

Sixth, in looking at SNF levels, accountable weapons do not equal available weapons. The accountable numbers under START II, for example, include all strategic nuclear weapons that could theoretically be deployed. However, at any given time, the number the United States actually deploys is less. For example, bombers and submarines in long-term overhaul would not be available even if forces were alerted. Actual loadings of available platforms may be less than that allowed by treaty for operational reasons. The platforms available on a day-to-day basis may be less than in the generated case (particularly for bombers, which have been taken off alert). The numbers in the options below envision a continuation of the situation in which accountable weapon levels are greater than actual. In the case of an arms control agreement with a mechanism to count only weapons actually deployed at any time (for example, on SSBNs at sea, not those in port or undergoing overhaul), or under unilateral declarations that included only deployed forces, the strategic force numbers could be lower.

Finally, the disparity between U.S. and Russian tactical nuclear weapons becomes more of an issue in looking at lower numbers (perhaps those below START II, and certainly those below the START III framework).32 Similarly, nondeployed nuclear warheads, production capability, and reliability of deployed platforms and warheads would have to be examined more closely. With smaller numbers, less of a cushion is available to absorb problems or uncertainties with one's own or another nation's nuclear posture.

Possible Future Force Mix Options

As noted above, no single logic on the relationship between defenses and offenses defines the appropriate mix. Consequently, the following eight illustrative force mixes for the 2020 timeframe offer various notional levels of NMD (in ascending order, since the current level is zero) and various levels of strategic nuclear forces (in descending order from the current substantial numbers), combined in illustrative force mixes. (Note that the nuclear force levels include strategic forces only and exclude tactical weapons.)

Although levels of offensive or defensive forces in these mixes of forces are not all-encompassing, they cover a range of possibilities that have been put forward--either explicitly proposed or generally implied--by U.S. government officials, nongovernmental organizations, Congressional members or staffers, political candidates, other countries, or foreign or domestic academic analysts. These illustrative force mixes should be seen primarily as a device to identify and frame key issues that must be addressed in a strategic review. The precise numbers are not the issue; numbers are used only to give a sense of relative emphasis on either nuclear forces or NMD in future strategies and are subject to the various caveats noted above.

The force mixes listed below are also depicted in figure 12-1:

No NMD/heavy SNF (0/3,000-3,500). This option would be a continuation of the no-NMD status quo for the United States, with nuclear forces at START II levels.

No NMD/light SNF (0/1,500). This option would be the mix under the Russian proposal for nuclear reductions to 1,500 warheads and no NMD beyond that allowed in the ABM Treaty. Since the United States is unlikely to want to deploy that defense, it translates to zero for the United States.

No NMD/minimal SNF (0/300-500). This option would drastically reduce nuclear weapons by 2020 and would not deploy NMD. This option might be attractive to those who are not worried about Russia or China as a future peer competitor and who believe that a very low number of nuclear weapons (until elimination) is the best route for stability and security (for example, the United Nations Conference on Disarmament). This mix, given the worldview inherent in it, would refrain from deploying NMD, so as to avoid spurring larger or more sophisticated Chinese nuclear forces or reducing incentives for planned and future Russian reductions. Instead, it would handle rogue states entirely with diplomatic measures, with offensive retaliatory capability, or with preemption.

Very light NMD/medium SNF (100/2,000-2,500). This option represents a long-term continuation of the Clinton administration proposal to the Russians: Phase I of the U.S. NMD program, and START III framework levels for strategic nuclear forces. It assumes continued robust nuclear deterrence of a potentially hostile Russia, with the current targeting strategy for Russia driving nuclear force levels and posture and a small rogue threat driving NMD. It also assumes either very limited countermeasures by rogues, or breakthroughs in U.S. capabilities to handle them (for instance, with boost-phase interceptors or improved ability to discriminate warheads from penetration aids).

Light NMD/light SNF (250/1,500). This mix represents a future at the Phase II NMD levels of the Clinton administration plan, to defend against a few tens of warheads with complex penetration aids launched from either North Korea or the Middle East, and nuclear forces at the levels proposed by Russia.

Medium NMD/very light SNF (600-800/1,000). This option would place NMD at levels comparable to those envisioned under the 1992 U.S. proposals for the Global Protection Against Limited Strikes system and nuclear forces at the levels to which some predict Russia will fall.

Heavy NMD/medium SNF (1,000+/2,000-2,500). This option would maintain nuclear deterrence at START III levels and deploy a robust NMD. The nuclear forces in this option might be driven by a worldview concerned about a Russia-gone-bad, able to overcome even a robust defense, or with capabilities the United States cannot defend against and to deter which it therefore needs a large nuclear force. The NMD forces might be driven by a rogue threat involving multiple rogues, large numbers of ballistic missiles with WMD, and/or very effective countermeasures against NMD, or by a decision to defend against a Chinese ballistic missile force that had large numbers and/or very effective countermeasures.

Heavy NMD/minimal SNF (1,000+/300-500). This mix represents defense-dominant deterrence: the United States would maintain only low levels of nuclear weapons as retaliatory insurance against any WMD-armed power including those that might employ delivery means other than ballistic missiles, and it would deploy robust NMD (in multiple-basing modes) against all potential threats (Russia, China, and rogue states). With its de-emphasis of nuclear deterrence, this option would require not only ballistic missile defense, but also much more emphasis on defending against other types of WMD delivery, such as cruise missiles or other air delivery, or covert delivery to U.S. soil. However, since some nuclear forces remain, offensive deterrence could still play some role in deterring or retaliating against rogues, or even Russia or China, although the determination of which valued assets would need to be held at risk, and the resultant strategy, would have to be very different from today's.

While the strategy alternatives presented in chapter 5 provided the context for formulating the force mixes in figure 12-1, there is not a one-to-one correlation between the strategies and the specific force mixes. However, Strategy A (current strategy of shape, respond, prepare now) might consider force mixes including no-to-light NMD (0-250) and heavy-to-medium SNF (3,500-2,000). Strategy B (engage more selectively and accelerate transformation) might consider force mixes with light-to-heavy NMD (250-1,000+) and heavy-to-medium SNF (3,500-2,000). Strategy C (engage more selectively and strengthen warfighting capabilities) might consider force mixes with no-to-light NMD (0-250) and medium-to-very light SNF (2,500-1,000). Strategy D (engage today to prevent conflicts tomorrow) might consider force mixes with no-to-very light NMD (0-100) and light-to-minimal SNF (1,000-300).

In any event, a considerable amount of time would be needed to reach any of these future alternative force mixes (except those that approximate the status quo), since achieving them would mean reducing nuclear forces, acquiring NMD forces, or both. In the near term, only evolutionary changes would be possible, but the United States should know where it is trying to head and what path it wants to be on, even though changes in the security environment may alter the path and the endpoint.

Assessing the Mix Options

Each of the options outlined above could have a variety of effects on the potential adversaries, allies, and others that must be considered in choosing among them. The players whose reactions must be considered include rogue state proliferants, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan, and U.S. allies and friends.

Rogue State Proliferants

The "no NMD" options above represent a future world in which either no future rogue ballistic missile threat exists, perhaps because of the success of nonproliferation efforts, or rogue ballistic missiles may pose a problem in the future but traditional nuclear deterrence, or even preemption, is determined to be the way to handle those concerns. Deterrence with the threat of retaliation implies not only that rogue leaders are rational, but also that the United States understands what they value and how they calculate risks and gains. For preemption, it would require confidence that the United States knew where their WMD was, could destroy it all before it was used, and would have the political will to initiate a conflict. Under these options, whether for low or high levels of SNF, the question arises as to whether the United States has the appropriate capabilities tailored to rogues who place valued assets (leadership, WMD capabilities) in hardened, deeply buried bunkers. If they cannot be destroyed conventionally, should the United States consider developing earth-penetrating nuclear weapons with low yield and high accuracy? 33 Another consideration in options with very low levels of nuclear forces is the importance of the posture and survivability of U.S. nuclear weapons. Nuclear reductions should not decrease survivable nuclear forces to such low levels or concentrate them in so few places that even rogue state capabilities could destroy them.

For those who would choose options that include some NMD deployments, the assumptions are that rogue states will have ballistic missiles capable of threatening the United States and that the United States cannot be confident that traditional nuclear and conventional offensive deterrence will be sufficient. Even without assuming that rogue state leaders are irrational, it is difficult to know how leaders such as Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein calculate risks and gains, particularly if regime survival were at stake and they felt their backs were against the wall. Even without actual use of ballistic missiles against the United States, the threat of use by rogue states might be able to keep the United States from intervening or reinforcing deployed forces. This worldview sees an inherent connection between U.S. involvement in the world and the power projection that goes with that, and the resulting need for NMD. If the United States is to continue to have worldwide commitments and be out in the world, it is likely to incur the wrath of regimes who do not like U.S. "interference." 34 A proliferant's threat of use of ballistic missiles--and the prospect of massive deaths of noncombatants on U.S. soil because of potential U.S. involvement in a far-away situation--could be a powerful deterrent to U.S. involvement. In this view, it may be that a "good enough" U.S. ballistic missile defense is a small deployment that deflects the threat of use, reassuring the U.S. public that it is not risking Chicago or Los Angeles to an angry proliferant if the United States projects power into the proliferant's neighborhood. In all the options that include NMD, missile defenses would not be the only tool for dealing with such threats; nuclear and conventional offensive deterrence would still play a role even if one were not confident that it is sufficient by itself. In this view, the United States could afford to have less confidence in any one of the capabilities if it has complementary and reinforcing capabilities.35

Russia

Russian officials have said that with any level of U.S. NMD--light or heavy--they would abandon the START process.36 They have also indicated they might withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which banned all U.S. and Soviet land-based ballistic missiles and ground-launched cruise missiles in the 500-5,500 kilometer range. Even if the Russians withdrew from arms control agreements, it appears to be increasingly economically difficult for them to maintain large nuclear forces (especially in the near-to medium-term), although they might keep MIRVs as long as possible, possibly even past the safe lifetime of systems. They might also put more of their limited resources into nuclear forces. It has also been suggested they might also sell ballistic missile or countermeasure technology to rogues. On the other hand, some suggest that Russia eventually will see that reaching an agreement with the United States on offenses and defenses is in its interests, given the declines in Russian nuclear forces forced by economic pressures and its interest in getting limits on U.S. defenses.37 Others suggest that the Russians may wait until they are sure that the United States is going ahead with missile defenses before they negotiate seriously.38

The option for heavy NMD/medium SNF is the one most likely to trouble worst-case defense planners in Russia who might worry about a theoretical disarming U.S. first-strike, if there were enough U.S. defenses to absorb a ragged retaliation with Russia's remaining nuclear forces. It would particularly cause them concern if Russia were economically unable to retain more than 1,000 strategic nuclear warheads, even if there were no arms control treaty beyond START II. At this level of U.S. NMD, even if all 1,000 Russian nuclear warheads were survivable and reliable, it would have no assured deterrence against the United States. The Russians might respond by putting heavy emphasis on penetration aids or other countermeasures to eat up U.S. interceptors and assure penetration; they might also put more emphasis on air delivery if the United States did not also improve its air defenses.

For strategy alternatives that are more responsive to concerns about the breakdown of Russia's strategic command and control system or the rise of disaffected personnel in the Strategic Rocket Forces (perhaps Strategy F in chapter 5), the question arises as to whether the U.S. NMD system should be designed against a Russian accidental or unauthorized launch. The current system is designed to counter the rogue threat and has only incidental inherent capability to handle a few incoming missiles launched by accident from Russia or China; it could not handle the numbers that would be more plausible in an unauthorized launch scenario, from about ten warheads in a battalion of SS-25s with single reentry vehicles (RVs), up to 200 warheads for a boatload of SLBMs.39 Both the very light and light NMD options would be inadequate if an accidental or unauthorized Russian launch were a driver; for such a scenario, a medium NMD force might be more appropriate.40

China

Chinese statements indicate that of the U.S. options outlined above, they would prefer no NMD and minimal SNF.41 China's most immediate concern about options that include any level of NMD is likely to be the erosion of its ability to influence U.S. behavior if it cannot hold the United States at risk. It is particularly concerned that the United States might not be deterred from coming to Taiwan's defense if China used force to reunify Taiwan with mainland China. They seem to fear that the more confidence Taiwan has that the United States would intervene on its behalf, the less restrained it will be in stepping toward independence. (Chinese concerns about Taiwanese independence and its ability to resist Chinese coercion--including the threat of use of SRBMs--may be why China seems to be even more opposed to the United States providing Taiwan with TMD than to U.S. deployment of NMD.)

At very light or light levels of NMD, China may decide to increase its modernization program further to attain the capability to overwhelm U.S. defenses. Even 100 U.S. interceptors would be problematic for the Chinese at their current force levels assumed to be about 20 ICBMs,42 even using the assumptions reportedly used by U.S. defensive planners (4-5 interceptors required per attacking RV).43 However, while the United States will be defense-conservative and assume it needs 100 interceptors to have high confidence that none of 20-25 attacking RVs will get through, Chinese strategic planners will be offense-conservative and assume that if the United States has 100 interceptors and China has 100 RVs, none of the Chinese RVs might get through. This also applies to the case of 250 U.S. interceptors and 250 Chinese RVs. Almost any NMD system capable of defending well against rogue threats will have a significant impact on the Chinese nuclear force from the viewpoint of China's offense-conservative planners.

China has long had under way a modernization program that includes increasing the survivability, range, and accuracy of its nuclear forces.44 It is likely that China has the capability to deploy MIRVs, although it has not yet done so.45 A key question is how much China would build up its nuclear forces, make them more survivable, or MIRV its missiles only in response to U.S. defenses, and how much it would do in any event.46 If China did build up its nuclear forces, would it change the overall strategic equation, if in the end China had approximately the same net nuclear capability over and above U.S. NMD as it has today absent NMD? 47 At what level of NMD forces--such as the medium or heavy NMD options above--might China decide not to try to build up to overcome U.S. defenses? Or would it devote enough resources to overcome defenses at any level?

Apart from NMD, what effect might U.S. nuclear force options have on Chinese nuclear force levels? For options that include minimal levels of U.S. strategic nuclear forces (300-500), would the Chinese maintain their current low levels of strategic forces? How much might they expand and modernize their forces? Would there be an incentive, for either prestige or security reasons, to build up their nuclear forces equal to or above U.S. levels? Would the United States make deep cuts without limits on China's nuclear forces? These are all questions to be considered by the United States in making SNF and NMD plans.

India and Pakistan

U.S. NMD deployments and nuclear forces could influence what India and Pakistan do. If China chose to respond to a U.S. NMD by further increasing its intercontinental nuclear forces, India, a regional rival, might ratchet up its nuclear forces; this in turn could lead Pakistan to follow suit.48 However, other factors might be more important drivers for India's nuclear force decisions, such as China's more numerous intermediate- and short-range nuclear systems capable of striking India (these are unrelated to U.S. NMD decisions and possible Chinese decisions about a buildup of intercontinental nuclear forces).49 Pakistan might also be more of a driver than China for Indian nuclear force decisions.

Some suggest that reductions of U.S. nuclear forces might set an example to keep India and Pakistan from weaponization and further buildups. Alternatively, their nuclear decisions may be influenced very little by what the United States does (or does not do) and very much by regional concerns. It is difficult to know what effect U.S. decisions will have on India and Pakistan, but a considered judgment requires that these questions be asked.

Allies and Friends

Pacific allies--Australia, Japan, and South Korea--have been less vocal publicly about their views on NMD, but European allies have raised concerns that U.S. deployment of NMD would jeopardize the ABM Treaty, upset relations with Russia, and cause a new arms race. Although generally more skeptical about the rogue state threat, some allies also have raised questions about whether it would be decoupling for the United States to have defenses against rogue state ballistic missiles if European allies did not.50 French and German leaders have been particularly vocal in public criticism of NMD plans.51 British parliamentarians have cautioned that the United States "cannot necessarily assume unqualified UK cooperation with U.S. plans to deploy NMD in the event of unilateral U.S. abrogation of the ABM Treaty." 52 Such cooperation would be needed: U.S. NMD plans call for upgraded radars at Fylingdales in the United Kingdom, as well as in Thule, Greenland, which is under Danish control.

In the past, the British and French have expressed concerns about whether U.S. NMD deployments would prompt higher levels of Russian defenses, which could undermine the British or French nuclear forces vis-?-vis Russia. This would seem to be less of a concern with U.S. NMD against proliferant states, particularly given the Russian economy and the resulting unlikelihood of a Russian defensive buildup. However, U.S. cooperation with Russia on missile defense might raise these concerns anew.

If the United States chooses a force mix that includes any level of NMD, it will need to put greater effort into consulting with allies about the strategic rationale. Some Americans have argued that defenses are an enabler of continued commitments to friends and allies, not a withdrawal from it, and that the United States is more likely to come to the defense of allies and of common interests if the homeland is not vulnerable to the use or threat of use of rogue ballistic missiles.53

U.S. willingness to provide missile defense coverage for allies or to cooperate in their acquisition of defenses may address allied concerns about decoupling. In many cases, what is TMD for the United States is effectively NMD for allies. A combination of upper and lower-tier TMD systems (such as Theater High-Altitude Area Defense, Navy Theater Wide, Navy Area Defense, Patriot PAC-3, MEADS, or Airborne Laser) can provide coverage to many smaller countries against the less-than-intercontinental-range missiles that would be targeted at them. The United States has been discussing possible TMD cooperation with allies for many years.54 More recently, President Clinton indicated U.S. willingness to share missile defenses with other "civilized nations." 55

With regard to strategic nuclear forces, the United States would also need to consult closely with both NATO and Pacific allies before going to lower levels, given the long-held U.S. commitment to extend nuclear deterrence to allies.

In the category of friends--such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Taiwan, with whom the United States has no formal mutual defense treaty commitments--there is more ambiguity but some expectation the United States would come to their defense.56 They might be most concerned about the choices the United States makes about NMD. If the United States were subject to ballistic missile threats to its homeland, it might be more likely to be deterred from intervening on behalf of friends where there is a less formal and more ambiguous commitment than where vital interests and stakes are clear--that is, on behalf of countries with whom it has formal treaty commitments.

Getting from Here to There

The discussion above focuses on where the United States might want to be in the future regarding the offense/defense mix and the possible consequences in its relationship with other countries. But how to get there is as important as the destination. How the United States deals with other countries in reaching its preferred outcome can have a big effect on how they react.

Three broad categories of options for dealing with other countries include traditional arms control, transparency or cooperative measures, or an independent, others-be-damned reaction to the security environment. Traditional arms control includes continuing to negotiate treaties, either on nuclear offensive forces only or on both offenses and defenses. If the decision is to pursue treaties on nuclear forces, a further decision is whether to continue them as U.S.-Russia only, or to determine at what point in reductions it would make sense to expand them to include China, the United Kingdom, France, or even India, Pakistan, and Israel. If arms control treaties on defenses were also pursued, they could be treaties that trade off offenses and defenses (this might fit in the U.S.-Russia context only--for example, a treaty that allows a specified number of ballistic missiles, with freedom to mix SLBMs, ICBMs, and defensive interceptors). They could be separate but linked treaties (like ABM and SALT I). They could be independent treaties on offenses and defenses that delink the two, on the basis that the driving factors for each are different. However, the latter would be difficult, given Russian efforts and motivation to link the two.

An approach based on transparency or cooperative measures, but no further treaties on offensive or defensive forces, might include a "Global Protection System" revisited.57 Some have suggested that the time has come to revive the 1992 U.S. proposal for an international system to share information and possibly defensive technologies and capabilities.58 There were some similarities with this in President Clinton's remarks on May 31, 2000, regarding sharing missile defenses with "civilized nations." Such a proposal for cooperation might include building on the agreement reached at the June 2000 U.S.-Russian summit for joint early warning of missile launches.59 Other cooperative measures might include the concept put forward by Richard Garwin and Ted Postol on ground-based interceptors in Russia and elsewhere to catch rogue missiles in boost-phase,60 or the June 2000 proposal of Russian President Vladimir Putin to work with NATO to create "an anti-rocket defense system for Europe." 61 The transparency approach might involve unilateral U.S. statements regarding plans and intentions for strategic forces and NMD, encouraging others to follow suit, but not conditioned on their reciprocating (similar to the 1991-1992 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives). It might include declared limits conditioned on others' actions: for example, "assuming country A does not increase its offensive forces above N, and country B reduces its forces to R, we will reduce our nuclear forces to X and limit our national missile defenses to Z."

The first two approaches--traditional arms control, and transparency and cooperative measures--are not mutually exclusive and might be combined by transitioning from existing agreements, retaining aspects of them, while adding to them or modifying them with other initiatives.

A third approach, in contrast, leaves all countries to undertake their own independent reactions to the security environment. Each country does what it believes it needs to do for its own national security (including for its allies and other vital interests) without regard to the actions of other countries.

Back to the Near Future

Most of the discussion above has looked far ahead. Looking at the near future instead, what does it all mean for the administration and the next QDR? The administration needs to make a considered judgment about the best way to proceed on NMD and SNF in light of its overall strategy and worldview. In that context, it should consider alternative deterrence futures, and take a longer view--beyond the next summit or the next election--of where the United States should be headed with regard to the emphasis it places on offenses and defenses and the proper mix of forces. It will also need to consider all of the relevant factors and potential consequences, instead of addressing them piecemeal, and should develop a plan for dealing with other countries--allies, potential adversaries, and those in between--in getting to the preferred future. Such a review needs to be conducted early in a new administration, whether in the QDR or in a separate review.

Notes

Chapter Thirteen

Choosing among Strategy-Driven Integrated Paths: Setting the DOD Course
by Mich?le A. Flournoy

One of the principal challenges for the new administration in the 2001 QDR will be ensuring that the dozens, if not hundreds, of decisions it will make over the course of the review are consistent with its chosen strategy rather than ad hoc. The administration will need a framework that relates specific choices back both to its defense strategy and to the iron triangle--the choice between spending more on defense, cutting costs, or asking the U.S. military to do less. It will need to develop a strategy-driven, integrated path that knits together the broad policy and programmatic choices consistent with its chosen strategy.

What follows is a description and comparison of four strategy-driven, integrated paths, based on four of the principal strategy alternatives described in chapter 5. Each of these integrated paths describes what a strategy looks like if fully funded and identifies what is in the potential tradespace if it is not fully funded. In addition, we offer a set of key indicators of a strategy-resources gap that would force a fundamental decision to increase the resources available for defense, create more tradespace by changing some of the political constraints affecting what can be put on the table, or change the strategy. While this project did not have the resources to develop fully or to cost out the elements of each integrated path, we offer principles to guide decisions in each key area.

Each integrated path includes several significant elements; each of these key elements is described in two different resource contexts. The context of full funding--that is, resources are relatively unconstrained--describes the principles that would guide decisions in a given area if the strategy were provided with all the resources necessary to achieve a low level of risk. The second context, where resources are constrained, describes the candidates for the tradespace--approaches to consider to reduce costs in a given area while aiming for a low-to-moderate level of risk. Even if a given approach is included in the potential tradespace column, this does not imply that it would necessarily save meaningful amounts of money while yielding no more than moderate risk. Its inclusion means only that it has that potential, appears to be consistent with the strategy, and is worthy of more in-depth examination in the QDR. (Each key element of the integrated path is described in greater detail and in the tables found on pages 354-61.)

The category of key policies and assumptions presents a given strategy's priority missions, that is, where it places emphasis. How many major theater wars should U.S. forces be prepared to conduct? What end-state objectives are envisioned? What is the concept of operations in MTWs? This element also encompasses the degree to which U.S. forces should be involved in presence, engagement, and SSCs; assumptions about the proportion of U.S. forces that would disengage from SSCs to redeploy to MTWs; and the degree and priority of DOD support to civilian agencies for homeland security.

The force structure element describes the methodology that might be used to design a low-risk force structure and identifies capability shortfalls that a given strategy would seek to address. It also suggests some of the force structure and capability tradeoffs that might be considered under a given strategy to reduce force structure costs while trying not to incur more than moderate risk.

The modernization element reflects how a given strategy would prioritize investment in science and technology, research and development, procurement, new starts, and concept development and experimentation efforts, as well as the approaches it would consider to reduce the costs of meeting its modernization goals in a resource-constrained environment.

The force manning element of the integrated path lays out the principles that would be used to determine how the force should be manned in accordance with the priorities of the strategy. Manning refers to the degree to which the billets or spaces in a given unit or organization are actually filled with people. If a unit has fewer people than its organizational table would suggest, it is undermanned; if it has more, it is overmanned. This element considers manning for units in warplans, the rotation base of units that support peacetime operations, high-demand units, and the force generation base. In the tradespace, this element addresses ways of reducing demands on active-duty forces.

Force management deals with policies governing the management of the Armed Forces in peacetime to meet a strategy's objectives. This includes approaches to meeting peacetime demands while dealing with considerations of service tempo rules for both units and personnel; the flexibility of the force and the degree of tolerance for force substitutions; alternative basing and rotation concepts; and different approaches to theater engagement plans.

The readiness element articulates the set of standards that a given strategy would establish in the areas of manning, training, equipment, and infrastructure under different resource constraints.

In the people/quality of life element, principles that would govern policies on military pay, housing, quality of bases and facilities, healthcare, pensions and retiree benefits, and family programs are identified for both the resource-constrained and the resource-unconstrained contexts.

The other element of the integrated path highlights a strategy's general approach to a select number of other important elements of the defense program, such as strategic nuclear forces, the nuclear labs and stockpile stewardship capability, counterproliferation programs, the strategic reserve, infrastructure, and DOD business practices.

Differences among the Strategies

Some factors distinguish one strategy-driven integrated path from another, while other factors are common to most or all of them. The factors that distinguish one path from another are primarily in the areas of key policies and assumptions (reflecting the different mission priorities of the strategies), force structure (particularly in identifying potential tradespace areas), and modernization (both priorities, if fully resourced, and potential tradeoffs, if not).1

Key Policies

In the absence of resource constraints, all four strategies would call on U.S. forces to be able, among other things, to fight and win two major wars with only a low level of risk. Strategy B would likely consider new concepts of operations for achieving that end. In a resource-constrained environment, all four strategies would consider accepting low-to-moderate levels of risk in this area. Strategy A and Strategy C would maintain the current two-MTW standard, while Strategy B might consider adopting a different end-state objective or concept of operations in one of the MTWs, and Strategy D would likely eliminate the requirement to be able to prosecute a second MTW.

Given unconstrained resources, Strategy A would maintain current levels of U.S. military involvement in presence, engagement, and SSCs; Strategies B and C would adopt a more selective approach to engagement and SSCs (but not overseas presence); and Strategy D would expand U.S. military involvement in all of these areas. In a resource-constrained environment, these strategies would make different tradeoffs. Neither Strategy A nor D would reduce its levels of commitment to presence, engagement, and SSCs. By contrast, the two strategies that seek to be more selectively engaged (B and C) might reduce either the level of overseas presence or the resources devoted to presence.

With regard to policy governing the disengagement of U.S. forces from SSCs to be redeployed to MTWs, in a resource-rich environment all of the strategies would be likely to adopt a more conservative approach than today's policy, which expects 100 percent of U.S. forces to be withdrawn from SSCs and redeployed to MTWs in accordance with CINC timelines. When sufficient resources are provided to keep risk at a low level, three of the four strategies (A, B, and C) might call for only 50 percent of the U.S. forces deployed to SSCs to disengage to go to a major theater war.2 Given Strategy D's emphasis on the importance of U.S. involvement in SSCs to prevent and deter larger conflicts, it might adopt an even more conservative approach, perhaps that only 25 percent of U.S. forces would disengage and redeploy to an MTW. Similarly, in a resource-constrained environment in which the objective would be to accept no more than a moderate level of risk, Strategies A, B, and C might adopt the more optimistic assumption that 75 percent of U.S. forces would be able to redeploy to the MTWs within CINC timelines, while Strategy D might assume that 50 percent could do so.

All of the strategies call for continued DOD support to homeland security missions, but Strategy B explicitly gives these missions--particularly national missile defense and dealing with terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction--higher priority than do any of the other strategies. In the absence of resource constraints, all four strategies would aim for low risk in this area; in the presence of resource constraints, most would accept up to a moderate level of risk.

Force Structure

Given full resources, each of the four strategies might use a similar methodology to develop a low-risk force structure; this is not to say that the resulting force structures would be the same, only that the approach to deriving them would use the same principles in each case.3 Specifically, to derive a notional low-risk force, the working group used two calculations and adopted the larger of the two resulting forces: Approach 1 tallied forces required to deter and win two overlapping MTWs with low risk (derived from a broader scenario set), plus forces that would remain in SSCs, based on the level of SSC involvement consistent with the strategy (current, selective, or expanded) and on the strategy's most conservative assumptions about disengagement (50 percent or 25 percent of U.S. forces disengage and redeploy to MTWs), plus forces that would stay behind to provide limited deterrence and response capabilities in unengaged theaters. Approach 2 tallied the rotational forces involved in presence, plus rotational forces involved in SSCs, multiplied by the appropriate service rotational factor (for example, 4:1 or 5:1).4

In addition to determining the greater of these two measurements, a number of capability enhancements to address identified warfighting shortfalls would be considered in such areas as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; precision munitions; strategic lift and prepositioning; support forces; and chemical and biological defenses.5 In deriving a low-risk force, one would also expand the U.S. military's ability to support homeland security missions concurrently with fighting one or more major wars abroad; this might involve expanding the pool of specialized assets that would be tasked for both homeland security and warfighting missions. One might also consider building additional force structure or shifting additional units from the Reserve to the active components for high-demand assets that are most likely to experience operations and personnel tempo strains in peacetime. All in all, this is a very conservative approach to sizing U.S. conventional forces and would yield force structures significantly larger and more expensive than today's.

In a resource-constrained environment, the four strategies would take somewhat different approaches to delineating the force structure tradespace--that is, determining the tradeoffs or approaches to be considered in an effort to reduce costs while accepting no more than moderate risk. For Strategies A, B, and C, the tradespace candidates might include both dual-apportioning and swinging some forces between two different MTWs; greater reliance on the Reserve components in MTWs; greater reliance on allies in MTWs; increased investment in ISR, precision munitions, and other capability enhancements to increase combat effectiveness while reducing combat platform and unit requirements; elimination or conversion of less critical forces to fill higher priority requirements (within and between services), such as warfighting capability shortfalls or low density/high demand units; and altering the size and composition of the strategic reserve. Here, the focus is on reducing force structure requirements, primarily through different approaches to meeting the requirements of a second MTW. It should be noted, however, that many of these approaches are already reflected to some degree in today's force structure and planning. In a resource-constrained environment, Strategy B would add to this list one more candidate: it would size forces just for warfighting, transformation, and homeland security, while treating presence, engagement, and SSCs as lesser included cases. Strategy C would offer a variation on this theme: it would size forces only to meet warfighting requirements, treating all other missions as lesser included cases.

Strategy D would define the force structure tradespace very differently. It would consider sizing forces for expanded levels of presence, engagement, and SSCs, plus one major theater war, treating a second MTW as a lesser included case (and effectively dropping the two-MTW standard); modifying concepts of operations for overseas presence to allow greater use of force substitutions and to reduce the associated force structure requirements; eliminating or converting less critical forces to build the density of assets that are in highest demand in peacetime; reducing the size of the strategic reserve; and increasing reliance on allies across the spectrum of operations, especially in SSCs. Here, the focus is on tailoring the force to meet peacetime demands while maintaining a core capability to fight and win a single MTW.

The working group examined many of these issues in detail to determine which ones might merit further development in the QDR. Both the analytic approach and the results of that effort are described in chapter 8 on key force structure and capability issues.

Modernization

One of the most significant areas of difference among the four strategies is that of modernization. Whether sufficient resources are provided to keep risk at a low level, or resources are constrained, the strategies offer markedly different defense investment priorities. Strategies A and C would balance the objectives of urgent recapitalization for parts of the force with long-term transformation of the force overall to meet future challenges, such as the potential rise of a near-peer competitor in 2025 or beyond, or the nearer-term prospect of the use of antiaccess strategies and asymmetric means by regional adversaries. Both of these strategies would seek to balance funding across several competing investment priorities: S&T, R&D, current acquisition programs, new starts, concept development and experimentation, and critical warfighting enhancements. In a resource-constrained environment, both would consider similar candidates to define modernization tradespace, including foregoing or slowing procurement of selected systems and retaining legacy systems with upgrades or service life extension programs (SLEPs); increasing investment in ISR/precision munitions enhancements and reducing the number of shooter platforms procured; greater use of a hedging approach that would keep some new systems in the R&D and limited prototyping phase until there was strategic warning of the threat; and taking advantage of allied R&D and acquisition efforts in areas in which allies or partners have equivalent or superior technologies.

In contrast, Strategy B would accelerate funding for more transformational systems--those aimed at maintaining U.S. military superiority in the face of a future near-peer competitor or a lesser adversary employing antiaccess strategies or asymmetric means. These systems typically might have some or all of the following characteristics: integrated architecture, extended ranges, reduced manning, increased mobility, enhanced precision, and stealth. Strategy B would reduce or cancel buys of nontransformational systems, to free up resources for higher priorities, such as increased investment in S&T, more robust concept development and experimentation, and new starts, such as national missile defense. In a resource-constrained environment, Strategy B would focus on increasing investment in generation-after-next systems for a smaller but more capable force, including increased S&T, R&D, and concept development and experimentation; reducing or eliminating investment in selected next-generation systems inconsistent with the goals of transformation, while retaining some legacy systems with upgrades or SLEPs to bridge the gap to generation-after-next systems; increasing investment in ISR/precision munitions enhancements while reducing the numbers of shooter platforms being procured; and leveraging the R&D and acquisition efforts of allies in areas in which they have equivalent or superior technologies.

Strategy D would adopt a very different set of modernization priorities. It would reduce or cancel buys of more expensive, high-end transformational systems in order to replace aging platforms systematically to maintain a larger force. More specifically, Strategy D would favor procurement of additional numbers of proven systems, upgrades to existing platforms and systems, service life extension programs, capability enhancements such as improvements to command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets, precision munitions enhancements, and force protection improvements. To the extent that Strategy D would invest in transformation, it would focus on the low end of the operational spectrum, such as new concepts and capabilities for overseas presence and smaller-scale contingencies. This strategy would focus on improving interoperability with allies and partners. In a resource-constrained environment, Strategy D would sacrifice procurement of transformational systems and some investment in S&T and R&D in order to recapitalize and sustain a larger force structure and a more assertive strategy of engagement.

Similarities among Strategies

Equally striking are the key elements of the integrated paths that do not exhibit much or any change across the strategies. Here, the fundamental differences were driven not by strategy but by resource assumptions: whether choices were being made in the context of constrained or relatively unconstrained resources. These factors suggest a host of choices that will be on the administration's plate in the next QDR, regardless of the strategy it chooses.

Force Manning

Given full resources to keep risk at a low level, each strategy calls for full manning of all units in warplans and the peacetime rotation base, increased manning in selected high-demand units and specialties, and increases in force generation capability. All told, this would translate into a significant increase in the total end-strength of the U.S. military. In a resource-constrained environment, all of the strategies contemplate less than full manning for so-called late deployers in major wars; less than full manning for the peacetime rotation base; no overmanning of high-demand assets; greater use and integration of Reserve component units and personnel; and initiatives to civilianize some military functions, such as finance and accounting, computers and information management, long-haul communications, maintenance, repair and refurbishment, and supply chain management.

This raises several crucial questions for QDR decisionmakers. First, should manning be increased in some types of units to reduce warfighting risk and peacetime tempo strains? Which types of units should receive highest priority for additional manning? G?ven economic and demographic trends, could this additional end-strength be recruited and retained? Second, could the requirements for active-duty personnel be significantly reduced through greater use of Reserve component units and personnel, or the transfer of some functions from the military to the civilian sector?

Force Management

Each of the four strategies calls for force-management policies that would facilitate effective response to peacetime demands through predictable deployment windows consistent with service tempo rules. Three services--the Navy, Marine Corps and, more recently, Air Force--have adopted rotational force-management systems that enable them to meet this objective better under normal circumstances. The Army still faces enormous force-management challenges as it seeks to use a force designed and organized primarily for fighting major wars to meet a substantial and very different set of peacetime demands. Given full resources, each strategy also calls for a flexible force structure that facilitates substitutions within and across services and for meeting all CINC theater engagement needs as a priority matter. If resources are constrained, all of the strategies would envision greater use of force substitutions to manage peacetime tempo strains; more selective peacetime engagement by the CINCs and a resource allocation process that would prioritize CINC engagement activities on a global (rather than strictly regional) basis, perhaps resulting in reductions or cancellations of lower priority activities in one region to facilitate higher priority activities in another; and greater use of new basing concepts, crew rotation concepts, and force substitutions to reduce the force requirements associated with meeting peacetime engagement and presence demands.

This raises several crucial questions for QDR decisionmakers. First, would implementation of a rotational force-management approach similar to those used by the other services be beneficial for the Army? What would such an approach look like in practice? Second, what is an acceptable standard for cumulative time away from home (days per year or days per 2 years)? Should the same standard be used across the services? Under what conditions should this standard be waived in peacetime? Third, how can DOD put teeth in the theater engagement planning process to ensure that CINC engagement plans, in combination with other demands such as training and SSCs, do not create undue tempo strains on the force, and that resources are consistently allocated to the highest priority demands? Fourth, are there forward-basing or crew-rotation concepts that could reduce some of the requirements associated with meeting the overseas presence demands of a given strategy?

Readiness

In the readiness arena, the key choices are driven not only by differences in strategy but also by different assumptions about resource levels and priorities. With full resources, the goal would be full funding for manning, training, equipment, and infrastructure accounts, with the objective of achieving C-1 status for all units in warplans and for all high-demand units in peacetime (a force rated C-1 has only minor deficiencies that have negligible impact on its capability to perform required missions). In the absence of full resources, one might accept less than full manning for some units; full funding to meet essential (if less than optimum) training for required missions; less than full funding for spare parts, depot maintenance, and war reserve materials, and less than full funding for mobilization and support facilities. In short, the standard here would be adequate funding to maintain all units in warplans or in high demand at C-1 or at least C-2 status (a force rated C-2 has some deficiencies with limited impact on its capability to perform required missions).

This raises some critical questions for QDR decisionmakers. First and foremost, what should the force be ready for? The answer depends on what priority missions are set by the next defense strategy; this determination will go a long way toward identifying which units should be kept at what states of readiness. Second, what are the risks associated with less than full funding of the various readiness accounts? Third, are there any realistic management initiatives, such as commercialized or competitively sourced maintenance and logistics functions and other installation activities, that could reduce the costs of maintaining high levels of readiness?

People and Quality of Life

In the absence of resource constraints, all of the strategies would aim to make service in the U.S. military more competitive with working in the private sector, guarantee a middle-class life for all members of the All Volunteer Force, and enhance the personnel readiness of the force. In practice, this would mean further increasing the pay of military personnel, improving access to and availability of quality housing, improving the quality of the bases and facilities where military personnel live and work, providing a strong healthcare system, improving pensions and retiree benefits, and expanding and enhancing programs geared toward military families. In a resource-constrained environment, some would put such people and quality of life issues in the tradespace like any other issue and adopt the standard of maintaining the status quo or avoiding losing ground in any of the specific areas listed above. They would also put even greater emphasis on exploring possible areas of reform or divestment that could generate cost savings.

This suggests several key questions for the QDR. First, should quality of life programs be in the tradespace? Given the centrality of people to the quality of the U.S. military and the challenges DOD faces in recruiting and retaining them, can the United States afford anything less than fully funding this aspect of the defense program? Second, can DOD provide comparable or higher quality goods and services to members of the military at reduced cost by fundamentally changing its approach in some of these areas, such as healthcare, housing, schools, and commissaries?

Other

With full resources, most of the strategies would contemplate enhancing sustainment and perhaps modernization measures for U.S. strategic nuclear forces, enhancing the current nuclear laboratories and stockpile stewardship capability, and expanding programs aimed at countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In a more resource-constrained environment, most of the strategies would contemplate further reducing either the size of the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal or its level of launch readiness while seeking to delay major modernization decisions, and maintaining but not enhancing stockpile stewardship capability and counterproliferation programs. They would also consider ways of reducing the size or readiness of the strategic reserve of conventional forces.

In addition, all of the strategies would seek ways of further streamlining DOD by eliminating excess infrastructure through additional consolidation, rounds of base closure, outsourcing, and commercialization, as well as adopting more efficient business and management practices. Although much of the low-hanging fruit in these areas has already been picked during the last decade, we believe there are significant additional savings to be had if the administration, the services, and key members of Congress are willing to challenge political constraints that have traditionally hampered progress. Reaping substantial savings in this area would require breaking some zealously guarded rice bowls in the Pentagon, the services, Congress, and possibly the broader community of military retirees and dependents.

Several questions arise for the next QDR. First, what is the future vision for U.S. strategic nuclear forces? What is the appropriate nuclear posture and modernization program to support that vision within resource constraints? Should DOD anticipate cost savings or additional investment in this area over time? Second, what are the most crucial counterproliferation programs to be pursued in the next decade? Are some of these so essential that they should be kept out of the tradespace? Third, what kind of conventional strategic reserve is needed to support the defense strategy? Should DOD anticipate cost savings or additional investment in this area over time? Fourth, are there realistic ways to streamline infrastructure further (for example, with more base closures and elimination of other excess facilities), to increase efficiency in DOD business practices, and to reduce costs over time? Are the administration, the services, and the Congress willing to pay the political price for substantial savings in these areas?

Key Indicators

The final element of each integrated path is a set of key indicators, each of which, if present to a significant degree, should cause a fundamental reevaluation of a given strategy and the level of resources allocated to implement it. These key indicators would be signs of a substantial mismatch between strategy and resources that must be addressed if highly corrosive effects on the U.S. military are to be avoided. These include:

• inability to provide adequate resources for the required number of MTWs at moderate risk, due either to capability shortfalls or to readiness shortfalls;
• inability to sustain the required level of overseas presence, engagement, and SSCs without unacceptable tempo levels for LD/HD assets and other high-demand units;
• inability to support homeland security missions concurrently with other high-priority missions (for example, warfighting) at moderate risk;
• chronic inability to meet modernization objectives, such as the most urgent recapitalization needs, or having to cancel programs to fund others;
• inability to fund high-priority new starts;
• inability to sustain suitable levels of concept development and experimentation in support of transformation;
• inability to cope with technical surprise or emerging threats;
• inability to maintain a credible, safe, and secure nuclear deterrent;
• chronic inability to meet recruiting and retention goals;
• deterioration of the morale and quality of life of the force.6

If allowed to persist, these conditions would degrade the quality, capability, and readiness of the U.S. military and its ability to protect and advance national interests. Thus, as indicators, they can serve two very important purposes in the upcoming QDR. The first is to convey a clear message to the administration, the Congress, and participants in the review that, with a couple of notable exceptions, most of these indicators exist today, suggesting that there is already a profound gap between the defense program and resources that have been made available to support it. This increasingly indisputable fact means that the next QDR cannot afford simply to refine the current approach, tweak the current defense program at the margins, or hope to muddle through. Rather, the next administration must take substantial action to increase defense spending, cut costs (without increasing risk to unacceptable levels), or ask the military to do less. This is the iron triangle described at the beginning of this volume that the administration will face in the 2001 QDR; it will require enormous political will and leadership to manage.

The second way in which some of these indicators could prove useful in the next QDR is to provide decisionmakers with a means of determining whether they have adequately closed the strategy-resources gap in the course of the review. Do modeling and analysis indicate that the chosen force structure can meet the strategy's warfighting requirements at moderate risk? Do they indicate that the force can sustain a strategy's anticipated level of peacetime operations within acceptable operations and personnel tempo levels? Do they indicate that the force can support homeland security requirements concurrently with warfighting requirements? Does programmatic analysis indicate that DOD will be able to meet its modernization objectives within the fiscal guidance? These key indicators can be used to focus analysis during the review on the most important judgments the administration will have to make in creating a sound defense strategy and a sustainable defense program.

Conclusion

If the administration wants to root its programmatic decisions firmly in strategy, it will need to develop a strategy-driven integrated path (or something akin to it) as a framework for decision. Such a framework would highlight both what a given defense?strategy would require across the various elements of the defense program (force structure, modernization, manning, readiness, and so on) and what cost-saving tradeoffs (tradespace), if any, might be consistent with the strategy in each area. Putting the myriad programmatic decisions of the next QDR in such a strategy-driven context will be crucial to charting a sound and sustainable course for defense. Our comparative analysis of four different integrated paths also suggests a host of key questions that QDR decisionmakers will need to address, no matter what strategy is adopted by the new administration. In order to answer the fundamental question of whether enough has been done during the review to bring the requirements of the defense strategy and the resources available into balance, the administration will need to develop a set of key indicators of a strategy-resources mismatch. We have offered a short list of such indicators as a starting point, and their message is sobering and clear: fundamental change is required now if we are to sustain the health and unmatched prowess of the U.S. military in the years and decades to come.

Notes

Chapter Fourteen

Elements of Success for the QDR
by Mich?le A. Flournoy

The Bush administration must make a more fundamental and difficult set of choices in the 2001 QDR than its predecessors did in previous defense reviews. It cannot afford to refine the current approach, tweak the current defense program at the margins, or hope to muddle through. The magnitude of the current strategy-resources mismatch, and the damage it will cause over time if not addressed, demand that the next administration increase the level of resources devoted to defense, work with Congress to expand and take advantage of potential tradespace to reduce costs while maintaining acceptable levels of risk, or change the defense strategy to reduce the demands being placed on the Armed Forces. This fundamental set of choices, the iron triangle of the next QDR, will require extraordinary leadership and a willingness to spend significant amounts of political capital on the part of the President, Secretary of Defense, and Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In reality, the administration may need to work all three legs of the iron triangle to bring defense strategy and resources into balance. While some increase in defense spending seems likely, it is highly unlikely that the increase will be large enough to close the projected $30-50 billion annual gap.1 Therefore, any increase in the defense topline will have to be accompanied by efforts to identify potential tradespace--changes in the defense program that would reduce costs without incurring unacceptable levels of risk. Though some argue that there is little or no tradespace left after a decade of cutting budgets and forces, others make a persuasive case that there are still substantial efficiencies and savings to be had. Reducing excess infrastructure, reforming personnel management systems, and adopting better business practices are just a few of the examples frequently cited. Taking advantage of this tradespace may, however, be extraordinarily difficult for both the new administration and the new Congress. The new civilian leadership in DOD must demonstrate willingness to make hard and perhaps unpopular choices. The military leadership must demonstrate willingness to be a fully accountable partner in stepping up to the most difficult choices. And the new Congress must, in some cases, put aside the politics of pork to enable the Pentagon to reduce or eliminate low-priority programs, close or convert excess infrastructure, and change inefficient ways of doing business. This is a tall order, but not an impossible one if the parties understand that the long-term health of the U.S. military hangs in the balance.

The final element in this equation is the defense strategy: what the President asks the Armed Forces to be prepared to do in time of war and in peace. If the combination of budget increases and cost-cutting measures are insufficient to close the projected shortfall, then the new administration will have to determine how to reduce the demands placed on the U.S. military without compromising American security. In support of this effort, we offer the following primary recommendations to the new administration and those who will participate in the 2001 QDR. The first three recommendations address the nature of the strategy and policy reviews the administration should conduct early in its term to set a course on defense and national security issues. The others identify elements that will be critical to the success of the QDR and to making strategy-driven choices for America's security.

Three Interrelated Reviews

In order to set a true course in national security and defense matters early in its term, the new administration will need to conduct at least three interrelated reviews: the National Security Strategy Review, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and a strategic posture review.2 Our recommendations for each follow.

The administration should make the National Security Strategy Review required by Congress a rigorous interagency exercise to establish the new President's national security vision and priorities, not just a pro forma exercise to produce a public relations document. The review should involve the principals of all of the relevant agencies and result in prioritized objectives and clear guidance for planning, resource allocation, and resource management among and within the national security agencies.

Second, given the profound set of choices that it must confront in the defense arena, the administration would be wise to pause and reconsider the objectives and scope of the Quadrennial Defense Review. Rather than striving to complete a comprehensive defense strategy and program review in a matter of months, it might be more prudent to conduct a truly strategic review aimed at establishing a vision, setting broad DOD priorities, and deciding only the big ticket defense program issues, with a follow-on effort to conduct more in-depth analysis and develop a detailed implementation plan. Adopting this approach would require consultations with Congress to amend some of the substantive requirements in the QDR legislation, but the end result might be more in keeping with the type of review the legislation was meant to inspire.

Third, the administration should undertake a strategic posture review of U.S. policy with regard to both strategic nuclear forces and national missile defense. Such a review would meet the requirements of the Congressionally-mandated Nuclear Posture Review while enabling the administration to take a more comprehensive and integrated look at strategic offense and defense issues in the evolving security environment. Such a review would focus on establishing the long-term objectives that should guide U.S. strategic offense and defense policy and on articulating an implementation plan for realizing that vision. It would address a broad range of interconnected issues: nuclear and missile defense strategy, policy, force structure, operations, infrastructure, and how to deal with other countries, both allies and potential adversaries, to realize these policy objectives through arms control, unilateral actions, cooperative endeavors, and other means. (Chapter 12 addressed the range of issues that would need to be covered and outlines a number of concrete options for the administration to consider.)

These three reviews will undoubtedly overlap in time, issues covered, and people and organizations involved. All will need to be completed within the first year of the administration, and all will require a substantial amount of time and effort on the part of the new national security and defense team. To succeed in setting the administration's course, these reviews will need to be conducted in such a way that their results inform and reinforce one another.

The strategies and policies they produce will also need to be given teeth if they are to affect resource allocation within and among the national security agencies. This will require the administration to be as explicit as possible about where it wants to place emphasis and where and how it is willing to accept or manage a degree of risk. It must be clear about its relative priorities within the strategy. The twelve questions discussed in chapter 1 identify the principal defense strategy choices the new administration will have to make; the defense strategy alternatives identified in chapter 5 provide a menu of options for the new administration. These options can be used singly or in combination to help jump-start the process of strategy development in the QDR. The DOD leadership must take ownership of the strategy early in the process, issue the strategy early in the QDR in the form of binding guidance to participants, and ensure that the strategy is consistently and rigorously enforced in the decisionmaking fora of the review.

Elements of Success for the QDR

There are several elements that will be crucial to the success of the next QDR--that is, crucial to addressing the strategy-resources mismatch and working the iron triangle. The recommendations that follow aim to distill some of these elements into actionable proposals for the new administration.

The 2001 QDR must be both strategy-driven and resource-constrained.

The QDR must be strategy-driven to ensure that the Nation uses the resources it devotes to defense (means) in the most effective ways possible to achieve its national objectives (ends). But ultimately, the review must be resource-constrained to be relevant. A review that assumes no budgetary constraints is not particularly useful to the President and Secretary of Defense, who must wrestle with hard choices about how to allocate limited resources to protect and advance U.S. interests and security objectives. The QDR must confront two broad strategy challenges: first, to make a strategy-based case for the resources required to meet national objectives at an acceptable level of risk, and second, to determine the best strategy possible, given the resources ultimately made available for defense, while explicitly assessing the risks, if available resources fall short of the ideal.

The administration should conduct a comprehensive assessment of the 2001-2025 security environment to develop a consensus view of the threats and opportunities for which DOD should plan, as well as those against which it should hedge.

This assessment should be one of the first steps taken in the QDR. It should draw on a broad range of sources and methods to capture not only areas of agreement on what is most likely but also issues of debate that suggest greater uncertainty. Chapter 2 offers such an assessment as a starting point for further work in the QDR. As chapter 3 argues, particular attention should be paid to the rise of asymmetric threats to the United States, its interests, allies and forces.

The new administration should articulate a new and more compelling rationale for the size, capabilities, and resource requirements of the U.S. military.

In developing a new defense strategy, the administration should seize the opportunity to put forward a standard that will maintain U.S. military superiority into the future while offering a more compelling and complete rationale for U.S. conventional forces than two overlapping MTWs. Although it may well be prudent to retain the ability to conduct major military operations in more than one theater at a time, the administration should come up with a new formulation that cannot be equated to two particular scenarios, such as Iraq and Korea. This will require changing terms from MTWs to something else and capturing the broader range of priority missions that the services must be prepared to perform to protect and advance American interests, now and in the future. Basic definitions (of MTWs and SSCs, for example) need to be rethought, and force-sizing criteria and declaratory policy reformulated.

In translating defense strategy into criteria for sizing and shaping forces, the administration should take into account not only warfighting requirements, but also high-priority peacetime, homeland security, and transformation demands. The past decade of experience has made it abundantly clear that forces sized primarily for warfighting cannot meet the full range of peacetime demands without putting undue strains on the force. Our analysis suggests this would be true even if U.S. military involvement in SSCs were more selective. In addition, homeland security missions may place demands on U.S. forces that should be considered in addition to the warfighting demands they might have to meet concurrently. QDR planners should also take a second look at the size and shape of the force through the lens of future capability requirements to ensure that the force structure chosen in the next QDR puts the U.S. military of 2001 on the right path to becoming the U.S. military envisioned for 2010 and 2020.

The strategy guidance issued in the QDR should broaden the scenario set used for force planning and resource allocation in DOD.

The focus on two particular MTW scenarios, Iraq and Korea, as the primary basis for U.S. conventional force planning is highly problematic. These two cases are not representative of the range of plausible MTW scenarios, now or in the future. The focus of U.S. force planning in the QDR should shift from optimizing the force for two particular scenarios to building a portfolio of capabilities that is robust across a broad range of anticipated and future threats. This will require broadening the scenario set to include a wider range of potential threats, end-state objectives, operational constraints (such as adversary use of antiaccess strategies), and concepts of operations. The President and his most senior advisors should pay particular attention to the issue of appropriate end-state objectives for a broader range of MTWs, as these objectives will determine the range of military options available to the President in war and the assumptions that will guide the sizing and shaping of the Armed Forces.

The administration must be explicit in its defense strategy about the priority and objectives of transformation, the capabilities it wants the effort to yield, and the risks it is willing to accept along the way.

The strategy should articulate a prioritized list of future challenges or scenarios that transformation should seek to address (for example, the long-term rise of a peer competitor, the mid-term rise of more capable adversaries employing antiaccess strategies, the rise of asymmetric threats to the U.S. homeland) and the types of capabilities the effort should yield. The latter will need to be more specific than the very general "operational concepts" laid out in Joint Vision 2020 if they are to provide actionable guidance for those involved in concept development, experimentation, research and development. The guidance on transformation should also be as explicit as possible about priority areas in which DOD should invest additional resources, and areas in which resources should be reduced, programs eliminated, and activities curtailed. It should at least specify the criteria that should be used to determine these, as well as the degree of risk the administration is willing to accept in the near term to pursue its transformation objectives. In chapter 11, Michael O'Hanlon identified two main schools of thought on the RMA and transformation: the C4ISR school, which emphasizes the potential of modern computers, electronics, and related technologies; and the global reach/global power school, which envisions more sweeping and radical change across the whole spectrum of military technologies, organizations, doctrine, and tactics. Which school the administration identifies itself with will have profound implications for the size and shape of the DOD investment program.

The administration should take a fresh, top-to-bottom look at overseas presence as part of the QDR.

What does the administration's defense strategy mean for overseas presence? Do its requirements differ from current requirements? What are the best ways to meet these requirements? Should new ways of meeting overseas presence requirements, such as force substitution, additional forward stationing, or new operational concepts, be considered? As argued in chapter 9, these questions should be addressed for each of the key regions to which the United States deploys substantial forces--particularly Europe, East Asia, and Southwest Asia--as well as on a global basis.

The administration should seek to reduce the friction produced by conducting a robust level of peacetime operations while striving to maintain high levels of readiness for war.

As discussed in chapter 10, the administration should examine ways of both reducing the peacetime demands placed on the Armed Forces and increasing the available supply of forces for those peacetime operations to which it gives high priority. Specifically, it should consider the following options to reduce demand: change the criteria for intervention or participation in SSCs; increase use of civilian contractors, non-DOD government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations; limit SSC commitments based on a pre-determined force ceiling; reduce force commitments to long-duration SSCs, based on revised concepts of operations; or reduce the level of U.S. peacetime military engagement activities overseas. Several additional options should be considered to increase the available supply of forces for those peacetime missions given priority in a chosen strategy: addressing force structure inadequacies or imbalances to enhance military capability for priority peacetime missions; implementing new force management initiatives; or establishing a new funding mechanism for SSC operations.

The administration should adopt or develop a rigorous and transparent methodology for developing and assessing force structure options.

This has at least three dimensions. First, the administration will face several key decisions in sizing and shaping U.S. conventional forces to meet the requirements of its chosen strategy at acceptable levels of risk. It will require a methodology that explicitly addresses each of these decisions and offers QDR planners a transparent and replicable way to translate strategy into force structure options. DOD currently lacks such a methodology. We believe there is great promise in the working group's approach described in chapter 8, and it is offered to the 2001 QDR as a way to proceed.

The second dimension is a rigorous and transparent methodology for assessing risk. Risk assessment is critical to the success of the next QDR and to sound defense decisionmaking more broadly, yet here again DOD lacks an adequate approach. Such an approach should integrate risk assessment in several areas, especially in force performance, force sustainability, force preparation for the future, and affordability. Risk should be treated explicitly in framing the decisions and reporting the results of the review. The risk assessment methodology presented in chapter 7 offers a strong foundation on which the QDR can build. Risk assessment during the QDR itself should strive to yield rough order-of-magnitude judgments of risk to inform the most important decisions; more detailed risk assessment should be pursued as part of the follow-on analytic effort.

The third dimension is a new overall approach to assessing force structure alternatives to support a given strategy. A more comprehensive, varied, and iterative approach to assessing force structure options is needed to optimize force structure across a broader range of scenarios and the strategy's highest priorities. In the longer term, DOD needs to increase investment in new modeling, analysis, and decision-support tools.

Here, an important caution should be kept in mind. The Bush administration cannot afford to use the need for better analysis and more rigorous risk assessment to postpone some of the most difficult defense decisions. Failure to confront the hard choices would be a decision in and of itself that would have dire consequences for the U.S. military. This situation reinforces a previous recommendation that the QDR should focus primarily on developing a strategy, setting priorities, and making the big program decisions, with a follow-on effort to flesh out and refine all of the programmatic details.

Once the administration determines its desired defense strategy, it should develop an associated integrated path.

As detailed in chapter 13, the integrated path would describe what the strategy would require if fully resourced, identify what may be in the tradespace consistent with the strategy if available resources are less than desired, and delineate the key indicators that can be used to assess whether, after working the available tradespace, a fundamental mismatch remains between strategy and resources. In so doing, it must rigorously and realistically assess potential tradespace candidates in every area of the defense program, paying particular attention to the specific issues and questions outlined in chapter 13 in the areas of force structure, modernization, force manning, force management, readiness, people and quality of life, nuclear forces, business practices, and infrastructure. No aspect of the defense program should be disregarded, and no stone should go unturned.

Numerous force structure and capability issues may merit further analysis in the QDR as potential tradespace candidates, depending on the strategy chosen. Here, the objective should be to determine whether opportunities exist to reduce costs without accepting more than moderate levels of risk in priority areas of the strategy. Chapter 8 identified a number of potential candidates, including greater reliance on Reserve forces, tradeoffs between ISR/PM enhancements and shooter platforms, force mix in MTWs, new concepts of operations in MTWs, greater reliance on allies, the size and composition of the strategic reserve, and DOD investment priorities. Others might be drawn from the list of policy initiatives to reduce points of friction in the force, as described in chapter 10.

Other force structure and capability areas should be further analyzed in the QDR as potential areas for increasing investment to keep risk at low to moderate levels: warfighting enhancements, strategic lift and prepositioning enhancements, high demand assets in peacetime operations, and capabilities for meeting homeland security requirements concurrently with warfighting requirements.

The integrated path should also delineate key indicators to determine whether the gap between a desired strategy/defense program and available resources has been adequately addressed over the course of the review. These key indicators can serve two critical functions in the QDR. They can send a clear message to the incoming administration, the Congress, and participants in the review that there is already a profound strategy-resources gap that is beginning to have corrosive effects on the U.S. military and must be addressed. And they can serve as metrics to focus analysis during the review on the most important judgments the new administration will have to make in creating a sound defense strategy and program, and to assist QDR decisionmakers in determining whether they have adequately closed the strategy-resources gap over the course of the review.

Tough Choices

The administration must make some tough choices in the 2001 QDR if the strength and health of the U.S. military are to be maintained in the future. Although the new team may come into office with many competing priorities, addressing the gap between the projected defense program and the level of resources devoted to defense will loom large as one of its primary responsibilities. Failing to close this gap would harm the U.S. military greatly, so the stakes are high. The next QDR will demand difficult decisions and a tremendous level of leadership and political will from the President, Secretary of Defense, and Joint Chiefs. With this responsibility, however, comes an historic opportunity to craft a defense strategy and program that will maintain the unparalleled quality and strength of the U.S. military and protect and advance American security well into the 21st century.

Notes

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABM anti-ballistic missile

AEF Air Expeditionary Force

APOD aerial port of debarkation

CCD campaign completion day

CENTCOM U.S. Central Command

CINC commander in chief

C3 command, control, and communications

C4 command, control, communications, and computers

CJCS Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

CM consequence management

COFFD counteroffensive day

CONUS continental United States

DBK dominant battlespace knowledge

DCI Defense Capabilities Initiative

DEAD destruction of enemy air defenses

DOD Department of Defense

EMP electromagnetic pulse

ESDI European Security and Defense Initiative

EU European Union

EUCOM U.S. European Command

ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile

ISR intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

IT information technology

JSTARS joint surveillance, target attack radar system

LD/HD low density/high demand

MEF Marine Expeditionary Force

MEU Marine Expeditionary Unit

MIRV multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicle

MTW major theater war

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NBC nuclear, biological, and chemical

NCA National Command Authorities

NDP National Defense Panel

NDU National Defense University

NGO nongovernmental organization

NMD national missile defense

NMS national military strategy

NPR Nuclear Posture Review

NSS national security strategy

O&M operation and maintenance

OPTEMPO operating tempo

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PERSTEMPO personnel tempo

PM precision munitions

POM Program Objective Memorandum

QDR Quadrennial Defense Review

RC Reserve component

R&D research and development

RDT&E research, development, testing, and evaluation

RMA revolution in military affairs

RV reentry vehicle

SALT Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

SBIRS space-based infrared satellite system

SDI Strategic Defense Initiative

SFOR stabilization force

SLBM sea-launched ballistic missile

SLEP service life extension program

SLOC sea lines of communications

SNF strategic nuclear forces

SPOD surface port of debarkation

SSBN nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine

SSP Stockpile Stewardship Program

SSC smaller-scale contingencies

S&T science and technology

START Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

TAMD theater air and missile defense

THAAD theater high-altitude area defense

TMD theater missile defense

WMD weapons of mass destruction

UAV unmanned aerial vehicle

UN United Nations

About the Authors

M. Elaine Bunn is a distinguished research professor in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University and previously served as the Principal Director for Nuclear Forces and Missile Defense Policy within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction.

Roger Cliff is an associate political scientist with RAND and currently is assigned to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy. His field of specialization is East Asian security affairs, including the military potential of the People’s Republic of China.

Mich?le A. Flournoy is senior advisor for international security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and previously served as a distinguished research professor in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University and as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction.

Richard L. Kugler is a distinguished research professor in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University and previously worked for the RAND Corporation and served as a senior official in the Department of Defense.

Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr., USMC, is assigned to the QDR office at Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, and previously served as a senior military fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.

Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution and teaches at both Columbia University and Georgetown University.

Lieutenant Colonel John J. Spinelli, USA, is assigned to the Strategy, Plans, and Policy Directorate at Headquarters, Department of the Army, and previously served as a senior military fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.

Captain Sam J. Tangredi, USN, is a senior military fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University and previously served on the Joint Staff and in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations.

Christine E. Wormuth is special assistant for programs and legislation to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and previously served in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction.