selections from: Congressional Quarterly Researcher
September 13, 2002
Abstract
By Mary H. Cooper
Back for page 2 of this report pleaseClick here For the Complete report including footnotes please click here
For my summary opinion, please click
here
To access the DOD 2001 qdr REPORT, please click on QDR 2001
After the Cold War, the Pentagon began downsizing its forces and developing high-tech mobile weapons designed to deal with "rogue" states like Iraq -less powerful than the Soviet juggernaut but still able to attack the United States and its allies. But the Sept. 11terrorist attacks forced Pentagon planners back to the drawing board to develop new strategies and weapons. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wants to further transform the military to enable it to counter emerging threats from unconventional forces like the AlQaeda Islamic terrorist organization. Meanwhile, President Bush is considering a pre-emptive strike against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but most U.S. allies oppose unilateral action.U.S. special-operations forces patrol in northern Afghanistan, where they used several innovations in military hardware and tactics during Operation Enduring Freedom, including the use of laser range-finders and global positioning system equipment to help pilots home inon targets. Now special-ops forces may be used to capture or kill Al Qaeda leaders. (AP Photo/Darko Bandic)
Since the attacks, Bush has requested, and obtained from Congress, an immediate infusion of money to conduct the war on terrorism. For next year, the Senate last month approved a record $355.4 billion military-spending measure for fiscal 2003 - a 10 percent, or $34.4billion, increase over 2002.* The bill is expected to emerge almost intact from a conference committee charged with reconciling it with a $354.7 billion House-passed measure. [3]Rumsfeld's Pentagon is forging ahead with efforts to build what Rumsfeld says will be a more flexible, mobile military capable of using the latest technology to quash the kinds of asymmetric warfare likely to threaten national security in the future.
Pre-emptive strike proposals stem from frustration over the U.S. military's inability to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks as well as from fear that in the era of the suicide bomber, America's longstanding strategy of deterrence may not be enough."Most countries are deterred from attacking us, even if they have nuclear weapons, by the fact that we also have nuclear weapons and could do considerable damage to them," says Peter W. Galbraith, a professor at the National War College, which trains senior Pentagonofficers. But Al Qaeda has "no return address," he points out. "If they smuggle [a nuclear weapon] in and blow it up in Washington or New York, we can do nothing to hit back except what we've been trying to do, apparently unsuccessfully, for the last year, which is toget Mr. bin Laden, dead or alive."
To justify such an offensive, the administration articulated a new pre-emptive doctrine allowing the president to initiate military action - without congressional approval - against so-called rogue states with weapons of mass destruction. "Deterrence - the promise of massive retaliation against nations - means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend," the president said at West Point. "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. [O]ur security will require all Americans to . . . be ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."
Supporters of Bush's emerging pre-emptive-strike policy argue that terrorist organizations and hostile governments that threaten the United States are unlikely to respond to traditional methods of deterrence."There is no give and take between such regimes and our country," says Lurie of the CSIS. The fact that North Korea, Iran and Iraq either have or are developing nuclear weapons and are hostile to the United States fully justifies a pre-emptive doctrine, he adds. "The danger is immense. I would hate to see a situation where people are standing around scratching their heads, if they still have heads, and wondering, 'Why didn't we see it coming?' "But pre-emptive action may have unintended consequences, critics say. Because it would permit the United States to launch a military operation unilaterally, the doctrine would alienate longstanding U.S. allies and may undermine the credibility of the United Nations andother international institutions, which the United States helped build."It is not only politically unsustainable but diplomatically harmful," writes G. John Inkenberry, a political science professor at Georgetown University. "And if history is a guide, it will trigger antagonism and resistance that will leave America in a more hostile and dividedworld." [9]
Others are more concerned about the administration's suggestion that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq might involve nuclear weapons. Since the gulf war, the Iraqi military has moved some of its essential communications - and possibly weapons of mass destruction - into deep underground bunkers.
"Tac-nukes," as they are called, were developed as a last-resort defense against a massive Soviet invasion of Europe. They have never been used, and critics warn that using such nuclear weapons would lower the threshold for the future use of similar or even more lethalweapons.
Moreover, says Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, it is doubtful that conditions favorable to implementing a nuclear first-strike would ever arise."You'd have to have Saddam deep in some underground bunker out in the middle of nowhere, where prevailing winds would not carry the fallout toward major cities," he says."He's more likely to be where there are a lot of civilians, because that's his best defense against attack.
Supporters of pre-emption say the changing security environment warrants an equally radical shift in thinking. we don't understand some of them. So the administration's basic logic is valid: Not only are new enemies less predictable, but they may be less deterrable.
Tragically, the Sept. 11 attacks revealed a gaping hole in that division of labor. The Bush administration responded immediately by creating the White House Office ofHomeland Security, headed by former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.
The Pentagon has a limited department, due in large part to the longstanding legal separation of military and police functions. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act prohibited using military forces for domestic law enforcement.
Pentagon officials traditionally have opposed exceptions to the law, fearing domestic assignments could weaken the military's readiness overseas. However, the terrorist attacks blurred that distinction.
The administration, eager to strengthen local defenses against terrorist attack, has asked for a review of the law's ban on domestic military involvement. Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, who heads the Northern Command, created after Sept. 11 to boost domestic security, isamong a handful of military brass who advocate amending the law to enhance the military's contribution to homeland defense...will deploy military personnel to back up domestic agencies such as the FBI and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as needed in emergencies. [11]
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee. He would give the 460,000-member National Guard -essentially a 50-state militia that can be mobilized in state and national emergencies - anespecially prominent role in homeland security.
Other experts want the National Guard and the reserves to focus primarily on external threats, because that's where the risk is most serious. "If there is a catastrophe here at home, the National Guard is not going to be on hand quickly enough to be the most importantplayer in the first few hours after an attack," says O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. "It's going to be local fire, police and rescue personnel. These first responders should get most ofthe resources, and the Guard should remain focused primarily on overseas combat."
--------------------...Moreover, the strategy - known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) - theoretically reduced the incentive to build more nuclear weapons. [13]Toward the end of the Cold War, however, President Ronald Reagan rejected the ABM Treaty's logic and called for the development of a space-based system capable of intercepting incoming missiles.
George W. Bush entered the White House promising to remove the main legal obstacle to missile defenses by jettisoning the ABM Treaty altogether, which he did, effective June 14. On June 15, construction began on a missile-defense facility at Fort Greely, Alaska, the firstcomponent of a larger system that will cost $7.8 billion next year and could total $238 billion by 2025. [14]
"President Bush will not and cannot deploy any meaningful missile defense anytime this decade," writes Joseph Cirincione, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for InternationalPeace, who argues that the program has greater political than practical value. "Missile defense plays well for the Republicans. It shows that President Bush is keeping the faith withthe Reagan revolution, and it remains an applause line for his core, conservative constituency." [15]
Harvard's Nye argues that the missile-defense program would be useless against today's immediate threats. ..such as nuclear "suitcase" bombs that could be smuggled across inadequately policed borders. "The danger is that we spend a lot of money nailing the door shut while leaving the windows open," he says. Moreover, he says, "Getting rid of the ABM Treaty may make people think that other threats have gone away, and they haven't."
...O'Hanlon of Brookings supports a "relatively small" system, partly to avoid fueling a nuclear arms race with China, which has a limited nuclear arsenal...huge technical obstacles to developing an effective missile-defense system remain...Thompson says. "It could cope with a North Korean missile attack or a handful of missiles accidentally launched by China or Russia, but not much else."
Background Post-Cold War Shift...Besides ending the Cold War, it abruptly eliminated the rationale for America's military strategy since the end of World War II..the MAD notion - they negotiated a series of bilateral arms-control agreements to slow the arms race.
...series of U.S.-Soviet proxy wars in Africa, Asia and Latin America - wherever socialist-or communist-leaning rebels were active in a country run by a pro-U.S. government.
..Containment - a term coined in 1947 by U.S. diplomat George F. Kennan - called for preventing the Soviet Union from expanding beyond a handful of bordering countries, which together became known as the Communist Bloc. Deterrence, reflecting President Theodore Roosevelt's admonition to "speak softly and carry a big stick," called for building a military strong enough to dissuade the enemy from attacking...became less relevant [after cold war]...Pentagon planners began assembling the forces necessary to prevail against two regional powers simultaneously. They also began shifting procurement priorities from massive tanks and artillery to lighter, more mobile weapons that could be quickly transported from bases in the United States. ..Persian Gulf War. Equipped with the latest in high-technology hardware, from night-vision equipment to precision-guided "smart" bombs, the 500,000 U.S. and allied forces of Operation Desert Storm drove Iraq out of Kuwait in just seven weeks in 1991.
first major post-Cold War conflict also revealed some weaknesses in the new U.S. strategy..82nd Airborne Division soldiers - who were deployed early - were vulnerable to Iraqi attack for weeks before more heavily armed reinforcements could arrive by ship. In addition, several "smart" bombs missed their targets...a reluctance to place U.S. troops in harm's way. It was this caution, critics say, along with fears that Iraq might disintegrate, that led then-President George Bush not to pursue Iraqi troops to Baghdad.
..more than just modernization but for a true revolution in military affairs that would incorporate rapidly developing technology into weapons systemsand adjust strategy to accommodate them. ..Military planning, advocates said, should acknowledge that future adversaries, unable to match the United States' overwhelming force superiority, would try to use surprise and unconventional uses ofthe weapons at hand to engage the world's sole superpower in "asymmetrical" warfare.
..force downsizing. The Clinton administration closed 97 major bases - including 24 in California and seven in Texas - and downsized 55 others.
In 1993, the first major study on transforming the military after the Cold War - the so-called Bottom Up Review - reaffirmed the two-war strategy,..forces to include peacekeeping and other non-traditional missions. ex. Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia
Rumsfeld has asked that the $475 million initially requested for the $11 billion Crusader program in 2003 be used instead to speed development of lighter artillery. Getty Images A congressionally mandated commission reassessed the international-security environment as part of the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act and recommended retaining the two-war standard...commission suggested that the Pentagon review its broad strategic goals every four years.
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), issued in 1997...directed the military to prepare for a variety of conflicts and threats, ranging from illegal drug trafficking to terrorism to major wars.Military Force Structure Review Act, which created another panel to assess ongoing defense policy changes. The following year, the National Defense Panel challenged the two-war scenario as a Cold War holdover and faulted the 1997 QDR for failing to adequately plan for the kind of militaryt ransformation required to deal with future challenges, such as asymmetric threats. [required] scaling back or eliminating several programs that critics said were either too expensive or antiquated "legacy systems," such as the Army's Crusader artillery vehicle, the Comanche helicopter, the Navy's last Nimitz-class aircraft carrier and several tactical, or short-range, aircraft.
NATO's Operation Allied Force to halt Serb repression of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The almost exclusive use of air power and precise munitions enabled the allies to prevail in 11 weeks with few U.S. casualties. However, the deaths of some 500 civilians from stray bombs onceagain demonstrated the shortcomings of such heavy reliance on long-distance warfare.
2000 presidential campaign, candidate George W. Bush criticized then-President Clinton for underfunding U.S. defenses and failing to prepare both military strategy and weaponry for 21st-century contingencies...Bush ordered Rumsfeld to conduct a comprehensive review of the nation's military capability...Bush's priority list was the national missile-defense program..ABM Treaty banned such systems.
Pentagon released its second Quadrennial Defense Review last Sept. 30 ...objective was to "deter and defeat adversaries who will rely on surprise, deception and asymmetric warfare to achieve their objectives," said Rumsfeld. ...wrote Steven J. Nider, director of foreign and security studies at the Progressive Policy Institute, a liberal think tank. Calling the review "maddeningly vague,"..
astounding success...Soviets couldn't do in 10 years."...introduced several innovations in hardware and tactics. Special-operations forces used laser range-finders and global-positioning systems,.. unmanned planes,..laser-guided missiles and JDAMS...
Operation Enduring Freedom fell short of its primary objective, capturing Osama bin Laden and destroying his terrorist organization. Critics say the United States' unwillingness to commit adequate manpower to the Tora Bora campaign allowed Taliban and Al Qaeda forces to slip away.
Brookings' O'Hanlon..improved communications, better-prepared troops and more coordination between special-operations forces on the ground and Air Force and Navy aircraft."
we relied on Afghan allies who were hardly tested," ...Galbraith of the National War College. "These guys weren't trained, and they operated in the Afghan manner, which is to serve whomever pays the highest price. questions the growing reliance on high-technology munitions. "There's a belief that high-tech is a magic wand, and that's not true because it depends on intelligence, which is never going to be that good,..
U.S. military cannot win this kind of war on its own. "The military solution was very good in toppling the Taliban, but notat getting rid of Al Qaeda, which still has cells in some 50 countries," says Harvard's Nye...to get rid of them is through very careful intelligence-sharing with many other countries."
..Pentagon planning and missions is adopted. Rumsfeld reportedly is considering expanding the role of special-operations forces to capture or kill Al Qaeda leaders.Such clandestine missions - usually limited to the CIA ..
president's fiscal 2003 defense spending request..lighter artillery weapons for the Army. ..F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is already under development. The Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey..Navy's proposed CVNX nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, designed to replace the eight Nimitz-class carriers deployed beginning in 1975..says Thompson of the Lexington Institute. He sees two problems with the administration'sapproach. "First, they don't have a clear idea of what the future threat is," he says, "so there's a danger that much of what they do may be inappropriate. Secondly, it's much easier to kill programs. . . than to build a legacy of replacement programs, ..Bush administration will be all too effective at eliminating key programs and not effective at all at building a foundation for modernization.
Galbraith is less supportive of the administration's $7.8 billion request for the national missile-defense program, which Congress is expected to approve in full...a far better use of those funds would be to develop technologies to detect nuclear weapons and inspect everything that enters the country. ..
Outlook
...justification for a first strike against Iraq...Cheney predicted.."seek domination of the entire Middle East, takecontrol of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." [29]...Bush's new nuclear strategy, which is expected to clarify plans to develop bunker-busting tactical nuclear armaments. ..House approved but the Senate denied, ..Equally uncertain is the shape of Bush's overall nuclear strategy, ..Bush has long criticized the use of American troops in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and elsewhere..We'd have to be closer to 25 percent of the total force in Iraq because it would be seen as very much our war," O'Hanlon estimates.