I’m bumping this post from ten days ago back to the top, because of the impending QDR roll-out [UPDATE 12:33 PM: It’s online now]. According to today’s Washington Post:
The United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday.
The strategic vision outlined in the QDR has won high marks from defense analysts for diagnosing the problems the U.S. military will likely face. However, it is less successful in translating those concepts into concrete military capabilities, the analysts say…
The strategy does call for devoting resources to accelerate a long-range strike capability directed at hostile nations, and for new investments aimed at countering biological and nuclear weapons — such as teams able to defuse a nuclear bomb. But it makes relatively minor adjustments in key weapons systems, with the biggest programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter and the Army’s Future Combat Systems escaping virtually unscathed. This leaves less room for investments in innovative programs and forces to address the types of problems that the QDR identifies, analysts say.
For months, now, word has been leaking out about the Pentagon’s every-four-years master plan, the Quadrennial Defense Review.
Finally, were starting to see some excerpts from the big document itself, thanks to Inside Defense. My quick, subject-to-instant-revision first impression: Rumsfeld & Co. are focusing more on China than they are on Osama.
Very roughly speaking, there are two factions jockeying for control in the Pentagon. One thinks that the U.S. military is going to spend a big chunk of the next twenty years hunting down terrorists and stabilizing screwed-up states. The other believes that China has to be smacked down, before it bulks up to superpower status.
The first group gets the rhetoric. [P]repar[ing] for wider asymmetric challenges is one of the fundamental imperatives for the Department of Defense. Were in the middle of a Long War, according to the QDR. Iraq and Afghanistan are just part of it.
Theres organizational and personnel help, to go along with the lofty words. The Combatant Commanders the guys in charge today of the boots on the ground will get more of a say in how future weapons are bought. The QDR boosts Special Operations Forces by 15% and increase[s] the number of Special Forces Battalions by one-third.
U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) will establish the Marine Corps Special Operations Command. The Air Force will establish stand up an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron under USSOCOM. The Navy will support a USSOCOM increase in SEAL Team manning and will develop a riverine warfare capability. The Department will also expand Psychological Operations and Civil Affairs units by 3,700 personnel, a 33% increase. Multipurpose Army and Marine Corps ground forces will increase their capabilities and capacity to conduct irregular warfare missions.
These changes are not insignificant. Theyll require billions to back them up. But the China-watchers, on the other hand, get the kind of gold-plated new hardware that costs tens, even hundreds, of billions to make. As Inside Defense notes, the QDR leaves intact all of the military services most prized weapon system programs. In fact, some programs will see significant increases.
Many involved in the review believed at the outset that the QDR might call for a resource shift between the departments — specifically from the Air Force and Navy to the Army — that did not materialize.
The Air Force, which set as its highest goal for the QDR the protection of the F-22A fighter, managed to extend production two years beyond 2008, which means it can work [on] going beyond the planned 183-aircraft buy.
Similarly, the Navy in late November was granted permission to move ahead with its next-generation DD(X) destroyer program, which will consume a big chunk of the services shipbuilding account as the QDR-directed enhanced submarine procurement is set to kick in.
As for the Army, the QDR confirms the service has protected its top priority, the Future Combat Systems program
The QDR also leaves intact the Marine Corps top priorities, including the V-22 Osprey and its Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
What theyve done, in effect, is say, Yeah, Rummy, well make all these promises. Of course, youre not going to be around to hold us to them. In the meantime, we will sustain our programs and build program momentum with Congress and industry, said a source familiar with the QDR findings.
The China crowd also gets what looks to be some big-time new, as of yet undefined, weapons programs. That includes a new, long bomber of hypersonic drone that can conduct global strike missions against unruly states.
The United States’ experience in the Cold War still profoundly influences the way that the Department of Defense is organized and executes its mission, the QDR notes. But, the Cold War was a struggle between nation-states, requiring state-based responses to most political problems and kinetic responses to most military problems. The Department was optimized for conventional, large-scale warfighting against the regular, uniformed armed forces of hostile states [Today] many of the United Slates’ principal adversaries are informal networks that are less vulnerable to Cold War-Style approaches… Defeating unconventional enemies requires unconventional approaches.
But it does not require, apparently, a wholesale change of direction. Terrorist-type threats will get some new attention. But the Defense Department isnt about to optimize for that threat, the way it did for the Soviet Union. Big money will continue to be spent on fighter jets designed to duel with the Soviets and destroyers designed for large-scale ground assaults. Grunts on the ground wont get much more than they do now. The war on terror may be long. But, apparently, its not important enough to make really big shifts.
UPDATE 3:56 PM: The QDR was “toned down by a year of deliberation and not a single signature weapon system has been terminated,” ubiquituous military analyst Loren Thompson tells Defense News. That tells you that Rumsfelds team is not so clear about what to do about this new environment.“
UPDATE 01/24/06 10:36 AM: The WaPo puts the QDR on page one, and emphasizes the growing numbers of Special Forces. Meanwhile, the LA Times (via Laura) says the QDR’s direction means that Iraq was a “one-off.”
The U.S. military has long been accused of always planning to fight its last war. But as the Pentagon assesses threats to national security over the next four years, a major blueprint being completed in the shadow of the Iraq war will do largely the opposite…
For more than two years, Army officials have been fending off questions about whether they have enough troops to complete their mission in Iraq and racing to get armor plates bolted onto Humvees and supply trucks to defend against homemade bombs.
But in the Pentagon blueprint, officials are once again talking about a futuristic force of robots, networked computers and drone aircraft. And they are planning no significant shift in resources to bulk up ground forces strained by the lengthy occupation of Iraq…
Yet some experts say that failure to draw broader lessons from Iraq is dangerous, especially if the U.S. military suddenly faces a new war in a hot spot such as North Korea or Iran that it has no choice but to fight.
“There is a logical disconnect between the lessons learned from Iraq and the conclusions that we can live with a smaller ground force,” said Michele Flournoy, a defense policy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former top Pentagon official.
UPDATE 11:59 AM: On his website, Thompson adds:
There are several decisions coming out of the QDR that are hard to square with what the Pentagon says about future challenges. For example, if the global war on terror really is a “long war” as the QDR report contends, why is the administration eliminating brigades from an overextended Army? And if mobility is so critical to military success, why is it proposing to shut down both the C-130J and C-17 lines — the only airlifters in production?
Maybe it doesn’t matter — Rumsfeld will be gone soon, and Capitol Hill has ceased caring what he wants anyway. Congress will probably add money for the lost brigades and airlifters, just as it will reject other bad proposals like the idea of creating a monopoly for fighter engines. But with the clock ticking down on Donald Rumsfeld’s tenure, it’s a little hard to say what he has achieved in the way of a lasting, positive legacy.
UPDATE 3:24 PM: There’s a nice little debate going on about this over at Kevin Drum’s place.
Somebody needs to get Rumsfeld ina straightjacket.
No, really.
Man i wanna be a part in that war.
Not sure how much is a beaten down by Congress problem. They’ve tried to make tough decisions, and had them undone. There’s a lot that could be improved in the Pentagon, but Congress has been pretty extraordinarily unhelpful, even as it grandstands about spiraling defense costs and questionable priorities.
The USA does need to prepare for peer state wars, as well as Osama et. al. There are some programs like the Littoral Combat Ships that play valuable roles in both cases, but overall I’m not sure the US military fully has their head around what forces ready for that duality look like.
Joe:
Couldn’t agree with you more, on all accounts.
nms
when that things happen i’ll be there to fight them my comrades in arms… but i hope our congress see it in the future. they just want to invest for short term unlike the china they are investing for long term approach.
I hope that is just trying to put a political front. If there was a battle between our forces and China’s during the Iraqi occupation. We would lose.
Very likely we would lose if not in Iraq either. China was a very large threat during the cold war. They are not any less now.
Really though the best hope is that the capitilist system they are working with is introduced through out the entire country. It might take some time but it would be better for both sides.
You want to defend the United States?
Spend a few hundred million– a fraction of the cost of a week in Iraq– on the development of alternative hydrocarbon development.
Invest in the bioengineering of organisms that couple sunlight to renewable energy production.
Do that and take away the oil money that bankrolls the terrorism.
Do that and remove the competition with China for dwindling fuel supplies in the years to come.
Many don’t seem to know what kind of military we have. The United states Armed forces is the greatest in the world. I feel pity on the fools who dare attack us. I feel pity for the fools who do not believe that we can take care of the threats to national security some countries pose. I feel it is our own fault that China is building as much as they are now. Look at everything you buy now days. Made in China on just about everything. I am willing to pay more to support the economy of my country
I know longer believe that the Bush admin wants to win wars — it only wishes to keep fighting them. The spectre of the “next threat” keeps people scared and supports a “strong security” stance … and the existence of continuous war makes them money. Our military has been stolen by cynical thieves.
Couldn’t understand how China could post any threat to the U.S. as the U.S. has the largest stockpile of the latest weapons in the world and can bomb any country to hell like it has been doing in Iraq. China can never reach that level of supremacy. Not now, not ever.
Too bad, even with this military supremacy, the precious lives of its soldiers are being wasted every day. So what price glory of being the strongest country in the world? China? It is just happy being the strongest economic country in the world.
“Too bad, even with this military supremacy, the precious lives of its soldiers are being wasted every day. So what price glory of being the strongest country in the world? China? It is just happy being the strongest economic country in the world.“
Why don’t you ask a Taiwanese citizen what they think of your assessment of what China will be happy with? If you were to ask me, I think there is some merit in building systems to deter China because the Taiwan issue is only a step or two away from a Cuban Missile Crisis-sized event, if not an outright shooting war. It’s lasted as long as it has because both sides can’t/won’t lose face over it. This stupid obsession on both sides is keeping anyone from putting the pin back in the grenade.
Get one successful, public nuclear test in North Korea followed by a Taiwan announcement that it’s going to start up a nuke program for self defense, and I guarantee you that China will start a shooting war, justifying it with the same claims of pre-emption that Bush used to invade Iraq. Should such a war happen, America will be left with the choices of going to war with China, or standing on the sidelines and saying, “Please stop” as a totalitarian country steamrollers over one of the only reasonably functional democracies in the region.
Mind you, I’m still upset about the choices being made in the QDR. I haven’t seen the QDR or any critiques of it even mention Taiwan when it’s a much more justifiable reason to deter China than, “Boy, we better look a lot bigger before they get any funny ideas.” It’s another failure of American policy makers (such as they are) to actually understand policy beyond our own borders. To be fair, it’s possible that this IS the real reason for the China deterrence clauses in the QDR but it’s politically untenable to say so. Frankly, I don’t give the suits that much credit. If I did, I’d think they’d also find a less openly antagonistic way to say it.
In addition, I’m not entirely convinced that current American forces aren’t a sufficient deterrent to China. For that matter, I’m not sure that all the deterrence in the world will matter if it reaches that point — see above about the Chinese obsession about losing face. I’m also not sure whether assessments of Chinese capabilities aren’t being overblown to justify big-budget pet projects, as some assessments of the Soviet threat were used during the Cold War.
I still see the QDR as the triumph of gold-plated projects like the F-22, and lip service to the war on terror that’s not backed up by money. I think it’s far more concerned about lobbyists, corporations, and money than the success and well-being of our soldiers or of the role the military plays in American foreign policy. It may have a China deterrence policy in place, but I think it’s for entirely the wrong reasons.
I agree with Kelleyb we need to push for alternate fuel sources. Right now whether we like it or not we are at the mercy of opec and any other country that gives port to our tankers or processes crude. We have reserves and we have our own natural petroleum resources that are yet untapped but they will only last for so long. Our country was founded by people wanting freedom and independence so why should we give so much power over our countrys economy and well being to radicals who would love nothing more than to see our nation and the freedoms we believe in fall. Most of Henry Fords vehicles originally ran on alcohol a renewable resource farmers could produce themselves. Many vehicles can be converted with minimum modifications to run on alcohol and we can stop paying our farmers NOT to grow crops. I dont want to sound like an isolationist but we must secure our countrys needs so when the inevitable happens i.e. opec raises prices or worse cuts us off we do not go into a spiral and crash.
Those gold platted systems maybe over kill in a gorilla war. After all a propeller plane can do close air support better than a jet if your enemies main anti-air weapon is a RPG. And those gold platted stealthily ships are way over kill against some 3rd world junk.
The problem is that those non-gold platted systems can fight the gorilla war just fine but IF we have to fight the big war you cant just pop out those gold platted systems immediately and in the mean time you pay drastic prices in BLOOD maybe even lose.
We can afford some overkill in the small wars it dont change the outcome maybe yes some up armoring in the middle that is doable and hurts but wont cost the War. We cant afford not to be prepared in the big war the consequences there are too great. I am not willing to gamble US lives like that nor would I support any leader who is.
I find it ironic that most people who now cry about better amour better this or that more troops are the same who during peace time cry we dont need more troops we dont need more money for the military, better spent for this or that social program, and then best is in the future they are the ones that would cry about how we dont have those gold platted systems in the middle of that big war.
You cant just prepare for today or just tomorrow its a balance.
“Too bad, even with this military supremacy, the precious lives of its soldiers are being wasted every day. So what price glory of being the strongest country in the world? China? It is just happy being the strongest economic country in the world.“
Uh, the United States is the “strongest economic country in the world” by fairly well any measure, the canard of Chinese holdings of U.S. treasury debt notwithstanding. I’m unaware of any way in which a nation with 1/7th our GDP and whose annual GDP growth measures less than its trade surplus with us is “economically stronger” on the world stage than are we.
Not in the short term, but in the medium and long term China does pose the biggest threat to America. If you deny this fact you probably would have liked British PM Chamberlin.