Shift From Traditional War Seen at Pentagon

[USNLSC]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Sep2.html
Shift From Traditional War Seen at Pentagon

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 3, 2004; Page A01


Top Pentagon officials are considering a new, long-term strategy that shifts spending and resources away from large-scale warfare to build more agile, specialized forces for fighting guerrilla wars, confronting terrorism and handling less conventional threats, officials said yesterday.

The proposal, presented two weeks ago to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others, could carry major implications for defense spending, eventually moving some funds away from ships, tanks and planes and toward troops, elite Special Operations forces and intelligence gathering. The shift has been building for some time, but the plan circulating at the Pentagon would accelerate the changes, analysts said.

The plan's working assumption is that the United States faces almost no serious conventional threats from traditional, state-based militaries. Thus, it says, the United States should accept more risk in that area to pay more attention to other threats: terrorism, the type of low-tech guerrilla fighting confronting troops in Iraq, and the possibility of dramatic technological advances by adversaries. Some of those priorities depend more heavily on troop strength than high-tech weaponry and could increase the pressure on the Pentagon to build the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.

"The lesson learned in [Operation] Iraqi Freedom is that in some areas, we have capabilities overmatch," said Christopher "Ryan" Henry, the principal undersecretary of defense for policy, who wrote and presented the briefing to Rumsfeld on Aug. 19. "We can't see many competitors that are coming at us in the traditional domain.

"In the business world, this is the equivalent of coming up with a new product in a new market," Henry added.

A copy of the slide presentation given to Rumsfeld was obtained by The Washington Post, after which officials agreed to discuss portions of it in interviews.

The documents said Pentagon planning should emphasize preparing for "catastrophic" challenges such as use of weapons of mass destruction "against high-profile targets by terrorists or rogue states." It also cited the need to prepare for "irregular challenges" from other countries or groups, including terrorism, insurgency and civil war.

One example of the new thinking urged in the plan was what it called the "stretch goal" of being able to invade a country, keep 200,000 troops there for five years, and be able to organize, train and equip a local military force of 100,000 troops in just six months.

That is more soldiers than the U.S. military has had in Iraq, now about 140,000. It also envisions far more effective training of local forces than the U.S. military has been able to deliver there, where after a year of effort the Iraqi military remains small and uneven in performance. In April, for example, a battalion of the newly formed Iraqi army refused an order from U.S. commanders to reinforce the Marines fighting in Fallujah.

One senior officer who attended the mid-August briefing said it was received warmly by top Pentagon officials. "It generated intriguing discussion around the table and a positive endorsement of the concepts in the end," he said. The discussion came as the Pentagon is gearing up for the major review of overall strategy that Congress requires every four years.

By itself, the document's assessment of threats confronting the military is not controversial. The recent report of the Sept. 11 commission stated the issue clearly: "National security used to be considered by studying foreign frontiers, weighing opposing groups of states, and measuring industrial might. To be dangerous, an enemy had to muster large armies."

While there is emerging consensus on new threats, military analysts said it is not automatic that broad changes in weaponry or strategy will result.

For one thing, placing more emphasis on manpower and intelligence could antagonize parts of the defense industry that produce weaponry. Indeed, a Pentagon official's explanatory notes attached to the PowerPoint presentation said the Pentagon's goal should simply be "maintenance of conventional capabilities."

Indeed, Pentagon officials said they were unhappy that the briefing papers were released for two reasons: It intruded on internal deliberations, and could be seen by members of Congress, contractors or even military officers as a threat to prized weapons programs.

Henry, however, said the briefing should be seen as a broad statement about future U.S. military capabilities, not a more specific list of narrower choices of what weapons would be needed.

"It's really divorced from platforms," he said, using the Pentagon word for anything that carries weapons or sensors, including ships, aircraft, or land vehicles. "It would be premature to take this . . . directly to platforms."

Outside experts on military change and strategy were skeptical about whether Rumsfeld would be able to secure sweeping change in philosophy.

"It's a step in the right direction," said Andrew F. Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense-oriented think tank. But, he said, the uniformed leadership at the Pentagon sometimes simply stalls on embracing radical change until the civilian defense secretary promoting it leaves.

"Rumsfeld has been trying for three years now to refocus the services on the new challenges confronting us," Krepinevich said. "So far these efforts have met with little success. How much more likely is Rumsfeld to succeed this time around when the military has a major war on its hands?"


? Defense Presentation (pdf)



_____Graphic_____

? Shifting Strategies



My comment on the above:

"Those who do not remember the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them."

[locksly]

I think the goverment should activate at least two more divisions to get these elete troops and not destroy the army that we have spent large sumes of mony to create. Throwing tanks in the ocean like a recent president did is not the way to protect the country. Some of these so called ideas remind me of the stuff Mc Namira did in the Vietnam era and we all know those ideas were ill conseaved and harmed the military of the country.

[DMZ-LT]

I've seen the Maginot Line and I've fought along McNamiras Line on the DMZ. Neither accomplished what it was built for. Seems to me tactics are build around the last conflict while weapons develop on a different plain.Even in 1865 , after years of slaughter , we were sending massed infantry against dug in troops with rifled muskets. Wonder how this light force will do if China comes knocking ? Just a thought , tank you.

[Arrow]

[phuloi]

The old theory of lining up armored division vs armored division in Europe served its purpose well;it kept the Soviets at bay until Ronald Wilson Reagan put the final squeeze on them to end the Cold War and the Evil Empire.Russia has been reduced,along with France,Germany,and even some of Russia`s former satallites,to arming the bad guys with nuclear,chemical,and biologic capabilities-not tanks.The times,they are a-changin,and we need to follow the changing times or we`ll invite more 9/11 (or worse) attacks at home and our foriegn interests.
Rummy isn`t advocating a total scrapping of our conventional divisions,but a re-tooling of our military capabilities in order to meet the clear and present dangers of rogue,illegimate,dictatorial states that are bent on the destruction of America and all she stands for.Seems pretty clear to me that we sorely need to have more,much more intelligence gathering,SOG type of boots on the ground.
And don`t look now,but the Chicoms ARE coming!Coming right along with PRNK,Russia,France and Germany in arming Iraq,Iran,Syria,etc.,etc.

[razar]

DMZ-LT,
I think the idea of smaller units is being directed towards Infantry and Armor.The Stryker type units in Iraq now were not ready when the war started.Our ability to launch unmerciful fire power from ships and planes would deter any foolish nation from trying to launch a conventional war upon us or our allies.I think the idea of lighter forces in conjunction with our air,ship,and missile capabality would be ok.
As regards the unconvential warfare that is taking place now,all we have to do is look back at what multiple A-teams working with the Northern alliance in Afghanistan did to the Taliban.Of course they utilized all the forces I mentioned above.To train,equip,advise, and lead indigenous forces[Kurds in north,shia in south,and Sunnis in the middle] against Saddam would produce the same outcome as we now have,but with less U.S. casualities.
The biggest problem with all these scenerios would be lack of intell.I cannot believe that this administration along with JCS and intell agencies actually believed Chalabi and th Kurds as to what would happen after the conventional victory.To think the enemy would roll over and the Iraq people would throw out the red carpet for the victors is an exercise in ignorance.All you have to understand about Muslim terrorist,Arabs,and the different sects of the Muslim faith,is their total dedication to kill all westerners regardless of cost of life.Their hatred has been instilled since WW2 against westerners and non Muslims.Democracy will never work in Muslim countries due to their hatred of each other as it relates to Muslim sects and ethnicity.
History has shown that it takes a dictator to keep these various sects in line.Sad as it sounds it seems to be the way it is.So,what is the answer.First we notify a country that we know they are harboring terriost and we want them turned over.After 30 days we KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD SORT IT OUT

[USNLSC]

"...the Department of Defense is the last bastion of communism. It's a centrally planned, centrally controlled system."
Navy Secretary Gordon England


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...tml?ESRC=eb.nl

Fewer New Ships Needed For Terror War
Daily Press
September 30, 2004


VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Navy Secretary Gordon England downplayed the need for more ships in the Navy's fleet on Wednesday, saying that in the war against terrorism, more ships are not necessarily the answer.

In the Cold War, England said, there was something critical about having a lot of ships patrolling the oceans. He declined to say how many submarines and other ships he thinks are needed now. But in the age of terrorism, he said, the number of ships is less important than it once was.

"We have to have a certain number of ships, but how many that is debatable," England said after a speech at a U.S. Naval Institute Warfare Exposition and Symposium at the Virginia Beach Pavilion. "We do not have a deep water threat today, and I believe we should be shifting resources to this war. This is going to be a long war, and we should be investing in this war."

He declined to reveal the number of ships that would be called for in the 2006 Navy budget proposal, which is to be submitted to Congress in February. Recent reports have said the Navy will call for four ship purchases, down from the five this year.

"Ships are an important component, but they're important in the context of the totality of what we're doing in the United States Navy," he said. "We also have air wings. We also have the U.S. Marines. And we still have all our electronic systems. We try to build a balanced Navy, and that's what we will continue to do."

England's comments appear to dovetail with the views of his boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, on military transformation. Rumsfeld has pushed for using advanced technology and battlefield coordination techniques to improve American firepower and targeting superiority while using less manpower and fewer large platforms like ships.

But if such views prevail, they could mean fewer ships being built, and possibly fewer jobs, in places like Newport News.

The American Shipbuilding Association, which counts Northrop Grumman Newport News and other big shipyards as members, has warned not only that are shipbuilding jobs in places like Newport News at stake, but also that the country's naval advantage will be jeopardized if the fleet falls below the current 294 battle force fleet.

Many destroyers, cruisers and submarines will reach their retirement age in the next two decades. The Navy is planning to put off most of the replacements until after 2009, about the same time that baby boomers will begin retiring and putting a strain on the Social Security system. The shipbuilding association has been pushing the Navy to raise its current ship budget from the current five ships a year.

England also said the Navy was "surprised" at recent cost increases in the Virginia class submarine program, a joint building project between Northrop Grumman Newport News and General Dynamics Electric Boat, but he said all programs were being examined to cut costs.

In his speech, England compared the Defense Department's leadership to Soviet-style communism and said the Pentagon needs to reform itself to make decisions more quickly.

"Even when we're fast, we're slow," he said. "We need to skinny down. If you think about it, the Department of Defense is the last bastion of communism. It's a centrally planned, centrally controlled system."

America's enemies are not burdened with such a bureaucracy, England said. They can move on a dime to new tactics and new targets. And the military has to be able to respond more quickly than in the Cold War, he said, when the enemy was a nation-state, not terrorism.

:ek: