Rebuilding Americas Defenses

90 Pages·2000·0.83 MB·English

by  The Project for the New American Century

REBUILDING
AMERICA’S
DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources
For a New Century
A Report of
The Project for the New American Century
September 2000
ABOUT THE PROJECT FOR THE
NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-
profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.
The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project. William Kristol is chairman
of the Project, and Robert Kagan, Devon Gaffney Cross, Bruce P. Jackson and John R.
Bolton serve as directors. Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project.
th
“As the 20 century draws to a close, the United States stands as the
world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in
the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does
the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of
past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a
new century favorable to American principles and interests?
“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet
both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
“Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its
power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global
leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America
has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia,
and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite
th
challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20
century should have taught us that it is important to shape
circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they
become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us
to embrace the cause of American leadership.”
– From the Project’s founding Statement of Principles
____PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY____
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Suite 510, Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
REBUILDING
AMERICA’S
DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources
For a New Century
DONALD KAGAN GARY SCHMITT
Project Co-Chairmen
THOMAS DONNELLY
Principal Author
REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century
CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
I. Why Another Defense Review? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Four Essential Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
III. Repositioning Today’s Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
IV. Rebuilding Today’s Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
V. Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
VI. Defense Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Project Participants
Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century
INTRODUCTION
The Project for the New American Either alternative seemed to us
Century was established in the spring of shortsighted. The United States is the
1997. From its inception, the Project has world’s only superpower, combining
been concerned with the decline in the preeminent military power, global
strength of America’s defenses, and in the technological leadership, and the world’s
problems this would create for the exercise largest economy. Moreover, America stands
of American leadership around the globe at the head of a system of alliances which
and, ultimately, for the preservation of includes the world’s other leading
peace. democratic powers. At present the United
States faces no global rival. America’s
Our concerns were reinforced by the grand strategy should aim to preserve and
two congressionally-mandated defense extend this advantageous position as far into
studies that appeared soon thereafter: the the future as possible. There are, however,
Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review potentially powerful states dissatisfied with
(May 1997) and the report of the National the current situation and eager to change it,
Defense Panel (December 1997). Both if they can, in directions that endanger the
studies assumed that U.S. defense budgets relatively peaceful, prosperous and free
would remain flat or continue to shrink. As condition the world enjoys today. Up to
a result, the defense plans and now, they have been deterred from doing so
recommendations outlined in the two reports by the capability and global presence of
were fashioned with such budget constraints American military power. But, as that
in mind. Broadly speaking, the QDR power declines, relatively and absolutely,
stressed current military requirements at the the happy conditions that follow from it will
expense of future defense needs, while the be inevitably undermined.
NDP’s report emphasized future needs by
underestimating today’s defense Preserving the desirable strategic
responsibilities. situation in which the United States now
finds itself requires a globally preeminent
Although the QDR and the report of the military capability both today and in the
NDP proposed different policies, they future. But years of cuts in defense
shared one underlying feature: the gap spending have eroded the American
between resources and strategy should be military’s combat readiness, and put in
resolved not by increasing resources but by jeopardy the Pentagon’s plans for
shortchanging strategy. America’s armed maintaining military superiority in the years
forces, it seemed, could either prepare for ahead. Increasingly, the U.S. military has
the future by retreating from its role as the found itself undermanned, inadequately
essential defender of today’s global security equipped and trained, straining to handle
order, or it could take care of current contingency operations, and ill-prepared to
business but be unprepared for tomorrow’s adapt itself to the revolution in military
threats and tomorrow’s battlefields. affairs. Without a well-conceived defense
policy and an appropriate increase in
i
Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century
defense spending, the United States has been of the DPG, in our judgment, remain sound.
letting its ability to take full advantage of the And what Secretary Cheney said at the time
remarkable strategic opportunity at hand slip in response to the DPG’s critics remains true
away. today: “We can either sustain the [armed]
forces we require and remain in a position to
With this in mind, we began a project in help shape things for the better, or we can
the spring of 1998 to examine the country’s throw that advantage away. [But] that
defense plans and resource requirements. would only hasten the day when we face
We started from the premise that U.S. greater threats, at higher costs and further
military capabilities should be sufficient to risk to American lives.”
support an American grand strategy
committed to building upon this The project proceeded by holding a
unprecedented opportunity. We did not series of seminars. We asked outstanding
accept pre-ordained constraints that defense specialists to write papers to explore
followed from assumptions about what the a variety of topics: the future missions and
country might or might not be willing to requirements of the individual military
expend on its defenses. services, the role of the reserves, nuclear
strategic doctrine and missile defenses, the
In broad terms, we saw the project as defense budget and prospects for military
building upon the defense strategy outlined modernization, the state (training and
by the Cheney Defense Department in the readiness) of today’s forces, the revolution
waning days of the Bush Administration. in military affairs, and defense-planning for
The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted theater wars, small wars and constabulary
in the early months operations. The papers were circulated to a
At present the
of 1992 provided a group of participants, chosen for their
blueprint for United States experience and judgment in defense affairs.
maintaining U.S. (The list of participants may be found at the
faces no
preeminence, end of this report.) Each paper then became
global rival.
precluding the rise the basis for discussion and debate. Our
of a great power America’s goal was to use the papers to assist
rival, and shaping grand strategy deliberation, to generate and test ideas, and
the international to assist us in developing our final report.
should aim to
security order in While each paper took as its starting point a
preserve and
line with American shared strategic point of view, we made no
principles and extend this attempt to dictate the views or direction of
interests. Leaked advantageous the individual papers. We wanted as full
before it had been and as diverse a discussion as possible.
position as far
formally approved,
into the future
the document was Our report borrows heavily from those
criticized as an as possible. deliberations. But we did not ask seminar
effort by “cold participants to “sign-off” on the final report.
warriors” to keep defense spending high and We wanted frank discussions and we sought
cuts in forces small despite the collapse of to avoid the pitfalls of trying to produce a
the Soviet Union; not surprisingly, it was consensual but bland product. We wanted to
subsequently buried by the new try to define and describe a defense strategy
administration. that is honest, thoughtful, bold, internally
consistent and clear. And we wanted to
Although the experience of the past spark a serious and informed discussion, the
eight years has modified our understanding essential first step for reaching sound
of particular military requirements for conclusions and for gaining public support.
carrying out such a strategy, the basic tenets
ii
Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century
New circumstances make us think that were forced to work from many untested
the report might have a more receptive assumptions about the nature of a world
audience now than in recent years. For the without a superpower rival. We have a
first time since the late 1960s the federal much better idea today of what our
government is running a surplus. For most responsibilities are, what the threats to us
of the 1990s, Congress and the White House might be in this new security environment,
gave balancing the federal budget a higher and what it will take to secure the relative
priority than funding national security. In peace and stability. We believe our report
fact, to a significant degree, the budget was reflects and benefits from that decade’s
balanced by a combination of increased tax worth of experience.
revenues and cuts in defense spending. The
surplus expected in federal revenues over Our report is published in a presidential
the next decade, however, removes any need election year. The new administration will
to hold defense spending to some need to produce a second Quadrennial
preconceived low level. Defense Review shortly after it takes office.
We hope that the Project’s report will be
Moreover, the American public and its useful as a road map for the nation’s
elected representatives have become immediate and future defense plans. We
increasingly aware of the declining state of believe we have set forth a defense program
the U.S. military. News stories, Pentagon that is justified by the evidence, rests on an
reports, congressional testimony and honest examination of the problems and
anecdotal accounts from members of the possibilities, and does not flinch from facing
armed services paint a disturbing picture of the true cost of security. We hope it will
an American military that is troubled by inspire careful consideration and serious
poor enlistment and retention rates, shoddy discussion. The post-Cold War world will
housing, a shortage of spare parts and not remain a relatively peaceful place if we
weapons, and diminishing combat readiness. continue to neglect foreign and defense
matters. But serious attention, careful
Finally, this report comes after a thought, and the willingness to devote
decade’s worth of experience in dealing with adequate resources to maintaining
the post-Cold War world. Previous efforts America’s military strength can make the
to fashion a defense strategy that would world safer and American strategic interests
make sense for today’s security environment more secure now and in the future.
Donald Kagan Gary Schmitt
Project Co-Chairmen
Thomas Donnelly
Principal Author
iii