|
16 November 2000
Military Chief Says U.S. Capability to Fight in Two Regions Works Well
by
Susan Ellis and Jacqui Porth
Washington File Security Affairs Writers
Washington -- The highest-ranking U.S. military officer says the
capability to carry out two major theater wars (MTW) simultaneously
"has served us well," allowing the United States, as a global power,
"to go in two directions at one time."
Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Chairman Henry "Hugh" Shelton says
maintaining the full military capability for what the military terms a
two MTW "helps define us as a global power. And when we're committed
in one area of the world, it deters opportunistic aggression in
another; it helps us guard against being surprised."
The Army General was one of several keynote speakers to address the
"National Strategies and Capabilities for A Changing World" conference
co-sponsored by the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, the Office
of Secretary of Defense for Net Assessment, and the International
Security Studies Program of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
at Tufts University in Arlington, Virginia on November 15-16.
He told the conferees on November 16 that maintaining the capability
for a two MTW strengthens "coalition relationships -- so important to
how we will fight in future operations." Shelton said the world
remains a dangerous place and "America's superiority generates envy,
if not outright hatred of many." This means, he said, that clever,
adaptive adversaries will take stock of U.S. successes and failures
and try to exploit any perceived weaknesses. They will also use
"asymmetric warfare to thwart or sap our will, "he added, pointing to
the October 12 suicide attack against the USS Cole in Yemeni waters as
an example.
Looking toward the future, Shelton said the range of conflict the U.S.
may be expected to handle will expand. "We can expect non-state
actors, asymmetric attacks, anti-access strategies to deny us entry
into a given theater of operations, or they may even extend the battle
space to our shores by either attacking our critical infrastructure or
by using weapons of mass destruction," he said.
While the U.S. has no peer competitor now, the JSC Chairman said the
potential exists for one to emerge or for a combination of states to
join together to challenge U.S. interests. The U.S. must be prepared
to conduct rapid decisive operations, Shelton said, because there is
no indication that threats to American global interests and
responsibilities or obligations to its allies will change.
Shelton spoke to more than 400 attendees from 25 nations, officers
from the three U.S. military services, as well as security experts
from academia and Capitol Hill. During a question-and-answer session,
Shelton talked about the need to employ technologies that enhance
interoperability, especially with respect to secure communication
networks. This means encouraging American allies "to keep up the
pace... and not fall so far behind us" that there is a big gap when
coalitions try to operate on the battlefield, he said. It also means
encouraging allies to spend an appropriate amount on defenses and also
to share military doctrines, he said.
In another panel, Army General Tommy Franks, the regional
commander-in-chief (CINC) with responsibilities in the Middle East,
North Africa and South Asia, said the United States needs to work on
coalition-building on a daily basis and not simply when a crisis
arises. His counterpart in Southern and Latin America, Marine Corps
General Peter Pace echoed this theme by noting that no country is so
strong that it can act unilaterally in this era of globalization and
no nation is so weak as not to have something of value to add to a
coalition undertaking.
Several of the regional and functional CINCs were asked about the need
for U.S. national and theater missile defenses. Pace said the U.S.
should be ready to protect its interests. Air Force General Charles
Robertson, CINC for the U.S. Transportation Command, said "we must
push this technology" to address the threat that missiles will be used
to attack American ships and aircraft because that threat "will not go
away." U.S. Special Operations CINC Air Force General Charles Holland
said weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them still
pose the largest threat to the fabric of American society.
Another featured speaker, Condoleezza Rice, Professor of Political
Science at Stanford and a National Security Council staff aide to
former President George Bush, told the group that the United States is
not the only nation that can deal with security challenges. While
local conflicts and man's inhumanity to man should not be ignored, she
said, it can often be addressed through "arranging coalitions, finding
others sometimes to bear the burden with American support and help."
She also said that ballistic missile defense is critical for the
United States. She suggested that it should be possible to overcome
the technical problems associated with missile defenses. Then, she
said, there is the issue of how to manage the politics of pursuing
missile defense. She also acknowledged that deploying missile defense
won't resolve all existing threats posed to U.S. interests from such
sources as cruise missiles and conventional terrorism. Rice, now a key
adviser to George W. Bush, also said "It is time for a new strategic
concept" between the United States and Russia because the existing one
dates back to the days of the Cold War.
Another George W. Bush adviser on foreign policy and security strategy
said there is no "dividing wall" between foreign and domestic affairs,
and therefore the United States must remain engaged in the world.
Speaking November 15, a former assistant secretary at both the State
and Defense Departments Richard Armitage said the United States must
not be the sole actor to respond to emergency assistance calls in all
crises.
The U.S. military must not be sent in whenever a conflict breaks out,
he said. U.S. political and economic power and international financial
institutions can be employed, and there must be a clear national
strategy and a coherent military mission before troops are ordered
into combat, he added.
American foreign policy and national security strategy is based on the
national interest and "only a foreign policy grounded in American
national interests can identify priorities for American engagement in
the world," said Graham Allison, a professor at Harvard University's
John F. Kennedy School of Government.
In response to a question about the priority placed on Asia with
respect to U.S. national interests, Armitage said: "The prominence of
Asia in the American policymaking community's attention span and focus
has grown, particularly as one looks at the complicated nexus of
relations in a setting in which the institutions are relatively weak,
as compared with the European framework.
"In terms of both challenges to American interests in the decade ahead
and opportunities for advancing American interests, the China, Japan,
India, Pakistan, North Korea nexus does, indeed, demand more attention
and focus," he said.
Asked where Russia and China would fit in his definition of national
security interest and strategy, Armitage said "Both those countries,
if we don't handle relationships right, have the ability to change the
direction of civilization. The fundamental difference between the
Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China -- and of North
Korea - is that (the latter) is meddlesome and bothersome but is not
going to change the direction of western civilization."
Many hold the view, he said, that "the most important development in
the first half of the next century will be the rise of China taking,
what we hope will be, their rightful place on the world stage, along
with the rise of India." These advents must be "managed," he said,
along with the management "at least temporarily of another formerly
great power, the Russian Federation. Both (challenges) are fraught
with opportunities and dangers."
The United States wants to have "a good, congenial and friendly
relationship" with these countries, Armitage said, adding "We will try
our best to be of assistance in building institutions which outlive
personalities and their political body politic." In the future, he
said, it is possible that China could become a strategic partner with
the United States, but that is not currently possible with China
viewed as "a strategic competitor."
Another speaker, Representative Ellen Tauscher (Democrat, California),
senior minority member of the House Armed Services Committee panel
charged with overseeing the new National Nuclear Security
Administration, noted that there are two national nuclear laboratories
in her Congressional district -- Livermore and Sandia National
Laboratories.
Therefore, she said, she takes a special interest in Russia and its
"major arms control and proliferation problems." The nuclear inventory
control regime initiated a few years ago is attempting to "lock down
all of their highly enriched uranium and plutonium," and other nuclear
materials, she said, adding that the United States is a partner in
this effort as well as in trying to find a solution for the thousands
of nuclear scientists and technicians who haven't been paid since the
devaluation of the Russian currency more than a year ago.
In a panel discussion on emerging threats, Army Lieutenant General
Edward Anderson, deputy commander-in-chief of the U.S. Space Command,
said that even though global conflict is remote, "we have to continue
to strengthen our relationships with our very close allies, and new
allies," even if this means working on "controversial issues and
cooperating with folks who used to be our adversaries."
Anderson predicted that "potential adversaries are not going to take
us (the United States) head-on, but rather try to employ asymmetries."
He said the United States' superior conventional forces and nuclear
balance "drive them to that kind of strategy. They will try to avoid
our strengths and seek our weaknesses and attack those. We see three
(major) emerging asymmetrical threat areas: ballistic missiles, cyber
warfare and space control." Space Command has the responsibility to
counter these threats, he said.
"There is a worldwide proliferation of ballistic missile technology,
exacerbated by missile components as well as missile technology, and
one of the outcomes of that is that the traditional extended
development time for ballistic missiles has been shortened
considerably," Anderson said. "The bottom line is that the number as
well as capability of strategic ballistic missiles is certainly on the
rise."
The general noted that no decision has been made to a deploy national
missile defense, but that the National Defense Act of 1999 requires
deployment "as soon as the technology is ready. The Unified Command
Plan (UCP) has assigned SPACECOM with the responsibility for providing
warning of ballistic missile attack for all 50 states and for
developing the requirements for the ballistic missile defense of the
nation."
Anderson showed slides of key system elements: the interceptors,
ground-based radars, and space-based sensors, calling them "the
technological challenge that lies ahead," and said they won't work
"unless we have a good battle management command and control system,
and it is integrated with our current early-warning radar system."
SPACECOM is trying to bring these together, he said, adding that in
the near future the command will direct a simulated attack on the
United States using strategic ballistic missiles. "We are trying to
make sure we are prepared so that when and if a decision is made to
deploy an NMD system, we will have all the pieces in the total system
ready to go," he said.
(The Washington File is a product of the Office of International
Program, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Return to the Washington File
|
