Excerpted from ENN Daily Intelligence Report - 01/05/97 - Vol. 3, No. 005
* LEAD FOCUS*
PENTAGON PLANNERS RETHINK GLOBAL STRATEGY ...
By Steve Macko, ENN Editor
About eight years ago, the Pentagon's worst war scenario was the Red Army marching through the heart of Western
Europe. But since the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. military has had to rethink its strategy. Right now, the worse case
scenario is the outbreak of two wars at the same time -- one in the Middle East and the other on the Korean Peninsula.
The yardstick that Pentagon planners have use to configure the size, structure and budgets of post-Cold War forces is the
ability to fight and, of course, win two "nearly simultaneous" wars in different areas of world. There is no other country that
even comes close to even considering such a strategy.
But the United States is the world's last remaining superpower. Besides looking out for its own national interest, the U.S.
also looks out for the best interest of its allies.
The question with what is called the two major regional conflict (MRC) strategy is -- can the Pentagon really handle the
load if it became necessary to do so? Since the Pentagon is now preparing a study on the subject -- the strategy is being
debated in the world's largest office building.
The Congressionally mandated review is to be completed by May. This will be the third such review by the Pentagon since
1992. The study is intended to serve as the military's blueprint for protecting the interests of the U.S. well into the 21st
century.
The big question that Congress will be asking is -- should the U.S. retain the two-MRC strategy? By keeping the strategy,
the quadrennial defense review (QDR) will not call for any major changes in the U.S. defense policy. But should the study
call for any sweeping changes, this will affect the size, shape and tactics of U.S. forces.
Analysts at the Chicago-based Emergency Response and Research Institute say that Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and China
pose the greatest threats to U.S. geopolitical interests in the short-term future. It is the belief of ERRI analysts that no
change in the basic strategy is needed, at this time.
There are, however, experts inside the government that say the QDR should incorporate cost-saving cutbacks combined
with the innovative uses of advanced technologies to ensure the United States remains the number one military power in
the world.
ERRI analysts dispute that idea vehemently. What the experts who want to see a reduction in the Pentagon's budget are
really saying is to cut back on the number of personnel and rely more heavily on the technological superiority the U.S.
military has in its weapons.
That strategy has not historically worked in other fields. An example would be with the Central Intelligence Agency. There
was a time, in the past, that an emphasis was placed more on technological intelligence collecting rather than on HUMINT
(Human Intelligence). this policy proved disastrous. HUMINT resources, in some countries, fell to zero. (Iran, at the time
of U.S. Embassy takeover, is an example.)
Smart bombs and excellent jet fighters cannot hold ground. Manpower is needed and will always be needed. There are
plans to reduce the number of soldiers that is required to secure and hold territory by the assistance of superior
technology. But these plans are still, at the very least, about ten to 15 years away.
Andrew Krepinevich of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary analysis said, "It takes a long time to
transform a military organization. It takes a long time to research, test and develop new systems, the doctrine of how to
use them and to restructure the forces."
"The QDR is not about protecting today's force," said Deputy Defense Secretary John White. "It is rather about shaping
tomorrow's force. Everything is on the table."
White is one of those experts who believes that the two-MRC has outlived its usefulness. He has said, in recent speeches,
that the current U.S. military strategy fails to take into account the peacekeeping and non-traditional operations that the
U.S. military now undertakes. It is his contention that the QDR should suggest more ways for U.S. forces to adapt to
more non-traditional missions.
White's plan to adapt to more non-traditional missions is sure to meet some resistance at the Pentagon and other branches
of government where the "peacekeeping" missions and such are very unpopular. However, these types of missions have
proven to be popular in some areas of the current U.S. administration.
Robert Bell, a senior National Security Council official. said, "We don't have the option in the Quadrennial Defense
Review of saying we'll just take out of the strategy one of the MRCs to save money. Not only was the decision right when
it was made, it's not clear to me ... today that the world has changed ... in terms of a two-MRC requirement."
Even if the current administration doesn't want to change the two-MRC strategy, it probably will be compelled to make
some changes in the policy by the end of Clinton's next term that will end in the year 2000. It is believed that the U.S. will
field a smaller force and rely on greater participation of U.S. allies in any major combat operation.
The last two reviews that were conducted in 1992 and 1993 embraced the two-MRC strategy while, at the same time,
reduced the size of the armed forces from 2.3 million personnel to 1.4 million.
Even though there has been an almost one million reduction in the number of personnel, the budget of the Pentagon
remains at Cold War levels. It's also not like the U.S. military has been standing idle. There are the costs of operations in
Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia that must be paid for.
"Regardless of whether you keep the active force of 1.4 million with the two-war strategy, you are going to need to
increase spending in the next decade because Reagan-era equipment is going to wear out," said Michael O'Hanlon, a
defense expert with the Brookings Institution. "When you think out to the next decade, you have a problem."
There are plans, starting in 1997, to begin massive spending for the purchases of the next-generation weapons systems.
These include the F-22 jet fighter and a new nuclear-powered attack submarine (Seawolf).
ERRI Editorial Comment 01/05/97 - 11:30CST
Two Major Regional Conflict (MRC) Concept/SRC's
By C. L. Staten, Senior Analyst
(ENN) In today's edition of the ENN Daily Intelligence Report [above], our Managing Editor, Steve Macko, offers an
informed and balanced article concerning the idea of maintaining sufficient forces to fight in two Major Regional Conflicts
concurrently. As an adjunct to this discussion, this author would like to add offer an additional consideration to be
reviewed in the quadrennial defense review (QDR).
Our analysis of this issue is not complete at this time, but it would appear that it might be reasonable to discuss the very
real possibility of responding to 7-10 (or more) Small Regional Conflicts (SRC) in a given time frame, rather than to focus
solely on our larger commitment to major theater warfare. This estimate is based in the belief that the future will bring
literally dozens of "brush-fire" conflicts and that "stateless warfare" may necessitate a larger number of responses of smaller
(self-contained) specialized units of military force...in multiple locations simultaneously.
We will continue to examine this important issue and provide an additional perspective as the QDR comes closer, but we
wanted to bring this matter to light, so that it might be openly discussed in the overall planning effort. ERRI would welcome
comments and perspectives regarding the concept of multiple MRC's/SRC's and the future configuration of our military
forces.
Please address your comments to: Clark Staten or Steve Macko
EmergencyNet News Service
Emergency Response & Research Institute
6348 N. Milwaukee Ave., #312 Chicago, IL. 60646
(773) 631-3774 - Voice
(773) 631-4703 - Fax
(773) 631-3467 - Modem/Emergency BBS On-Line
http://www.emergency.com - Website
enn@emergency.com - E-mail