On April 3, newly assigned U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delivered his first major policy address calling for a fundamental overhaul of the nation’s military structure. In scope and significance it’s comparable to fundamental organizational changes implemented under the 1980s Goldwater-Nichols Act.
Addressing an audience at National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, Secretary Hagel, who served as an Army sergeant in Vietnam and earned two Purple Hearts, admitted that the military has not adapted to up-to-date realities preserving large commands and elaborate support structures intact since the days of Cold War. The time has come for efforts to trim and make more effective personnel costs and acquisitions. Hagel suggested the national defense strategy outlined in January 2012, which included the Asia Pivot and less emphasis on the prospect of Iraq-style stability operations, would likely remain intact, but fulfilled with potentially fewer resources… The Secretary said what other experts have been stressing for years now – the modernization strategy depends on systems that are «vastly more expensive and technologically risky than what was promised or budgeted for». The financial and economic reality is taking its toll. The Department of Defense (DOD) is facing a $41 billion cut to its 2013 budget and a total of $500 billion from planned levels over the next decade, known as sequestration. Hagel pointed out that the US needs to «need to take a critical look at our military capabilities and ensure that our force structure and modernization plans are directly and truly aligned with the president’s strategy». The Secretary emphasized that, «It also includes balancing the competing demands of capacity and capability — how much of any given platform we need, and how much capability it needs to have to fulfill real-world missions». According to Hagel, this time it’s not about just trimming but rather coming up with drastic, fundamental changes, «Change that involves not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and practices, but where necessary fashioning entirely new ones that are better suited to 21st century realities and challenges». The review of new military will be presented by the end of May.
As Mr. Hagel noted, the US also needs to reassess how much it can depend on allies and partners. This is a very important provision meaning a new fundamental turn in US foreign policy in case it becomes a reality. He did not elaborate, but it can be unambiguously construed as a clear signal that the US intends to emphasize a burden sharing course in its relations with allies, a new trait of its foreign policy. While obviously admitting some past American national security mistakes and wrong choices Mr. Hagel said, «We have made mistakes and miscalculations with our great power». The Obama administration actually openly admits there have been gaffes in foreign and military policy to be corrected from now on. At that, the Secretary made clear the armed forces will continue to defend against violent extremism, as well as against new risks arriving over computer networks and «vintage» threats like the proliferation of unconventional weapons and the hostile aspirations of regional adversaries. Mr. Hagel nonetheless was unwavering in espousing an active overseas role for the United States, despite fiscal pressures. Sounds like an outright contradiction to be elaborated as the issue is discussed further. It remains to be strictly defined what exactly is meant by «active overseas role».
The last major reform of the armed forces structure was in the 1980s. The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 (during the Reagan administration) drastically increased jointness among the military services and established clear operational chains of command excluding overlapping of functions, the scourge of all military in all countries. Mr. Hagel is as good as his word. During confirmation hearings, he promised to evaluate the implementation of Goldwater-Nichols and make appropriate recommendations and modifications if need be.
Hagel signaled that the scope of the review under his watch will be comprehensive and may include making fundamental changes to the Act. «There will… be close scrutiny of the Defense Department's organizational chart and command structures, most of which date back to the early years of the Cold War», he said. Of course it’s too early to make assumptions concerning the would-be review findings, but Mr. Hagel admitted, «We need to challenge all past assumptions, and we need to put everything on the table», warning that previously sacrosanct things like: weapons, salaries and benefits, personnel numbers and even numbers of general and admirals in service, all will be scrutinized. One should hand it to him, by mentioning sacrosanct weapons. Mr. Hagel went to the bottom of the issue. The US military faces the problems engendered by the cutting edge they have achieved to ensure the «global dominance». It is a leading high-precision, network-centric operations force of the information warfare age. But the cost of high-precision systems and munitions has become an unbearable burden or golden assets.
Describing broad categories to be analyzed for savings, he mentioned the proper mix of civilian and military personnel, and the size of the fighting force; the balance between officers and enlisted personnel; and the share of support and administrative duties to be performed by contractors and by troops.
No matter outlining the core priorities the 29-minute speech omitted some important aspects of future reform. He did not talk directly about the prospect of reducing troop levels, made no specific mention of retirement reform and did not touch the politically sensitive issue of the military's soaring medical costs. According to the Secretary. «The size and shape of the force needs to be constantly re-assessed, to include the balance between active and reserve, the mix of conventional and unconventional capabilities, general purpose and special operations units, and the appropriate balance between forward stationed, rotationally deployed, and home-based forces». He noted that the officer corps has grown steadily in proportion to the military's overall size. «Today the operational forces of the military — measured in battalions, ships, and aircraft wings — have shrunk dramatically since the Cold War era. Yet the three- and four-star command and support structures sitting atop these smaller fighting forces have stayed intact, with minor exceptions, and in some cases they are actually increasing in size and rank», Hagel said. According to him, «the size and shape» of the armed forces should be scrutinized again, a hint that the Army and Marine Corps, each of which beefed up its ranks for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, could face further troop reductions. The Army is officially projected to shrink to 490,000 active-duty soldiers, down from about 540,000 today. But Army planners are preparing for the possibility that the size of the force might dwindle to 440,000. Similarly, the Marines last year were directed to cut 10 percent of their active-duty force, leaving the Corps at 182,000 personnel by 2016. But that might not be the bottom, either.
* * *
The United States accounts for five percent of the world’s population, around 23 percent of its economic output, more than 40 percent of its military spending. It spends as much on servicemen and weapons as the next 18 countries put together. The country spends on the military needs more than on anything else. America’s share of the global economy is shrinking. Even a healthier U.S. economy is going to face fiscal pressures: – an aging population, deferred maintenance on U.S. infrastructure, etc. That will be hard for the Pentagon to tilt against. The major strategic threat for the USA is not North Korea, Iran or whoever but rather the soaring national debt and stagnated economy. According to a study by a peace lobby, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, military spending and the cost of past wars have been swallowing up more than 40 percent of federal tax dollars, health care 20 percent, science, energy and environment 2.5 percent and education just over 2.
At that, the US enjoys high level of basic territorial security, an extremely favorable geopolitical position. It has friendly countries on both borders and no real power rivals nearby. So it’s not an about an immediate threat to the country but rather meddling in far-flung backwaters. Today, there are no US troops in Iraq, and the US war in Afghanistan is quickly winding down. The US is ending its overseas wars; there are no serious security threats. The days of huge rolling armies are a thing of the past now and the successful modern military of the future will need to adapt to the new realities.
If a terrorist group attacks the US with biologic and chemical weapons from inside the country, 11 carriers or many hundreds of fifth-generation stealth fighters in the armed forces inventory won’t change the things. A common American on the street would not set much store by the fact the US Navy, neither does he care about the military getting one more Virginia class attack submarine, especially at the time he cannot find a job, like the 10% of the country’s unemployed.
The only way to tackle the burning issues the country faces is to review all commitments abroad. For instance, pulling out all troops from Europe that is facing no threat of invasion. No long ground war in Asia is imminent (even if it flares, it’ll be naval warfare) , so the common logic makes question the expediency of keeping around 30,000 U.S. troops in Korea and 50,000 in Japan. Can these countries provide their own security with cutting edge weapons they have in their inventories? No doubt about it.
There ought to be some correspondence between capabilities and commitments. The woes faced by US Armed Forces testify to the fact that maintaining the «global dominance» and accomplishing the mission set to protect «vital interests» everywhere in the world comes in contradiction with economic realities. To great extent the current difficulties experienced by the US economy are attributed to the fact that it cracked under the heavy weight. The war in Iraq cost US taxpayers $3 trillion, another half a trillion dollars have been spent on the military operation in Afghanistan. At the same time the cutting age weapons and high-precision munitions are becoming golden assets. The US is facing overstretching, to great extent the problem is a result of living beyond the means and spending too much on wars, the adventures of dubious nature like Iraq. The situation is largely the consequence of the privileged position the US has long enjoyed in the global economy. The era is nearing its end. The days of munificence for the US, a land of the free-spenders, are over. The DOD must wean itself from the idea that the American military can go anywhere and do anything equally well.
