This Week at War: Doing More With Less

How can the U.S. still field a global military force in an age of austerity?

BY ROBERT HADDICK | NOVEMBER 11, 2011

Adaptability will have to fill in for money and manpower

In a speech this week to senior leaders of the National Guard, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey revealed his outline of U.S. military strategy for the remainder of the decade. Dempsey's task is to reshape the military to accomplish anticipated missions, respond and adapt to surprises, and do all this with much less funding than previously expected. Fewer soldiers with fewer new weapons will be expected to do a wider variety of tasks. Whether the Pentagon can organize itself for such flexibility and whether soldiers can learn to be "jacks of all trades" remains to be seen.

In a recent essay for Foreign Policy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed that the Asia-Pacific region will be the new center of U.S. policy. Dempsey's military strategy will support Clinton's diplomatic plan -- he announced that the Pacific will be his top military priority. It is comforting to know that the diplomats and soldiers might finally be cooperating on grand strategy.

But Dempsey reminded his audience that in spite of the emphasis on the Pacific, the United States remains a global power with worldwide responsibilities. Risk will likely rise in those areas where resources are thinned. Dempsey discussed three strategies to get more out of his remaining forces.

First, he called for a reformulated relationship between active-duty and National Guard and reserve forces. Implied in this proposal is a transfer of many active-duty Army forces, especially heavy tank and mechanized units, into the National Guard and reserve. With demand for such forces expected to drop following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, defense budget planners no doubt see this move as a way to save money on active duty personnel and training costs. The Air Force and Marine Corps will also likely be asked to similarly contribute. But a remaining concern is how quickly the Pentagon will be able to reconstitute reserve forces into effective combat units during a crisis.

Next, Dempsey called for a transformed relationship between special operations and general purpose forces. He noted that the capabilities of these forces have already been merging over the past decade. On a per soldier basis, special operations forces are expensive to train, equip, and maintain. Relative to its total budget, the Pentagon could achieve modest savings by having lower-cost general-purpose soldiers perform some designated special operations missions, such as foreign internal defense training. Such occasional substitution would free up special operations capabilities for missions requiring highly technical or covert skills. Dempsey was also likely referring to enabling support for special operations, which in the future may be provided in more cases by general purpose forces.

Dempsey's broadest and most-challenging strategy is to build a force that is capable of quickly executing military operations along the entire spectrum of conflict, from peacekeeping and training partner forces through high-intensity ground combat, including exotic capabilities such as cyberwarfare, defending space assets, and long-range strikes against heavily defended targets.

The Pentagon will have some amount of military capacity at all of these points on the spectrum of conflict. The challenge for Dempsey and his planners is whether the department will have on hand the needed quantities of  particular capabilities when a crisis demands them. That is a forecasting problem, made more difficult by looming fiscal austerity, the full extent of which is still unknown.

Complicating the task are thinking adversaries, who attempt to exploit weaknesses. Inevitable forecasting errors and thinking adversaries create the need for rapid adaptation. Dempsey experienced this personally; he arrived in Baghdad in June 2003 to command a high-tech armored division designed for open country warfare, only to find himself in the middle of a growing urban insurgency. The Army and Marine Corps eventually adapted in Iraq, but it arguably took years to complete at a painfully high cost.

Dempsey and his colleagues are planning for less money, fewer troops, but no significant rollback in the Pentagon's global responsibilities. They will look to places like the National Guard and the past decade's operational experiences for savings and efficiencies. But this decade will throw up its own surprises. The Pentagon used to solve surprises by throwing money and manpower at the problem. Now, adaptation will have to do the job instead.

U.S. Navy via Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Robert Haddick is managing editor of Small Wars Journal.

KUNINO

6:05 PM ET

November 11, 2011

Adaptability is certainly one need,

although in fact, the military are quite adaptable already. A more pressing and novel need would simply be smarter assessments by the high military command about what their forces can achieve, and complete frankness when the desired task cannot be achieved reasonably.

Obtuse and erratic civilian leadership got the US into the Iraq and Afghanistan messes (and flag officers are singing the blues because the Iraq mess is ending for America); some of the traditional "can do" responses to civilian demands seem not to have served the nation well; and the Pentagon campaign to justify military adventures by -- let's be polite -- misleading statements of what can be achieved and what has already been achieved, have guaranteed domestic losses in money, and more importantly, human lives.

Woodward in "Obama's Wars" is particularly clear about the Pentagon hunt for something that would allow offers of victory in Afghanistan. Failed hunt, it seems.

 

BIG BOY

1:31 AM ET

November 12, 2011

Wrong Approach

If history is a guide, Militarism is the wrong approach to engagement.
The Korean War was left undecided, the Vietnam War saw no gain for the US side, the Afghan War is the longest US war and is still unresolved, and the Iraq War is not exactly a success.

What we can see it that military has at best mediocre effect on the outcome. Military is useful in defensive mode rather than offensive.

The US will be a force to be reckoned with but with emerging powers, it will not be able to keep an eye on everyone.

 

EZRA

6:03 PM ET

November 12, 2011

j

The Pentagon budget has doubled in the last ten years, in response to a fantastically hyped threat against which conventional military forces are of relatively little or no use. The cuts proposed do not represent "austerity," they are simply a return to sanity. There is no reason the US won't be perfectly safe with the level of military spending it had as of 2000.

 

JOHNHUNT

10:50 PM ET

November 13, 2011

American Foreign Legion

What about starting an American Foreign Legion. Maintaining a large force of GIs would cost a fair amount less. We could expand the number of our forces that speak a foreign language fluently. Through those vetrans, we would establish personal contacts in multiple militaries around the world. There would also be a certain number of already well-trained soldiers of the local area with loyalty to the United States but with the skills to provide military leadership post regime change.

 

IBARVETERAN

4:31 PM ET

November 14, 2011

Question

What language(s) should our foreign legion speak?

At the end of the Cold War, we had a ton of Russian and Eastern European language speakers, so of course our first two fights after the wall came down were in Panama and Kuwait/Iraq.

 

MATTHEW_W

7:33 AM ET

November 14, 2011

10 man job for 1 person

How many more lifes need to be shed for people to understand that cutting costs for certain things does not become a benefit.

 

WILLRIVERA

6:28 PM ET

December 4, 2011

Escalation Dominance

America and Israel haven't eliminated military action against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy does not resolve the nuclear dispute. Iran has dismissed reports of possible US or Israeli intends to strike Iran, warning it would react to such assault by attacking US interests within the Gulf and Israel.

 

FRICHST854

8:32 PM ET

December 10, 2011

National Guard and reserve forces

We are able to setup a brand new government, dictate our peace terms, and then leave that country in ruins inside the 1 to 3 months supplied by the War Powers Act. The brand new, shaken leaders do not need to last forever. The first kind regime won't like being taken off power, however their go back to their large devastated offices full of rotting corpses should cause them to become behave in a manner that meets our minimum standards of conduct.