thedrifter
11-15-05, 02:48 PM
November 21, 2005
Expert: Corps likely to miss chance to change
Christian Lowe
Times staff writer
This may be the best time in more than half a century for the military to usher in significant change — from the mix of equipment, to the services’ roles and missions, to career reform and end-strength increases, according to one military expert.
With the confluence of the war on terrorism — which requires a new combination of conventional, special and government agency forces — new technologies and experienced military manpower, defense officials helping shape a four-year military strategy have a perfect opportunity to reshape the military to fit today’s reality and better prepare for the future.
However, that’s not likely to happen, the expert said.
“I think this [Quadrennial Defense Review] could potentially lead to the most dramatic shift in our defense posture since the early days of the Cold War,” said Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a frequent consultant for the Pentagon on strategic and procurement issues.
“If you were looking for a perfect storm that could provide the opportunity for that kind of shift, it’s all there.”
Some analysts familiar with the process believe the Marine Corps could be on the cusp of a major shift in focus, possibly concentrating its future operations on counterinsurgency and battling states that have a limited stockpile of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
But Krepinevich doesn’t see much change coming for the Corps.
“I think the odds of big change coming are about eight-to-one against,” he said. “It’s not clear to me that [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld really picked military leaders who are noted for transformation or thinking outside the box.”
A hit on procurement
Krepinevich claimed the review has devolved into an exercise for the services to find cost savings in an era of tight budgets and growing manpower costs — what most Pentagon insiders call a “cut-drill” — rather than focusing on long-term reform.
Some of those cuts could affect three of the Corps’ most important programs, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and the MV-22 Osprey. The Corps faces a huge bill in coming years to pay for these new weapons, leaving many to wonder if the service can replenish its stocks of worn-out gear and also buy new systems for the future.
“It seems to me procurement is going to take a big hit because the buildup we’ve had, from a procurement standpoint, is a hollow one,” Krepinevich said. “Most of this [future] stuff is all out there waiting to be bought. You’ll have this enormous bulge.”
But top Corps officials are sticking to their guns.
“We provide a certain capability to this nation. And I think that the question is, does the nation want that capability, not only today but for any contingency in the future?” asked Commandant Gen. Mike Hagee, explaining that the Corps will have to be able to buy both today’s gear to replace combat losses and purchase high-tech — and costly — systems such as the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle for the wars of the future. “If you want that capability, we have to reconstitute, and it costs money.”
Yet as the Corps focuses more intently on innovative ways to combat the insurgency in Iraq and global jihadist networks, momentum could still be slowed by old-school thinkers wedded to Cold War-era concepts, Krepinevich said.
Ellie
Expert: Corps likely to miss chance to change
Christian Lowe
Times staff writer
This may be the best time in more than half a century for the military to usher in significant change — from the mix of equipment, to the services’ roles and missions, to career reform and end-strength increases, according to one military expert.
With the confluence of the war on terrorism — which requires a new combination of conventional, special and government agency forces — new technologies and experienced military manpower, defense officials helping shape a four-year military strategy have a perfect opportunity to reshape the military to fit today’s reality and better prepare for the future.
However, that’s not likely to happen, the expert said.
“I think this [Quadrennial Defense Review] could potentially lead to the most dramatic shift in our defense posture since the early days of the Cold War,” said Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a frequent consultant for the Pentagon on strategic and procurement issues.
“If you were looking for a perfect storm that could provide the opportunity for that kind of shift, it’s all there.”
Some analysts familiar with the process believe the Marine Corps could be on the cusp of a major shift in focus, possibly concentrating its future operations on counterinsurgency and battling states that have a limited stockpile of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
But Krepinevich doesn’t see much change coming for the Corps.
“I think the odds of big change coming are about eight-to-one against,” he said. “It’s not clear to me that [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld really picked military leaders who are noted for transformation or thinking outside the box.”
A hit on procurement
Krepinevich claimed the review has devolved into an exercise for the services to find cost savings in an era of tight budgets and growing manpower costs — what most Pentagon insiders call a “cut-drill” — rather than focusing on long-term reform.
Some of those cuts could affect three of the Corps’ most important programs, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and the MV-22 Osprey. The Corps faces a huge bill in coming years to pay for these new weapons, leaving many to wonder if the service can replenish its stocks of worn-out gear and also buy new systems for the future.
“It seems to me procurement is going to take a big hit because the buildup we’ve had, from a procurement standpoint, is a hollow one,” Krepinevich said. “Most of this [future] stuff is all out there waiting to be bought. You’ll have this enormous bulge.”
But top Corps officials are sticking to their guns.
“We provide a certain capability to this nation. And I think that the question is, does the nation want that capability, not only today but for any contingency in the future?” asked Commandant Gen. Mike Hagee, explaining that the Corps will have to be able to buy both today’s gear to replace combat losses and purchase high-tech — and costly — systems such as the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle for the wars of the future. “If you want that capability, we have to reconstitute, and it costs money.”
Yet as the Corps focuses more intently on innovative ways to combat the insurgency in Iraq and global jihadist networks, momentum could still be slowed by old-school thinkers wedded to Cold War-era concepts, Krepinevich said.
Ellie