thedrifter
07-16-07, 07:45 AM
Congress told that military misses key missions
By William Matthews - bmatthews@militarytimes.com
Posted : July 23, 2007
When it comes to some of the critical roles and missions for national security, the U.S. military may be missing in action.
The possibility of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon is the most serious threat confronting the nation, but neither preventing such an attack nor responding to one is among the military’s top priorities, John Hamre, former deputy defense secretary, told the House Armed Services Committee.
And although the Army is deeply involved in counterinsurgency and irregular warfare, it is expanding and creating new brigade combat teams that will be better-suited for fighting conventional wars, said Andrew Krepinevich, director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
As the House Armed Services Committee embarks on an evaluation of military roles and missions, the pair advised members to focus on new threats confronting the nation and compel the services to say how they plan to counter them.
The committee passed legislation this spring calling for the services to determine their core competencies, develop those that are missing and jettison unneeded capabilities.
Hamre suggested a different approach. Focusing on core competencies “will only reinforce the things that the services do well and keep us from focusing on things that we don’t do well,” he said. A traditional roles-and-missions review is bound to generate a counterproductive turf war among the services, he said.
Instead, the committee should ask the military key questions, such as, “Who has responsibility for preventing a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States?” Hamre said, adding that the committee should insist that the services provide acceptable answers.
The committee also should stress to the services that they are confronting new problems, such as modern insurgency, and ask service leaders how they plan to defeat them, Krepinevich advised.
Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., asked Hamre and Krepinevich to provide a list of key threats the military should be prepared to counter.
Krepinevich named “three major and enduring challenges”: war with radical Islamists, the growing number of nuclear-armed countries and the rise of China as a regional power.
These “represent changes in the character of the military challenges to U.S. security,” he said. Consequently, the U.S. military must “adjust its thinking regarding what constitutes its core missions.”
The hearing offered a few glimpses of changes that might be in store for the services.
For example, the services may have excess capacity in strike aircraft, Krepinevich said.
Thanks to precision munitions, the Iraq war required fewer than half the strike aircraft employed during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he said. Should the services shed planes? For the Army, only one of six heavy divisions was needed for the “march to Baghdad,” he said. But in the fight against insurgents, suicide bombers and roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, “the results have been far less satisfactory,” he said.
As the Army prepares to spend up to $160 billion replacing equipment destroyed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, should it rebuild the Army that went to war in 2001, or build something new, he asked.
Fifty percent of the world’s population now lives in urban areas, but the U.S. military still does not have a joint urban warfare training center, Krepinevich said.
Ellie
By William Matthews - bmatthews@militarytimes.com
Posted : July 23, 2007
When it comes to some of the critical roles and missions for national security, the U.S. military may be missing in action.
The possibility of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon is the most serious threat confronting the nation, but neither preventing such an attack nor responding to one is among the military’s top priorities, John Hamre, former deputy defense secretary, told the House Armed Services Committee.
And although the Army is deeply involved in counterinsurgency and irregular warfare, it is expanding and creating new brigade combat teams that will be better-suited for fighting conventional wars, said Andrew Krepinevich, director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
As the House Armed Services Committee embarks on an evaluation of military roles and missions, the pair advised members to focus on new threats confronting the nation and compel the services to say how they plan to counter them.
The committee passed legislation this spring calling for the services to determine their core competencies, develop those that are missing and jettison unneeded capabilities.
Hamre suggested a different approach. Focusing on core competencies “will only reinforce the things that the services do well and keep us from focusing on things that we don’t do well,” he said. A traditional roles-and-missions review is bound to generate a counterproductive turf war among the services, he said.
Instead, the committee should ask the military key questions, such as, “Who has responsibility for preventing a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States?” Hamre said, adding that the committee should insist that the services provide acceptable answers.
The committee also should stress to the services that they are confronting new problems, such as modern insurgency, and ask service leaders how they plan to defeat them, Krepinevich advised.
Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., asked Hamre and Krepinevich to provide a list of key threats the military should be prepared to counter.
Krepinevich named “three major and enduring challenges”: war with radical Islamists, the growing number of nuclear-armed countries and the rise of China as a regional power.
These “represent changes in the character of the military challenges to U.S. security,” he said. Consequently, the U.S. military must “adjust its thinking regarding what constitutes its core missions.”
The hearing offered a few glimpses of changes that might be in store for the services.
For example, the services may have excess capacity in strike aircraft, Krepinevich said.
Thanks to precision munitions, the Iraq war required fewer than half the strike aircraft employed during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he said. Should the services shed planes? For the Army, only one of six heavy divisions was needed for the “march to Baghdad,” he said. But in the fight against insurgents, suicide bombers and roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, “the results have been far less satisfactory,” he said.
As the Army prepares to spend up to $160 billion replacing equipment destroyed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, should it rebuild the Army that went to war in 2001, or build something new, he asked.
Fifty percent of the world’s population now lives in urban areas, but the U.S. military still does not have a joint urban warfare training center, Krepinevich said.
Ellie