U.S. in need of clear, post-war direction
By Savannah Morning News
Created 2009-01-02 00:30

NEW YORK - The "Greatest Generation" just lost another son, and the world is poorer for it. Ralph Dyer, a lifelong resident of this city and former Navy man, courageously and ably served his country in World War II, ferrying the fallen from the battlefields of France to their final resting places. Now, they are tending to him.

Dyer's era was impressive not only in that it rose to the challenge of a global threat but because it displayed a magnanimous attitude after the struggle had concluded. America stood paramount at the war's end, the sole superpower. Yet it chose to engage the world in a cooperative, multilateral fashion, not dominate it. It elected to help vanquished enemies, not humiliate them. And it opted to hasten the return of global prosperity and security, not merely provide for and protect itself.

As Americans contemplate defending their interests under the Obama administration, they would benefit from a frank evaluation of where they are and where they should head in terms of military policy and planning. That was the purpose of a national conference for top military specialists and commentators sponsored by The Heritage Foundation, The El Pomar Foundation and Military Reporters & Editors in Colorado several months ago.

My take-away conclusion was that, in a chaotic world, the United States has more of a responsibility than ever to set a clear direction - in a bipartisan manner - by defining emerging threats, developing a strategy and acquiring appropriate resources. I presented this issue to readers in a column at the time of the Colorado conference and invited them to comment. To date, nearly 1,300 have done so.

Most believe that the United States should have a national strategy that combines elements of containment/deterrence, cooperation with other nations and even pre-emption on a very rare, selective basis. Many say that the United States should shield its people not only from violence but from ignorance, and thus place a significant emphasis on expanded education about security matters. They also urge that Americans learn more about their adversaries' fears and concerns. Readers are fairly evenly divided as to whether international organizations such as the United Nations can help protect U.S. national security. In the final analysis, though, most believe that the United States has to depend on itself, and should enhance its military capabilities and maintain its superiority.

I invited Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jay Garner, for specific recommendations. In addition to serving as the first post-war civilian administrator in Iraq, he was formerly an assistant vice chief of staff in the U.S. Army. Garner advises the Obama administration to:

1. Engage in a thorough, bottom-up scrub of military programs, with particular attention to cleaning out Cold War leftovers.

2. Take a hard look at the positions of the service secretaries and their staffs, with the aim of determining their utility. The bureaucratic layers in the U.S. military are too numerous and contribute to over-management and over-spending.

3. Review the responsibilities and authority of the service chiefs. At present, responsibilities exceed authority, which makes no sense because it restricts the chiefs, who are essential to shaping a vision for the future.

4. Re-establish a robust science-and-technology base for the military. In the 1970s, the United States emerged from Vietnam years behind the Russians. However, a strong science-and-technology base enabled it to close the gap and regain the advantage within a decade.

5. As we come out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the equipment of the Army and Marines is in bad shape. Most everything must be rebuilt or replaced. As we do that, we should give equal attention to the needs of the National Guard and Reserves. They have been used extensively, and their equipment also is worn out.

6. Create a blue-ribbon panel that includes both civilian and military members to review the defense cuts that have been made since the first Gulf War. All services except the Marines have been substantially affected. The panel should provide a determination of what the United States really needs in terms of force size, modernization and training.

I suspect that such a systematic, pro-active and cost-conscious approach would have made Ralph Dyer quite proud of the current generation.


Readers may e-mail John Bersia at johncbersia@msn.com [1].

Ellie