–updated–
As reviews continue over national security policy, focused here and abroad, one in particular is long overdue in my opinion, merging the Homeland Security Council into the National Security Council. John Brennan, who raised such a ruckus when he was being considered for CIA chief, and is now Obama’s assistant to the president for homeland security and deputy national security advisor, could end up steering both.
But an article in the Army’s War College quarterly, Parameters, by Shawn Brimley, who wrote about the pluses of limited withdrawal from Iraq, points to real action needed in our defense structure (via Tom Ricks). Parts illustrate why someone as strong as Hillary Clinton was picked to head the State Department, but also to the challenges inherited by President Obama from George W. Bush.
Clinton’s presence at State foreshadows the shift needed, as described by Brimley:
The new administration also inherited nonmilitary instruments of statecraft that are struggling to rejuvenate an expeditionary ethos and capability that became seriously atrophied in the post-Cold War era. Despite a notable increase in funding for the State Department in recent years, resources and capabilities for diplomacy, foreign assistance, field development, and public diplomacy remain a fraction of what they should be. It is not in America’s interest to constantly depend on its military to provide, in some instances, all the elements of statecraft. Indeed, in his current guidance for the joint force, Admiral Mullen warns that “we must guard against the further militarization of our foreign policy.” During the Cold War, US leaders understood the necessity of using all elements of national power to counter an adversary who practiced ideological warfare. The future will require the United States to be adept not only in countering extremist strategies, but also those of rising autocratic powers, emboldened by the current economic crisis and likely to challenge western liberal economic models in ways not seen for decades. Moreover, America’s image abroad has significantly eroded in recent years, making it difficult to persuade international partners and allies to continue their participation in ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and hampering the ability of US diplomats to make progress on key international issues.
But on specifics regarding our armed forces, Brimley focuses on the importance of the Navy utilizing more far ranging technologies, which includes missile defense priorities:
Also, the Navy needs to make preparations for a future in which carrier-based unmanned combat aerial vehicles constitute a fairly high percentage of aviation assets. The range and persistence that Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) platforms will provide would dramatically increase the capacity of aircraft carriers to support a wide range of surveillance and combat requirements across a variety of missions. Especially in light of the development of new threats such as hypersonic cruise missiles, it only makes sense that the Navy embrace technologies enabling increased capacity to support ground operations from farther offshore. The impressive performance of the Navy’s Aegis missile system during the 2008 launch to destroy a failing US satellite demonstrated that the Navy can and will continue to play a critical role in providing a variety of missile-defense capabilities. Finally, the Navy should continue to enhance capabilities that hedge against a future in which America’s adversaries employ anti-access and sea-denial strategies utilizing advanced technology.
As for the Air Force and fans of the A22Raptor, consider me one, there’s bad news in the recommends:
Given budget pressures, the Air Force should consider taking more risk in its short-range tactical fighter programs, including limiting F-22A Raptor procurement to 183 planes and slowing the production rate of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Finally, given the increased importance of building the capacity of foreign militaries, the Air Force would be wise to invest in simpler, lower cost platforms for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and combat air support such as the propeller-driven RC-12 or a new light-attack aircraft (OA-X). Use of these platforms will help build partner capacity at a fraction of the cost of more advanced and largely unnecessary systems.
Noted. But killing the F-22A Raptor is short-sided, in my opinion, because you never know what lies out in front. Besides, this fighter does what no other can do, regardless of the cost. Count me among the crowd below. Via The Hill:
The latest letter sent to Obama on Friday was signed by a broad group that included Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), John Thune (R-S.D.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).
In the House, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) is also spearheading a letter to Obama. So far, 170 lawmakers signed on and the letter is still circulating for more signatures.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has opposed buying more F-22s and favors buying the multinational, multiservice Joint Strike Fighter, an aircraft in development that is expected to be cheaper than the F-22.
… Bill Lynn, the designee to become the deputy secretary of Defense, said at his confirmation hearing on Wednesday that part of an early strategic review includes the Pentagon deciding on the right mix of F-22s and the Joint Strike Fighter.
“The F-22 Raptor is the nation’s most capable fighter and the world’s only operational fifth-generation fighter aircraft in full-rate production,” the senators said in their letter to Obama. “The F-22 is a model production line and, since full-rate production began, the unit flyaway cost has decreased 35 percent.”
But maybe I’m partial to continuing the F-22 Raptor due to my Uncle Dick. CSM gives another case for keeping this most advanced warplane, which gets down to a guns and butter issue, though not the one you’d suspect.
A lot to think about as Obama takes charge of our national security structure, but up front is what is beyond our military priorities, and that is building our reputation back after the Bush-Cheney era.
However, let there be no doubt that obsolete weaponry and the bloated Pentagon budget is priority one. We just need to be judicious in what we cut as we don’t know what lies around the next decade. But as Winslow Wheeler says, someone who has cross-posted articles on this blog on defense spending many times, it all gets down to Peter Orzsag’s strength of purpose, because the private defense contractor industry is gearing up for a fight.
“This is a real test for Gates and Peter Orzsag to write regulations that make it easier to do right thing and harder to do wrong thing and then fight the nasty brutal battles that will make it stick,” he said. “This is the first step in a long journey, if they’re serious.”
That caterwauling you hear is the right-wing noise machine. They’ll see even necessary cuts and reprioritization of defense spending as a threat, as well as an opportunity to pound the Obama administration, regardless of Secretary Gates and John McCain being on board. New era, same old song from the right.
