Instapundit quotes part of a Fred Thompson speech on defense and frankly I'm not impressed:
Second, it seems to be that increasing the size of the military strikes me as a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. With ground forces in Iraq now set to decline and likely to be well under 100,000 within 2 years or so, how much sense does that really make? You don't train new troops and activate new brigades overnight. By the time they are up and running will the need for them still exist? Do we play on waging two counter-insurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan for the foreseeable future? Is there a realistic possibility of an Iraq-scale war occurring with another country? This strikes me as very difficult to imagine if for no other reason than I doubt voters have the stomach for another one.
And while I agree that considerable sums will have to be spent on replacing worn-out vehicles, I don't see the need for a significant modernization effort. The U.S.'s main battle tank, the Abrams, remains the best in the world despite being designed in the 1970s. It's hard to imagine that changing in the foreseeable future. Same goes for our aircraft and ships as well. While I understand the need to stay ahead of the curve how many third world militaries stand a chance of realistically overtaking us? (and how many first world militaries do we stand a chance of going to war against?)
The bigger point, however, is that Thompson seems suffer from a lack of imagination. Rather than giving real critical thinking to the future he is simply advocating a Reagan redux with a return to Cold War-era defense budgets. But this isn't the Cold War and the necessity of many of these weapons platforms is debatable. Since the end of the Cold War the military has, rather presciently, talked a lot about the need to be prepared for Low Intensity Conflicts -- and indeed these are exactly what it has been engaged in. With the exception of a brief conventional phase in Iraq the U.S. military has found itself engaged in LICs in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq that require a far different set of assets and skills than taking on the Soviet Union. The most advanced helicopter is vulnerable to the shoulder-fired missile. The most advanced tank can be destroyed by an EFP.
Not to say that I disagree with all of what Thompson has to say:
First, we must spend more on defense, and we must do so carefully and wisely. Spending today as a percent of GDP is estimated at 4.1 percent – and that includes funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.Ok, first off, 4.5% of GDP is about $600 billion. That's a huge amount of money. Really, an astonishing amount of money. Doesn't it make more sense to simply have the defense budget reflect actual needs rather than picking an arbitrary number such as a percentage of GDP?
According to the Office of Management and Budget, defense spending is expected to decline down to 3.1 percent in 2011. I believe we must be prepared to increase defense spending to at least 4.5 percent of GDP, not including what it takes to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. When it comes to matters of budgets with Congress they say all numbers are fungible. But in this area of appropriation, there should be little room for negotiation.
Second, we must admit to ourselves, as Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, that our military is simply too small. Too many commitments today leave our Armed Forces capable of meeting too few contingencies tomorrow. I propose today that we build a “Million-Member” ground force. We should increase Army end strength to 775,000 organized into 64 brigade combat teams and increase active duty Marine Corps forces by 50,000 to 225,000. Half-measures and small increases will no longer do. We need the best all-volunteer force that can meet the security needs of this country, and they must be organized, trained and equipped to deal with tomorrow’s threats as well as today’s.
Third, we must modernize our Armed Forces. The average age of our military aircraft is 24 years; some are over forty years old…twice the age of most of you. The Army’s main battle tank and fighting vehicles were designed in the 1970s and 80s. And the entire fleet of vehicles is not aging gracefully either, with an average age of 13 years, made worse by years of tough use.
We must fully field and fund the next generation of military systems to ensure U.S. forces retain dominance in the full battle space: On the battlefield, in the skies above it, and in the waters surrounding it. The investments we make today provide the means to defend our nation tomorrow. They will make our military personnel more effective and safer. We need sustained technology development, and we need the best and brightest working on our defense programs.
Second, it seems to be that increasing the size of the military strikes me as a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. With ground forces in Iraq now set to decline and likely to be well under 100,000 within 2 years or so, how much sense does that really make? You don't train new troops and activate new brigades overnight. By the time they are up and running will the need for them still exist? Do we play on waging two counter-insurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan for the foreseeable future? Is there a realistic possibility of an Iraq-scale war occurring with another country? This strikes me as very difficult to imagine if for no other reason than I doubt voters have the stomach for another one.
And while I agree that considerable sums will have to be spent on replacing worn-out vehicles, I don't see the need for a significant modernization effort. The U.S.'s main battle tank, the Abrams, remains the best in the world despite being designed in the 1970s. It's hard to imagine that changing in the foreseeable future. Same goes for our aircraft and ships as well. While I understand the need to stay ahead of the curve how many third world militaries stand a chance of realistically overtaking us? (and how many first world militaries do we stand a chance of going to war against?)
The bigger point, however, is that Thompson seems suffer from a lack of imagination. Rather than giving real critical thinking to the future he is simply advocating a Reagan redux with a return to Cold War-era defense budgets. But this isn't the Cold War and the necessity of many of these weapons platforms is debatable. Since the end of the Cold War the military has, rather presciently, talked a lot about the need to be prepared for Low Intensity Conflicts -- and indeed these are exactly what it has been engaged in. With the exception of a brief conventional phase in Iraq the U.S. military has found itself engaged in LICs in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq that require a far different set of assets and skills than taking on the Soviet Union. The most advanced helicopter is vulnerable to the shoulder-fired missile. The most advanced tank can be destroyed by an EFP.
Not to say that I disagree with all of what Thompson has to say:
Finally, and most importantly, we must take better care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They are the life-blood of our defense establishment. Whether they are active duty, Guard or Reserve, they are entitled, as well, to expect the best pay and benefits our country can afford, including a modern GI Bill with educational assistance that will help us recruit and keep our nation’s finest in uniform. They also deserve the best healthcare and the best support possible for their families.To effectively fight in these LICs you need smart soldiers that are prepared to be a soldier, policeman, politician and sometimes even civil engineer all rolled into one. To attract those types of individuals you have to take care of them, something I'd not sure we have done as much as we should in recent years.
And for those who have already served, we need to fix the VA system and implement many of the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala Commission and the Veteran's Disability Benefits Commission report.
No comments:
Post a Comment