May 14, 2008...3:32 pm
The Wishful Arsenal: US Defense Spending
Defense Secretary Gates made comments at a speech in Colorado Springs yesterday that caught the attention of the media and likely raised the hackles of many in the defense industry. The Secretary coined the phrase “Next-War-itis” to describe an ailment afflicting some in the defense establishment that causes them to try to advance procurement for what they perceive will be the best tools for the next war- to the detriment of those fighting the current wars. Gates’ comments do not represent new or cutting-edge thinking, but they have value given the source. It has been apparent for some time that next-generation fighter aircraft and state-of-the-art networked systems of armored vehicle systems are not so essential to the successful conduct of the wars the US is fighting as are gizmos that can remote detonate improvised explosive devices (IEDs), vehicles that are agile enough to get around in the tight confines of cities and yet survive a mine blast, or wearable tourniquets.
The title, “The Wishful Arsenal”, is meant to convey a belief that it is falacious reasoning to think that the next war will be fought on terms that will allow the US to take advantage of its vastly superior weapons that can accurately destroy targets before they even get into the opponent’s range. The good news is that the US has clearly established dominance in employing technology to increase both mobility and the precision and devastation of firepower. The bad news is that all potential foes realize this, and none of them will fight the US on terms that will allow us to exploit those advantages to their utmost. If you knew that the person with whom you had irreconcilable differences was the world’s foremost swordsman, would you engage him or her in a fencing dual or would you, say… drop a brick on him from the 42nd floor, poison him, suffocate him in his sleep, shoot him with a rifle, or clock him with a tire iron while his sword was nowhere in sight?
One formula for negating the awesome advantages in weapon system technology is apparent enough to all potential enemies of America. It involves maintaining an asymmetric advantage in the flow of information, staying interspersed within a community of innocents, being willing to suffer casualties for an indefinite period, and understanding that a 1,000 small cuts can have the same affect as a stab to the heart. A favorable flow of information can be achieved by using tactics which allow for the maintenance of anonymity such as IEDs or snipers, and by infiltrating local partners. When the Soviets were fighting the Afghan Mujaheddin in the 1970’s, they found that anything they told the Afghani military or security forces might well end up in the hands of the Mujaheddin. This caused them to keep those forces in the dark until the last minute, and this, of course, was not an effective way to fight a war - particularly one which you would like to pass off to local allies. We seem to be facing the same fate in Iraq and Afghanistan. This puts us in a catch-22 in that the more discriminate American forces are in separating combatants from non-combatants, the less able we are to use our vast advantage in weapon systems. On the other hand, being less discriminate produces more individuals who are willing to supply information to the insurgents or to conduct acts of sabotage. Insurgents live by a motto of ”slow and steady wins the race”, and know that steadily increasing the casualty count over a long period is likely to yield a more favorable result than if they tried to achieve a coup de grace given there limited resources.
I am sure many readers will point to China as the potential “next adversary”, and will suggest that war with them would be more likely to be of a conventional nature. It is true that war with China would not be likely to fit the mold of insurgency warfare. However, it is also apparent that China is well acquainted with the advantages and vulnerabilities of the US, and intends to negate the advantages and capitalize on the vulnerabilities. China has been putting considerable resources into developing an ability to wound America’s surveillance and communications capacities. They have conducted an anti-satellite weapon test, and have put resources into hacking the US communications infrastructure into inoperability. America’s other soft-spot is a highly casualty-averse nature. The Chinese have good reason to believe that, while the US may be able to gain a favorable kill ratio due to its technological advantages, that the Chinese ability to continue suffering higher loss rates than the US for an extended period is extremely feasible.
I don’t mean to convey a dire picture of US security, by pointing out that we are buying are way to oblivion while suffering death by 1000 cuts. It should be noted that the US advantage in warfare does not lie entirely with technology-intensive weapons platforms such as the F-22 Raptor, the Joint Strike Fighter, the Future Combat Systems, or the DDG-1000 destroyer. The US also has a combatant human capital advantage that is achieved by means of an all-volunteer force and considerable investment in training. This advantage is adaptable to whatever the nature of warfare being faced. The US technological advantage can also be put to good use in the types of systems used to fight our current wars (which I believe are likely to be the template for future war into the foreseeable future).
It is easy to see why defense contractors want to sell replacements for the DDG-51 destroyer, the M1 Abrams tank, the F-18 fighter, rather than smaller-scale and more combatant-centric technologies. It is the same reason why car manufactures would rather make Hummers and Expeditions, because that is where the money is. It is also not hard to see why such systems have proponents in the upper echelons of the military establishment, because getting bigger budgets is a means to advancement andexpensive systems are the route to bigger budgets. Our spending decisions need to be driven by consideration of the opportunity costs and a need for agility to respond to the threats we are likely to encounter.
1 Comment
June 8, 2008 at 2:40 am
http://www.contractor.ma was here!
Thank you for you Great and hard work Blog!
Leave a Reply