Chapter 6. Defense National Military I. National Defense--Introduction To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. — George Washington The great military leader is not the one who fights 100 battles but the one who defeats his enemy without having to fight at all –– General John R. Galvin Choirboys do not make good soldiers The first priority of any government is to protect and maintain the state. The United States must be careful not to downsize its military forces beyond a critical mass. The world is still a dangerous place. The United Kingdom learned in 1940 the price of spending too little on freedom and defense; similarly, France learned in 1940 the folly of spending unwisely on the wrong defensive items. The United States must maintain the military power to discourage troublemakers. The world at large is not disarming. Some estimates put the annual worldwide arms expenditures at more than $1 trillion. Jane’s Defense Weekly of January 8, 1994 counted 27 military conflicts in the world along with 12 flashpoints and 31 areas of tension. Growing ethnic tension and violence, nuclear proliferation are continuing as major concerns and refugees are becoming an international dilemma. The world is still a dangerous place and we must be constantly on the guard. National defense and security come above all else. The only reason for the existence of a military is to protect the state against external forces and internal crisises. The United States military has done so outstandingly. The United States has not engaged in a major war for over 20 years. By definition, protecting the security of the nation requires a high degree of readiness, highly trained, professional forces with the best quality operating weapons available. That is it. Politically correct forces with integration of the sexes is not part of that definition. Providing expensive unwanted material because it is politically correct (built in a plant located in a influential congressman’s district) is not part of that definition. On-going witch hunts and destroying veteran officers and soldiers lives because of non-germane military reasons (adultery) is counterproductive to an efficient military. If we insist upon a politically correct military, the Pattons and MacArthurs of yesterday would not have been allowed. Their coarseness would not have permitted them to survive in today’s politically correct environment. Which is a shame since in the future to come, it is inevitable that our forces will meet up with the non-politically correct forces of another power. It is then that those leaders, the Pattons and MacArthurs, those non-politically correct, sexist leaders of yesteryear and of tomorrow, that we will desperately needed and will need again, may not be there. Our military may become politically correct, gender-neutral, and a walking advertisement for affirmative action. But will it defend us in our time of need. You have to be different from the rest of the populace to become Rangers and Seals. You have to have a real disregard for your own personal safety to land a jet fighter on a carrier deck in the middle of the ocean during pitch dark of night. Can we expect our fighting forces to be warriors on the battle field and saints off of it? Are these the types of soldiers we are promoting or the commanders of the future politically correct with the right connections? Will it have the leaders and soldiers necessary to win a war with non-politically correct armies? For that is the only determinant of a military: can it win battles and wars? Not is it politically correct. If held to the standards of the political elite, the military will become a bunch of useless bureaucrats instead of the warriors we will inevitably need the next time we will go into combat. And there will be a next time. The world may be a safer place but as long as there are those that prey on the weak, we must be on our guard. We must return to the basics. Twice before, after World War I and after World War II, we let our guard down. We downsized almost to the breaking point. We paid in blood for those poor decisions, thousands upon thousands of American lives in Europe and the Pacific and Korea. How many times must we relearn the lessons of the past? We must be prepared. We must constantly be on guard. We must have a professional, competent, well equipped, well trained fighting force that will fight, not one that knows proper manners and etiquette. II. National Defense--Problem With the end of the Cold War, the fifty year purpose of the Department of Defense (DOD) needs to be reviewed. The world is still a dangerous place. Yet the United States does not have unlimited budgets. In fact, money is tight. What should be the role of the DOD and how should it proceed to implement its role? III. National Defense--Recommendations Our recommendation as to the Official Mission of the Department of Defense are as follows: •Defend the Continental United States. Forces should be adequate to deter or repel attacks against the U.S. by land, sea, and air. Air and Missile attacks require additional forces to deter or repel. First priority would be to create a strategic shield for North America to protect against incoming missiles from wherever. Strategic nuclear arsenal could be cut back drastically. However, we still need the capability of projecting power over long distances through missiles, strategic weapons, and land based bombers. •Defend all U.S. territories. The U.S. has fifteen dependent territories: Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and an assortment of Pacific islands. Hawaii and the Panama Canal should also come under this jurisdiction. Marines based in San Diego, Hawaii, and Okinawa as well as carrier forces based in Hawaii, South East Asia, and Japan will be required as well as necessary bases (air and naval) in the region. •Evacuate U.S. citizens from foreign countries in time of danger. •Assist in the defense of allies and friendly nations unable to defend themselves. Treaties exist with nearly fifty countries. Even though most are militarily and economically capable of maintaining an adequate defense posture, forces still need to be stationed in strategic overseas locations. Thought should be given to downsizing of forces devoted primarily to the defense of allies and friendly nations who can afford their own armed forces. However, forces in Korea, Japan, and Germany should remain due to their stability factors and, especially in Korea, their involvement in any future military engagement guaranteeing immediate and large scale intervention by the United States. However, funding for those troops should be by the host nations whenever possible. Nations in the Mideast with such agreements must pay for their protectorate status. We suggest that naval forces be stationed worldwide to project power as necessary. We believe that replacing Subic Bay with Singapore and CamRah Bay makes good geopolitical strategic sense. The latter base was built for the Vietnam war and is still available. They perhaps need to be modernized but it still provides just as good strategic location along sides the major sealanes of Asia. In addition, by doing so, this would allow the two governments of Vietnam and the United States to enter into closer agreement, perhaps even defense agreements. •Intervene with military force in Third World nations to: deter aggression counter terrorism reduce flow of illegal drugs ensure access to foreign markets for essential supplies (oil, minerals) maintain regional balances of power combat threats to democracies from aggression, coercion, insurgences, subversion, terrorism, illicit drug trafficking • The United States should not act as world policemen for every problem in the world. The U.S. should concentrate on its vital interests or those of its allies. “The US has little or no economic and strategic interests in Cambodia, Somalia and Yugoslavia,” so says the Heritage Foundation and with which we agree. American soldiers should not be put at risk if U.S. national interests are not endangered. Neither the U.S. nor any other country should sustain casualties indefinitely to perform what essentially is a charitable service of little consequence to their national security. We should not act arbitrarily as source of manpower for United Nation excursions. •The Department of Defense is an extension of the U.S. foreign policy, to be used to pursue and enforce the foreign policy guidelines. The defense policy will be carried out within the framework of the domestic guidelines. The United States should avoid surrendering American sovereignty to the UN bureaucracy. •The DOD’s main orientation is not to be the initial aggressor but to act as a deterrent by having sufficient strength and deterrent abilities. •The DOD will not limit its strategy and tactics to merely the defense but to invasion and offensive maneuvers as necessary for reclamation efforts and those needed to bring a conflict to a decisive end. •The DOD is the means to indicate to the world the U.S.’s willingness and abilities to fight and protect its rights and freedoms and those of its citizenry. •The DOD will be technologically superior not just at the front but throughout the entire system. •The DOD will be cost effective using a generalist approach whenever possible using small, mobile, flexible units. Flexibility and preparedness are the key words for military force of tomorrow. •The Department of Defense must avoid the fate of other nations whose overconfident militaries slid from triumph to obsolescence. The U.S. armed forces must not become paralyzed by their own successes in the Cold War and Desert Storm. The Information Age will spark a military revolution just as artillery did in the 15th century and the Industrial Age machines (tanks, armored ships, aircraft) did over the past two centuries.The DOD will be geared towards fighting the next war with today’s arms while planning new tactics and strategies with tomorrow’s new weapon systems. Plan for the next war do not replay the last one. Greater use of information directly available to assist the soldier on the front line; pilotless drones; firing standoff weapons from hundreds of miles away. •The issue of defense should not be decided in terms of fairness or equity but entirely in terms of security. That is the decision to include or not to include gays or women should be made in terms of fighting effectiveness and morale, not in terms of whether it is good social policy. •And lastly, the DOD should protect American taxpayer against overpayments. The DOD should assure the American taxpayer should get its money worth. Each year according to experts, more than $6 billion in unnecessary and often frivolous spending is buried in the obscure details of defense spending bills with the main beneficiaries being Congressmen not taxpayers or the defense establishment. Many of the defense bill’’s hidden items have no military justification: more than $1.3 billion in the 1994 bill, for instance, was mandated for environmental programs and research for Cancer and AIDS, laudable goals but unrelated to the defense of the country. The practice of directing procurements to favored contractors must stop. Contracts would have to be awarded by the military on the basis of merit and open competition, not political influence. We also recommend that military needs be prepared by the Pentagon and presented to Congress. Congress would have the authority to trim elements but not to add items to the request. Most estimates believe nearly $100 billion annually could be saved by trimming waste and those forces previously devoted to preparation for war with the Soviet Union. Less budget would be necessary if national service were put into place. Having smaller permanent professionals with the two year national service volunteers would lower costs (if college vouchers were added, costs would be lower). In addition, these volunteers would have a 4 year reserve commitment which would mean a high degree of readiness with short notice if required. We need to reevaluate the role of the national guards and reserve forces. Too often they are ‘weekend warriors’ putting in their time, earning their dollars and time towards a pension, and are not adequately trained, unable to provide needed assistance during any real crisis. The defense department could eliminate 25 to 30% of its budget without effecting its preparedness (estimates are that up to 40% of acquisitions costs for products purchased by the DOD are due to management overhead--this compares very unfavorably to the 10% private companies spend on overhead). The current military procurement process costs too much, delivers too little and fails to enforce accountability. Many areas are available for savings: Procurement inefficiencies (the defense procurement regulations exceed 16,000 pages and could be pared down to 100 pages without severely impacting performance), logistic requirements, paperwork; substitution and unification should be reviewed as much as possible to buy off the shelf parts instead of having multipage specifications. The DOD (with Congress’ blessing) should review the procurement process to eliminate the bureaucracy and cost inefficiencies therein. One great area of potential savings include the top heavy brass that exists in the DOD. The ratios of generals and admirals to fighting men is way out of kilter and should be cut back drastically. This is the military version of Parkinson’s law. In 1938 when Great Britain still ruled the waves, the Royal Navy counted 308 ships on its active roster supported by 11,270 Admiralty officials and clerical staff. Thirty years later a shrunken British navy was down by two-thirds to just 114 ships but the number of support had nearly tripled. In its glory days the Royal Navy needed just 37 support personnel per ship; in its decline it required nearly 300. We must be careful that the declining U.S. military establishment does not follow in the Royal Navy’s footsteps of cutting muscle to preserve the fat. We should implement contract tours for military and civil service; A pilot has a service life of approximately 15 years. Afterwards, currently the air force must find a job and retrain him for the duration of his service career. Sometimes he is fully utilized and many times (often) not. What we suggest should be done is to provide the fifteen years of tour and then only the most capable should be retained as leaders. Now, what occurs is the armed forces are filled with lower grade officers putting in their time at low under-utilized positions. The defense budget is filled with congressional pork that the military either does not need, did not want, or can not use. Many defense programs have government pork in them, many projects are not desired by the DOD but insisted upon by congressmen not because of its impact on national defense but pork for local congressional district. Too much of the Defense budget is becoming political pork. The tendency is to cut the muscle and bone while keeping the fat. The industrial-military bureaucracy in conjunction with political pros demand unwanted hardware like the Seawolf submarine program Navy wants to drop while ignoring vital (but not sexy nor lucrative) items like basic equipment maintenance. Some $20 billion of military budget over the next five years will go for defense conversion, pure and simple a job subsidy measure. There currently exists in the budget little or nothing to keep the U.S. prepared for military emergency. Billions more in the military budget now pay for nonmilitary items. Environmental cleanup projects likewise as humanitarian expeditions. People judge your will, your capability to deliver; weakness invites aggression. DOD must be able to set its own needs on a non-political, economically rationale basis. We do need defense. We need an efficient cost-effective defense department and armed forces. Several Defense spending options can be portrayed: Option 1: Current missions at less cost, Defense of U.S., Defense of Allies, third world intervention ($200 B) Option 2: Defense of US plus third world intervention. ($150 b) Option 3: Defense of US only ($100B) Option 1 is our preference. With all the fighting and turmoil in the world, the US could still find itself continuously involved in other people’s conflicts, such as Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti. (and one must not forget that Russia is still very volatile and could resort back to its former belligerent self within a short period of time.) However, we must also make these points.: •Alternatives to unilateral intervention are necessary. A clear statement of when national interest would precipitate intervention is necessary. Clearly regional forces such as NATO should be used for Bosnia, Western Hemispheric forces (Organization of the American States) should be used if Haiti is determined to be in need of armed intervention there. Use of more regional groups should be done with the fighting and political problems shared by the region, not just by the United States. This is not projecting weakness but rather attempting to force responsibility upon others as well. • Our efforts should emphasize small standing forces, extremely flexible, mobile, technical, generalists first then specialists. Volunteer armed forces, paid well, paid according to ability and skills not according to time in service and rank. Large equipped trained reserve/national guard which can be quickly mobilized. •Reorganize the Department of Defense to include the veterans administration, civil defense, coast guard, and customs. Merge Coast Guard and INS to become Border Patrol. All U.S. border areas within 200 miles of shore will be within their responsibility. Greater manpower and resources will be given to prevent unauthorized visits or violations of territorial waters. Higher penalties for smuggling, human smuggling, drug activities, etc. •Legal restrictions should be lifted which restrict private firms from using technological developments created while under defense contracts; this will assist in economic growth, technology transfer to the commercial arena, and in converting over to the commercial fields. •Develop antimissile defensive systems need be developed for the territorial shield around North America and its territories. Home Page Preface & Introduction Chapter 1: Responsibility Chapter 2: Leadership Chapter 3: Government Chapter 4: Congress Chapter 5: Regulations and Bureaucracy Chapter 6: Defense Chapter 7: International Affairs Chapter 8: Crime and Justice Chapter 9: Civil rights Chapter 10: Economic Chapter 11: Education Chapter 12: Health Chapter 13: Planning and National Goals Conclusions