In presenting four new theoretical models we have reduced the military: 600,000 land forces; 4,500 combat airplanes; and will reduce naval principal surface combatants and submarines upon successful conclusion of not yet existent naval arms control. We have presented a technique of developing strategic vision which took a quick look at mission changes in the next decade to include gains in space, multinational force support, environmental cleanup, the drug war, combat support and service support units, and research and development, while predicting declines in nuclear forces, forward stationed forces, procurement/acquisition forces, military assistance, and heavy combat forces.
We have discussed resourcing issues arriving at the current budget balance of forces, but not without discursive excursions into our most difficult resourcing issues: strategic vs. strategic, strategic vs. conventional, low cost/low tech vs. high cost/high tech, Marines vs. Army, Reserve vs. Active; to derive a balanced resourcing strategy based upon difficult mission trade-offs. And finally we surveyed our forces from a utilization vs. pure defense posture in pursuing ways to integrate economic and military power for improvement in overall American competitiveness. Above all else, we should have learned that illogical policies and weapons procurement enhance our "incredibility" with Congress; that we must use "joint logic" if credibility is to be improved. Congress will structure us via the pork barrel if we don't learn this lesson.
ENDNOTES
[1] Strategic Studies Institute, How to Think About Conventional Arms Control:A Framework, Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, June 24,1988,p.80.
[2] Lieutenant Colonel David E. Shaver, Force Structures: The United States and Europe in the Coming Decade, Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, June 12,1989, pp. 9,17-18. This paper was actually presented months earlier, September 30, 1988, to the
Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society at the University of Chicago. The paper also appears in the conference publication U.S. National Security Strategy: New Challenges and Opportunities, Boulder, CO: Lynn Reiner, 1990.
[3] Supporting U.S. Strategy for Third World Conflict, report by the Regional Conflict Working Group, submitted to the Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, June 1988, p. 17.
[4] "Bush: 'The Enemy Is Unpredictability, Instability'," The Washington Post, February 26, 1990, p. Al 6.
[5] Extracted from national data presented in International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), The Military Balance, 1989-1990, London: IISS, 1989.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Margaret Shapiro and Fred Hiatt, "Tokyo's Vast Economic Might Still Growing Around World," The Washington Post, February 23, 1990, p. D1.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Strategic Studies I nstitute, A World 20 10, A Decline of Superpower Influence, Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, July 10, 1986, p. 16.
[12] Charles W. Taylor, Alternative World Scenarios for Strategic Planning, Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 1988, p. 17.
[13] Strategic Studies Institute, How to Think About ConventionalArms Control, pp. 85-86.
[14] We made an argument for this in Ibid., p. 85.
[15] Johann Einvardsson, Draft Interim Report of the Subcommittee on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures, published by the Internal Secretariat, North Atlantic Assembly, May 1989, pp. 8-9.
[16] Extracted from national data presented in IISS, The Military Balance, 1987-1988.
[17] Robert Holzer, "U.S. Must Upgrade ASW to Counter Soviet Subs," Defense News, March 5, 1990, p. 4.
[18] William Matthews and Grant Willis, "Officials' Drumbeat: Muscle Up Marines, Navy," Army Times, February 12, 1990, p. 53.
[19] Fred Reed, "Marines Perfect for Rapid Deployment," Army Times, p. 54.
[20] Department of Defense Directive Number 5100.1, "Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major Components," September 25, 1987, p. 16.
[21] Ibid., p. 13.
[22] Extracted from national data presented in IISS, The Military Balance, 1989-1990.
[23] Frank C. Carlucci, Annual Report to the Congress Fiscal Year 1990, p. 66.
[24] Army Command and Management: Theory and Practice, Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, 1988-89, p. 9-3.
[25] U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Burdensharing Panel of the Committee on Armed Services (Schoeder Report), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988, p. 3.
[26] Philip Finnegan, "Cheney Ties Arms Talks, Budget Cuts," Defense News, February 5, 1990, p. 42.
[27] Strategic Studies Institute, Burdensharing and Mission Specialization in NATO, Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, April 20, 1989, p. 37.
[28] Chris Christoff and Dawson Bell, "Cities Split on National Guard Demolition Plan," Detroit News & Free Press, January 27, 1990, p. 3.
Back to Table of Contents Justifying the Army
Back to SSI List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1990 by US Army War College.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com