Join Now Login

Text Size Print

Smaller but not weaker
Risk assessment
Design parameters
Shared responsibility 

By Mark Cantrell

It’s all about balance. That was the word from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, USA, at a recent speaking engagement at Duke University in North Carolina. In his speech, Dempsey explained why the armed forces are on the cusp of one of the largest force reductions in memory — a move that already has garnered its share of controversy.

Dempsey noted that, during his long career, the military’s ends always justified the means — the dollars spent on ever-more-expensive programs. “Now we’re confronting the fact that in a constrained fiscal environment, we have to look at how we can change the way we deliver those objectives given the means available,” he said.

Smaller but not weaker
In a joint press conference Jan. 26, Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta outlined a new budget-driven national strategy that greatly will alter the military’s size and capabilities. The change reflects a new era of fiscal austerity and the changing nature of worldwide threats, Panetta said, but he insisted “this budget does not lead to a military in decline. It leads to a joint force that is global and networked, that is versatile and innovative, that is ably led, and that is always ready.”

Here are the key provisions of the new strategy:

• The Army’s complement of soldiers will fall from 562,000 to 490,000 in the next five years, while the Marine Corps will be trimmed from 202,000 to 182,000.
• The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will continue, but orders for the planes will be slashed by 179 over the next five years.
• Several Navy programs will be postponed, including a submarine, an ocean reconnaissance vessel, a dock landing ship, three oilers, two littoral combat ships, and eight joint high-speed vessels. Seven older cruisers will be retired.
• The Air Force will lose six of its 60 tactical air squadrons, and the airlift fleet will be trimmed by 130 aircraft. About two dozen C-5A transports will be retired, as will 65 of the oldest C-130s and 38 C-27s.
• Two of Europe’s four Army brigades will be brought home, although training units will continue to rotate through on a regular basis.
• A new round of base closures will be considered.
• Servicemembers will receive full pay raises in 2013 and 2014, but the hikes will be “limited” thereafter. There will be increases in health care copayments and deductibles for retired servicemembers, and department officials are studying retirement reform.

With military pay and benefits rising 62 percent since Sept. 11, 2001, and housing allowances increasing by 58 percent in that period, Dempsey said, “We cannot ignore some hard realities,” explaining pay and benefits now constitute a third of the entire defense budget.

Risk assessment
Dempsey admitted a smaller force means “we’re taking risks in terms of time and capacity,’ noting it might take longer to build up forces before a conflict and longer to finish that fight. But, he added, “I am convinced we can properly manage [the risks] by ensuring we keep the force in balance, investing in new capabilities and preserving a strong reserve component. As I’ve said before, we will face greater risks if we do not change the way we’ve been doing things.”

To mitigate some of those risks, the plan calls for an increased reliance on special operations forces, so that budget will increase. Spending on drones will get a boost, too, hastening the shift to robotic unmanned planes, helicopters, and submarines. At least four new Reaper and Predator drone air patrols will be added to the Air Force asset list, as well as new Gray Eagle drones for the Army and Fire Scout robocopters for the Navy. More unmanned systems are on the drawing board, as the Pentagon seeks to extend its force presence while reducing the risk to servicemembers.

Design parameters
The new strategy is the result of a close examination of the current force structure, informed by President Obama’s strategic guidelines:

• Rebalance force structure and investments toward the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions, while sustaining key alliances and partnerships in other regions. 
• Plan and size forces to be able to defeat a major adversary in one theater while denying aggression elsewhere or while imposing unacceptable costs. 
• Protect key investments in the technologically advanced capabilities most needed for the future, including countering anti-access threats. 
• Stop sizing active forces to conduct large and protracted stability operations but retain the expertise of a decade of war. 
• To the extent possible, structure major adjustments in a way that best allows for their reversal or for regeneration of capabilities in the future if circumstances change.

Although the­­­ plan calls for increased reliance on unmanned vehicles, the troubled RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 program is being canceled; production will continue on other models. Meanwhile, the venerable Cold War-era U2 spy plane’s mission will be extended for an additional decade or so to pick up some of the canceled drone’s responsibilities.

With the increased focus on surgical strikes by special forces teams versus large stability missions, the plan is to stage expeditionary forces at small, low-profile forward operating bases around the world. From these often-secret staging areas, commando raids similar to the Osama bin Laden mission and the recent rescue of aid workers in Somalia can be mounted.

Shared responsibility
Some critics maintain a reduction of forces in Europe would leave our allies more vulnerable, but USAREUR Commander Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling doesn’t see it that way. “Part of the rationale for reduction in ground forces is that the European armies have become much more capable in the last 10 years, as they’ve shared combat with us in Kosovo, Iraq, and especially Afghanistan,” he says. “Our allies understand why we are doing this, as they have been faced with the same type of requirements to reduce their militaries and refocus on the implications of the economic crisis.”

Eventually, some $487 billion is scheduled to be cut from the defense budget over the next decade, as mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act, which aims to trim the entire U.S. budget by $1.2 trillion in that period. However, if Congress cannot agree on the spending plan, an automatic process called sequestration will be triggered, axing an additional $500 billion from the DoD budget. Those cuts would take effect in January 2013. The president officially will present the budget plan to Congress Feb. 13.