The Center for Defense Information
Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW * Washington, DC 20036
(202)332-0600 * Fax (202)462-4559 * www.cdi.org
| April 22, 1999 |
| April 22, 1999 |
CDI Position Brief: Kosovo -- What do We do Now? Options for NATO Action
1. NATO could simply announce that it had made a mistake, fold its tent and come home. This is hardly an option since it would be universally unacceptable and would destroy both NATO and America's credibility for as far as the eye could see.
2. NATO could simply continue the bombing. We bombed Iraq for 44 days before we invaded, but it was the invasion that ended the war, not the bombing. While no war has ever been won by air power alone, we could gamble that either Milosevic would give up or the people would say they had had enough and rebel against him. Neither seems likely to occur any time soon.
3. We could continue softening Yugoslavia up until we feel we could invade with ground troops with the least possible loss of life. But there would certainly be a loss of life, and public opinion in the U.S. could shift dramatically against the war. Vietnam revisited. Then, one should ask, "Do we invade Serbia proper or only invade Kosovo?" What do we do then? Declare Kosovo autonomous, independent or think up some other status? None of this covers the problem of where such an invasion would be launched. From the North, through Hungary, a new member of NATO who has announced that NATO would not be allowed to use Hungary as a launch site? Montenegro, a part of Yugoslavia, would never allow an invasion from her soil, and while Macedonia is an independent state, her sympathies are perhaps more pro-Serb than Albanian. That would leave Albania to the West, where the terrain is predominantly mountainous and not well-suited as an invasion site. Finally, NATO members such as Greece and Italy, and maybe others, strongly oppose the use of ground troops without authorization. An invasion carries the strongest likelihood of the war spreading. So far, the Russians have shown remarkable restraint, but should NATO invade, at a minimum, Russia would feel compelled to supply arms to the Serbs.
4. The course most likely to produce a final and most desirable solution is negotiations. The Russians would have to play a major role if such a solution is to be achieved. Milosevic will have to believe that there is enough left of Yugoslavia worth salvaging and Russia will have to believe that a continuation of the war would be costly, as well as dangerous. While partition would be unpalatable to Albanians, it must not be eliminated as an option. An international protectorate, a la Bosnia, is also possible but could carry high financial costs and put peacekeeping troops in danger of attacks from both the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians.
The World's Lone Superpower?
Piers Wood, Lt. Colonel, USAR (Ret.), Senior Fellow, pwood@cdi.org
American "leadership" in NATO has been a constant refrain in the Kosovo crisis. But, is it really leadership if the United States does virtually all the heavy lifting by itself? Real leaders delegate. They do not seek to monopolize the tasks as well as the prerogatives of decision-making. Monopolizing the use of force is something the police do in civil society. It is not something that is acceptable in the international community.
In the thick of the fight, the United States is committed to deploy as many as 800 of the world's most expensive aircraft; more than 10,000 military people in support; three submarines; an entire aircraft carrier task force and an Amphibious Ready Group with its complement of 2,200 marines. The U.S. Air Force has flown bombers on 10,000 mile round trips from the United States to enter the fray. The United States is stretching its active duty forces, again, in the face of serious, persistent recruiting difficulties. Morale problems stemming from precisely this sort of short-notice jump in "operational tempo" are among the main reasons for the steady drain of experienced U.S. military personnel.
No other single NATO nation has even approached this level of involvement in the nuts and bolts of the operation. The European NATO nations are providing token participation that serves merely to signal their commitment to the operation.
If the US were truly exercising leadership in Kosovo, President Clinton would have delegated the latter phases of the air war and any ground combat to NATO's Europeans. It makes no sense that Americans are spending most of the money and incurring the greatest risks in a small European civil war 5,000 miles from home. On the other hand the European members of NATO have compelling national interests in the Balkans, close proximity to the battlefield and more than enough military capability to do the job.
On the continent, the European members of NATO have 2.6 million people in uniform and more than 3,000 high performance aircraft. In a fight that will take up to 1000 aircraft and 200,000 personnel, at most, the Europeans can handily defeat the Serbs without any trans-Atlantic troop lifts. U.S. support for such an arrangement could be legitimately limited to intelligence, electronic warfare, air combat command and control, logistical back up and access to U.S. bases.
While officials in the Clinton Administration might not favor such full fledged European engagement in the Kosovo crisis, a solid majority of the public thinks the US should play a secondary role. In a poll for the Los Angeles Times, 67% of those polled thought the European nations should, "...Lead the efforts to end the conflict in Kosovo." That sentiment is supported by a number of polls showing that when asked half of the public does not believe that the U.S. has genuine national interests in this small Yugoslavian province.
However, it is also possible that the word "leadership" is just a code word for something else. Perhaps the U.S. "leadership" which our Administration actually wants is, in fact, a monopoly on the use of force. Maybe they want it in every international crisis. That is indistinguishable from a definition of a world policeman.
We need no polls to be certain that the American public does not want its government to police the planet.
There is no doubt that the United States is carrying more than its share in Kosovo. There is also no doubt that the European members of NATO can handle the job. Whether it is a failure of leadership or the use of the term "leadership" to disguise overblown ambition by the current Administration, the public's support for an American war in Kosovo is "soft." As we should have learned during the war in Vietnam, the use of force by the United States requires the willing and knowing support of the American people. Anything less and the effort will fail. Deception of American citizens achieves short term success at best.
Let's admit we do not have the genuine national interest to shoulder a war in Kosovo and let's exercise really legitimate leadership by delegating the remainder of the task to the European members of NATO. Dragging the United States into another quagmire in a far away place could be all it takes to unravel our partnership with Europe.
Henry V "He that hath not the stomach to this fight, let him depart. His passport shall be made and crowns for the convoy put into his purse. We would not die in that man's company that fears his fellowship to die with us."
U.S. Plans More Weapons Exports
By Rachel Stohl, Research Analyst, rstohl@cdi.org
Last week, the Weekly Defense Monitor discussed a bill that would increase U.S. arms exports to Taiwan. (For more information, see "New Bill Would Increase Arms Exports to Taiwan," By Rachel Stohl, Weekly Defense Monitor, April 15, 1999). However, Taiwan is not the only country hoping to receive large deliveries of conventional weapons from the U.S. this year. In the past three weeks, several Foreign Military Sales (FMS) notifications have been delivered to Congress announcing significant U.S. weapon sales.
The Pentagon announced on April 12 a possible sale of eleven excess F-111 aircraft to Australia. Beyond the aircraft, the sale would also include 130 F-111 TF-30 excess engines, ALR-621 Radar Warning Receiver systems, aircraft storage, the repair, maintenance, and testing of aircraft and engines for a one-time flight in-country, cartridge/propellant actuated devices, support equipment, publications, and technical data, spare and repair parts, and other elements of logistics to ensure program supportability. The total for the sale is estimated at $500 million. Australia already has F-111 aircraft in its inventory, and this purchase is intended to improve "the military capabilities of Australia while enhancing weapon system standardization and interoperability."
Also on April 12, the Pentagon announced the possible sale of an additional 24 F-16s to Egypt. The sale, which also includes 28 F-110-GE-100B engines, 24 AN/APG-68 radar, Block 40 upgrade configuration to include integration capability to employ the HARPOON Heads Up Display, Multiple Boresight Indicator, Egyptian Identification Friend or Foe, and Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System, is intended to "augment [Egypt's] present operational inventory and to enhance their air-to-air and air-to-ground defense capability." Further, the F-16s are intended to enhance "Egypt's ability to defend and support U.S. regional objectives for Egypt's national security and maintenance of their qualitative edge." Egypt already has F-16 aircraft in their inventory. The value of the proposed sale is $1.2 billion. Lockheed Martin will be the prime contractor for the F-16 aircraft, and to fully implement the sale contractor representatives will be required to work with the Egyptian military in-country.
These potential sales follow on FMS notifications from March of other possible sales to the Netherlands, Israel, and Korea. The sale to the Netherlands proposes 242 JAVELIN anti-tank missiles systems and support equipment, with an estimated value of $360 million. The Republic of Korea is set to receive $350 million worth of spare parts for various fighter aircraft, radar systems, and missile components. The FMS announcement to Israel was valued at $2 billion and would include F-16 fighter aircraft, radar systems, and navigation and targeting pods. These three sales were to be conducted in order to contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by arming significant allies for regional peace and stability.
Further, according to Eric Newsom, Assistant Secretary for Political- Military Affairs at the State Department, the US expects the sale of F-16s to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), first announced in May 1998, to go through by the end of the year. Newsom expects the contract to be submitted to Congress in August. If there are no Congressional delays, the deliveries of the F-16s, which will complement the French Mirages the UAE is also purchasing, should begin in 2002. The value of the sale of the F-16s to the UAE is reported at $8 billion.
In examining the above sales it is apparent that the U.S. is well positioned ed to retain it's place as the world's number one arms exporter. The new sales alone total almost $5 billion in just the last 3 weeks. If the sale to the UAE is added, the total is almost $13 billion. U.S. arms sales over the past few years have been approximately $10 billion. U.S. sales in 1999 could be much higher than previous years if sales of this magnitude continue. Of further concern is that the U.S. continues to export high-tech weapons to allies around the world, often introducing a higher level of sophistication to the region. Certainly few would see problems with arming our NATO ally, the Netherlands with JAVELIN missiles, but the continual arming of middle eastern countries could severely upset the balance of power in the region.
General Dynamics Ends Bid to Acquire Newport News
Chris Hellman, Senior Research Analyst, chellman@cdi.org
Last week General Dynamics announced that it was withdrawing its bid to acquire Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc., after the Defense Department expressed its opposition to the proposed merger. The bid, announced in mid-February and worth an estimated $1.4 billion, would have concentrated four, and possibly five, of the nation's top six naval shipbuilders under one owner.
Currently, Newport News and General Dynamic's Electric Boat Division are the nation's two manufacturers of nuclear submarines. Newport News is the only builder of nuclear aircraft carriers. General Dynamics also owns Bath Iron Works and National Steel and Shipbuilding (NASSCO). In addition, Newport News received final approval from the government in February for its plans to acquire Avondale Industries. Had both of these mergers gone through it would have left Ingalls Shipbuilding as the only independent yard.
At the time it originally announced its intention to acquire Newport News, General Dynamics stated that it would not close either of the two yards. This was viewed by many in the industry as a possible stumbling block in that it would eliminate significant potential cost savings. Such savings, which are then, hopefully, passed on to the Navy, are usually used to justify major mergers in order to offset concerns about reductions in industry competition.
According to the Navy, General Dynamics estimated that the merger would result in savings to the military of between $190 million to $280 million a year over eight years. The Navy's own estimates were lower, between $115 million and $200 million a year. Further, the Defense Department and Newport News were already negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding that would define specific efficiencies to be undertaken by the shipyard -- such as reducing infrastructure and renegotiating existing contracts -- that would result in savings of $360 million over five years. Given the existing potential for savings to the Navy at Newport News, and the service's lower savings estimate from the proposed merger, Defense Secretary Cohen said "the saving projected by General Dynamics did not now outweigh potential competitive disadvantages."
How much competition is there in naval shipbuilding? In truth, when it comes to ship construction and conversion, there is currently very little. As mentioned above, Newport News and General Dynamics account for all nuclear shipbuilding, and are currently partnered in the development and construction of the next generation of nuclear attack submarines, the "Virginia" class. Bath Iron Works and Ingalls Shipbuilding split construction of "Arleigh Burke" destroyers (the DDG-51), and while they are competing on the design of the next major surface combatant, the DD-21, the Defense Department has already decided that they will split construction.
Ingalls has also won the contracts on all seven of the Navy's LHD "Wasp" class amphibious assault ships, while Avondale is the contractor on both LPD "San Antonio" class amphibious transports that have been ordered, of which a total of twelve are expected to be built. NASSCO is the Navy's dominant supplier of transport vessels, constructing and converting "Roll-on/Roll-off" sealift ships and building the Navy's AOE Fast Combat Support Ships.
One item of interest in the Pentagon's prepared statement announcing its decision on General Dynamic's acquisition plan was the military's concerns about the non-nuclear aspects of the merger. According to the Defense Department, "over 75 percent of the total shipyard engineering talent and over 95 percent of the Navy research and development investment over time would exist in a combined General Dynamics-Newport News entity." Thus, while the six existing yards have each found a niche among the various ship programs currently in production or under development, a united GD-NN would have a virtual stranglehold on future naval research and design.
For additional information on the General Dynamics-Newport News merger, see "General Dynamics moves to Acquire Newport News Shipbuilding," Weekly Defense Monitor, February 25, 1999.
Now Available From America's Defense Monitor -- "Background to a Crisis"
Video Pack.
A compelling exploration of the history of the conflict in Kosovo, and how such wars can be prevented. Was conflict in Kosovo inevitable? Was bombing our only solution? Four videos help you find the answers:
"Breakup in the Balkans" -- The roots of the current crisis can be found in Yugoslavia's history.
"Preventative Diplomacy in Action" -- In nearby Macedonia, a possible war was averted by swift diplomacy.
"Stopping War Before It Starts" -- How can we prevent wars?
"Rebuilding in the Wake of War" -- Dealing with the aftermath of violent conflict.
HOW TO ORDER Order online or call 1-800-CDI-3334 (credit cards accepted).
For $89 support the work of CDI by ordering all four of CDI's recent television programs dealing with preventative diplomacy and the Balkans, and also receive a subscription to CDI's publication, The Defense Monitor. These half-hour videos provide a unique resource in understanding international peace keeping.
For free transcripts, links, and discounted orders.
To receive regular updates on new video releases from the Center for Defense Information, e-mail adminfo@cdi.org with the message "subscribe."