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
| November 9, 2000 |
| November 9, 2000 |
The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review: Here We Go Again -- Or Do We?
Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.), Chief of Research, dsmith@cdi.org
With the Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 finally passed and signed (PL 106-398), all the cards on now on the table for the Pentagon's 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
While final closure came at the end of October, July actually was the month in which most of the QDR action took place. Much advice from Members of Congress, staffers, and retired military officers surfaced then and some of it became part of the bill.
Heeding the call of many analysts, the Senate added to its version of the FY2001 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4205) provisions dealing with the creation of a National Defense Panel (NDP), an independent review body similar to the one that was part of the structure for the first QDR in 1997. The Senate bill both established the NDP for the FY2001 QDR and made it a permanent part of the ongoing QDR process. These provisions corrected an oversight in the FY2000 legislation in which Congress established the QDR for FY2001 and every fourth year thereafter but inexplicably omitted any reference to the NDP. These provisions did not survive the House-Senate conference and were not part of the bill that became law on October 30.
July also saw the conservative Lexington Institute sponsor a conference in which the FY2001 QDR figured prominently. One suggestion heard frequently was the need for the QDR to anticipate and include some minimal assumptions about the frequency of contingency operations which, advocates said, diverted funding from modernization, future research, quality of life, and infrastructure maintenance.
What is puzzling here is that contingency operations, by their very nature, are unpredictable in regard to their start, size, and duration. At best, once they begin, their anticipated costs can (and should) be included in the Defense Department's annual budget request so that supplemental appropriations are not needed. But since the start of operations never coincides with the U.S. fiscal year, the initial sums to pay for deployment and other start-up costs usually come from emergency supplemental bills. An alternative might be for Congress to create a contingency operations reserve which, via a presidential notice of intention to participate in a new mission, would automatically be released unless Congress blocked release through a simple majority in both Houses.
At the same Lexington Institute conference Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA) took up another well-publicized issue. He called for the QDR to review the Pentagon's shortfall of electronic warfare (EW) assets. He noted that during the Kosovo air campaign the Supreme Allied Commander Europe had to divert EW aircraft from their role in Operation Northern Watch (the air patrols over northern Iraq) to assist strike aircraft operating against the Yugoslavian air defenses. Representative Pitts pointed to the need for EW aircraft to accompany "stealth" planes, claiming that the F-117 fighter lost over Serbia was downed because it did not have EW support.
But perhaps the most interesting calls for QDR action came from retired U.S. Air Force LtGen Michael Short who led the allied air campaign over Kosovo. General Short suggested that the U.S. may find it necessary -- given the "expectation" of the American people that in future wars there will not be American casualties -- to supply allies with high-tech equipment that brings them up to U.S. standards. He mentioned specifically the inability of allied pilots to communicate with their American counterparts via secure radio, which forced U.S. pilots to go to nonsecure transmissions that the Yugoslavs could intercept. Such seemingly extreme remedial measures would be almost mandatory for countries such as Poland, The Czech Republic, and Hungary (as well as those General Short referred to as "NATO-wannabees") which will need billions of dollars to achieve even minimum warfighting interoperability.
By contrast, the House version of H.R. 4205 went in the opposite direction. It required the Secretary of Defense to report on the costs of munitions and fuel used in Allied Force, the reduced service life of U.S. equipment used in the operation, and "whether and how the United States is being compensated by other North Atlantic Treaty Organization member nations for the costs of Operation Allied Force." In other words, the House was most unreceptive to any suggestion that the U.S. support allies who are cutting forces and defense budgets in the face of U.S. exhortations to raise spending.
Another theme that surfaced in legislation and at the Lexington Institute conference was the psychological influence of low casualty expectations. This was evident in the congressional direction that the QDR reexamine existing requirements for more precision guided weapons and more stand-off munitions. At the conference, again drawing from his 1998 experience, General Short called for the QDR to consider expanding the current roles for unmanned aerial vehicles (one of Senator John Warner's admonitions made during hearings in February 2000), to include delivering munitions and conducting electronic warfare missions. The latter role might help alleviate the demands for manned jamming platforms. The former, however, might well run afoul of the 1988 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty which proscribes ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), whether similar in size to current manned aircraft or smaller drones carrying munitions, clearly are ground launched, and if they are not expected to return to "base," would seem to fall into the category of missiles. Regardless, both the Navy and Air Force are pressing ahead with technology demonstrations for UCAVs.
Perhaps General Short's most controversial recommendation would empower the QDR to "explore how this nation does targeting." He suggested that a division of effort was required between the National Command Authority (NCA), which should designate "target sets," and the theater commander/air component commander who would select the actual targets.
While this seems like a practical rule, it could hardly be strictly followed. In an era in which sub-national groups abound, fighters blend in with general populations, and the terrain of battle is increasingly urban, old distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable targets for military action have become blurred. In such an atmosphere, mistakes can have huge political ramifications, particularly when a conflict is being waged by a multinational coalition and without U.N. authorization.
The Pentagon is already working on the QDR even though the formal process will not begin until January 2001. A study group at the National Defense University has set the stage. Its findings, being released November 8-9, should provide a better idea of the parameters within which the formal process will operate. (See "Preparatory Report for the Quadrennial Defense Review Released" below in CDI's "Briefing Room.")
But there is a wildcard -- there will be a new administration in town, and it could press for new priorities and new directions. All of the above, and many other thoughts and suggestions, may be undercut by the new group.
Stay tuned.
A Day for All Veterans
Rachel Stohl, Senior Analyst, rstohl@cdi.org
Editor's Note: This is an updated version of an article that appeared in the November 4, 1999 "Weekly Defense Monitor."
November 11 is Veterans' Day. It is the day we honor those who've served our country, who've braved the horrors of war, and who've protected our nation in times of peace. The contributions of our veterans embody the American spirit -- honor, service, and freedom. Each year we salute veterans with parades and ceremonies. But there are countless veterans around the world whose sacrifices go unnoticed and are hidden from official recognition -- veterans who served as child soldiers.
Today, child soldiers are found in government forces and rebel armies around the world. Children participate in the most inhumane aspects of war, suffering debilitating physical and psychological scars. Child soldiers serve in all military positions, as porters, cooks, spies, sex slaves and front line combatants. The United Nations estimates that there are over 300,000 children under 18 participating in over 30 conflicts around the world. Over 50 countries currently recruit children into the armed forces, including the United States.
The last ten years have seen the systematic use of children as soldiers due to dwindling populations from years of war, disease and poverty, and decimated resources. Further, the increased reliance on small arms and light weapons as the primary instrument of war have made the use of children in war practical as these weapons are easy for a small child to operate and repair.
The horrors these children endure have gone on too long. Finally, after years of talk and little action, the international community is making significant progress in preventing the use of child combatants. In January of this year, governments from around the world unanimously concurred on a new international agreement to ban the use of children in combat. Called the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the agreement establishes 18 as the minimum age for direct participation in hostilities, for compulsory recruitment, and for any recruitment or use in hostilities by non-governmental armed groups. Governments are allowed to accept voluntary recruits as young as sixteen, but only with certain safeguards, including parental permission and proof of age. President Clinton signed this Treaty in July. It now sits before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee waiting to be brought to the full Senate for ratification.
After years of opposing the ban on the use of child soldiers in order to protect the U.S. practice of recruiting under 18s and sending them into combat, the U.S. government agreed to the compromises and provisions of the Optional Protocol and was among the first to sign the Treaty. Under its provisions, the U.S. armed forces will be required to end deployment of 17 year olds into armed conflicts. How this policy change will be implemented has yet to be determined. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and other Pentagon and State officials have supported the Treaty signing and have stressed that changes in U.S. military policy will not damage U.S. readiness or capabilities. Other than the contentious relationship between the White House and Congress, there is no reason that the United States has not yet ratified a Treaty aimed at protecting children around the world.
The use of child soldiers flies in the face of the American notions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As we honor our Veterans this week, we should also encourage the Senate to protect the world's children and eliminate their use as combatants worldwide. The Senate should ratify the Child Soldiers Treaty as soon as possible. Let us honor all veterans by protecting the youngest in their ranks.
Preparatory Report for the Quadrennial Defense Review Released - On November 8, 2000 a National Defense University (NDU) Working Group released a report offering guidance on what options and issues should be examined in the Pentagon's upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and suggestions on how the Review should be conducted. The Working Group was headed by former Pentagon strategist Michele Flournoy and included staff from the four services. The QDR and the report were discussed at a well-attended NDU 2000 Joint Operations Symposium conference. The report explicitly did not make recommendations about what the QDR should conclude, but focused on trying to improve the quality of the QDR process and hence its ultimate recommendations. The group made the important recommendation that the QDR be split into two parts. The first part would establish broad strategy and the second follow-on component would figure out the detailed implications for programs and budgets. The report is available at: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/spa/qdr.html.
Pentagon To Streamline Acquisition Process -- Pentagon procurement chief Jacques Gansler announced this week the release of new DoD acquisition guidelines intended to significantly reduce the current 15 to 20 year for developing and producing new weapons and equipment. The result of a year of study, the new guidelines are considered essential in the current environment where new technologies emerge and become obsolete more quickly than in the past. "These new policies are a critical step forward in acquisition reform because they provide the program manager with far more flexibility than ever before," said Mr. Gansler. "It is the way we need to do business if we want to get the best technology we have to our warfighters more quickly and at a lower cost."
Russian Officials: Foreign Vessel Sank "Kursk" -- Russian officials are making renewed claims that a collision with a foreign vessel caused the sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk after a government inquiry. Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, who chaired the inquiry, said that the government had "serious video proof" that the Kursk sank after a collision with a foreign ship. "We found a large dent in the boat's [front] two sections...and some very serious scratches which tell us that something scraped against the boat after the collision." While the U.S. acknowledges that it had vessels in the area monitoring the Russian naval exercise, the Pentagon has denied that they were involved in the August 12 disaster.
Montenegro to Hold Referendum on Independence -- The government in Montenegro, the smaller of the two republics forming the Yugoslav federation, has announced that it will hold a referendum on independence by June 2001. When Yugoslavia was ruled by the now-deposed Slobodan Milosevic, Montenegrin leaders distanced themselves from the dominant republic, Serbia, even building their own army and using a separate currency. Despite hopes for change, Montenegro has found new Yugoslav president Vojislav Kostunica equally unwilling to discuss a new looser relationship between Serbia and Montenegro. Kostunica recently applied for UN membership for Yugoslavia, over Montenegro's pleas to wait until Serbia and Montenegro worked out a new arrangement. Polls show about 55 percent of residents of Montenegro favor independence.
U.S. to Give Poland 16 F-16s At No Cost -- United States and Poland have reached an agreement to transfer 16 "surplus" F-16 fighter jets to Poland. Poland will have to pay refurbishment costs as well as an undisclosed fee for the aircrafts' depreciation during the five-year lease. Poland, a NATO member since 1999, wants to buy up to 100-150 modern fighter jets. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, British Aerospace and EADS have been competing to make the sale. The latest transfer agreement is a boost for Lockheed Martin because Polish pilots will gain experience on F-16s, making it more likely that Poland will be buy newer versions of the same aircraft in the future. The other two recent NATO entrants, Hungary and the Czech Republic, are also in the market for new supersonic jets and will likely push for a similar no-cost lease agreement with the United States. A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office on the integration of the new allies into NATO notes that while they take an active part in the alliance's peacekeeping missions, they need to replace obsolete combat equipment.
Quotation of the Week -- "The important question, it seems to me, that candidates should have been debating -- the one that I hope will be debated as people come back to the next Congress -- is not, are we ready today, but what in the world do we need to be ready to do this next year and the year after that, 10 years from now?" Air Force Secretary F. Whitten Peters, "San Antonio Express-News" November 8, 2000.
This week on America's Defense Monitor: "The Next Space Race"
Pursuing a vision of U.S. "control and dominance" in outer space, the United States military is developing the technologies to make outer space the battlefield of the future. Meanwhile, the international community is working to ensure that outer space is used only for peaceful purposes, and prevent a war in the heavens. In a race to the ultimate high ground, who will get there first?
Airs in Washington, DC on Sunday, November 12th at 10:30 a.m. on Channel 32.
Airs in NYC on Saturday, November 18th at 7:00 a.m. on Channel 13.
"The Next Space Race" Webpage: http://www.cdi.org/adm/1351/
Visit the ADM Website for transcripts, CDI resources, and related links.
Regular Price: $39 each
INTERNET PRICE: $29
Order your copy of "The Next Space Race" at 800-CDI-3334, or on the web at http://www.cdi.org/adm/1351/.
NEW! CDI's "NMD Update" Listserve
As a follow-up to our recent Issue Brief "National Missile Defense: What Does it All Mean?" the Center for Defense Information has created a new NMD Update service. We will bring you the latest updates on all aspects of the NMD debate: the technological obstacles to NMD deployment, the costs of the system, reaction from other countries etc. This NMD Update service is completely FREE. It is published irregularly, as new developments unfold, but the frequency generally does not exceed 1-2 updates a week. To sign up, please visit our web site.