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
| February 15, 2001 |
| February 15, 2001 |
The World According to the CIA
Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.), Chief of Research, dsmith@cdi.org
On February 7 George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence (also the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency), Admiral Thomas Wilson, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Thomas Fingar, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, appeared before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This is an annual event in which testimony, both oral and written, is provided "for the record" in open session with additional testimony given in sessions closed to the press and the public.
Admiral Wilson and Mr. Fingar submitted written testimony. During the open session before the Committee, Mr. Tenet read a lengthy statement and was the one to whom most of the questions were directed. His statement and answers drew objections from both China and Russia. More remarkable in terms of what it reveals about the CIA's threat estimate is that Mr. Tenet discusses China before Russia although Russia merits slightly longer treatment than China.
What follows first is an excerpt from the opening remarks by Committee member Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) which gives a sense of the aura in which these hearings were held. Next are excerpts from Mr. Tenet's statement and the responses to some of the questions asked by Committee members. In most cases the excerpts provide context, and the implications that follow from the views expressed are readily evident. Where not, or where some observation seems warranted, these have been added and are clearly marked.
Senator Graham: "Unlike the Cold War, in which diplomacy and intelligence were two arrows in our quiver, diplomacy will not help us in our fight against non-state terrorists and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is up to the intelligence community to identify and defeat these enemies."
Comment: It might be that through diplomacy we can induce others to join with us in opposing terrorism, stopping it before acts are committed, and apprehending those who engage in terrorism.
Mr. Tenet: "As I reflect this year on the threats to American security, what strikes me most forcefully is the accelerating pace of change...new communications technology that enables... terrorists and narco-traffickers as surely as it aids law enforcement and intelligence, rapid global population growth..., the weakening internal bonds in a number of states ..., and the accelerating growth in missile capabilities in so many parts of the world..."
Comment: Except where terrorists target U.S. military personnel and installations abroad, only the last is a military issue.
"We continue to face ballistic missile threats from a variety of actors beyond Russia and China, specifically North Korea, probably Iran and Iraq ....As worrying as the ICBM threat will be...the threat to U.S. interests from short-range and medium range ballistic missiles is here and now."
[In Colombia] the insurgent [FARC and ELN] violence has fueled the rapid growth of illegal paramilitary groups, which are increasingly vying with the FARC and ELN for control over drug-growing zones..."
"In many places in the Arab world...average citizens are increasingly restive and getting louder... [and are] increasingly capable of taking action without any identifiable leadership or organizational structure."
"China's development remains heavily reliant on access to Western markets and technology, but they also view Washington as their primary obstacle ...[to] becoming a great power."
"Yet another state driving for recognition as a great power is Russia."
From answers to questions from Committee members:
"Let's take the Middle East as a region right now. Everybody has a medium range ballistic missile capability."
[The Chinese leadership's] ability to deal with their internal problems is dependent in no small measure on them not having to deal with us as an active adversary....the way in which the Chinese talk about us, our military...[is] a mirror image of the testimony that all of us [the three witnesses at the hearing] have prepared....We're the yardstick, and if you're going to justify budgets in China, you need a formidable adversary."
Comment: is Mr. Tenet implying that the Pentagon's budget is justified by inflating the threats to our military security?
Admiral Wilson: "Cuba is...not a strong conventional military threat. But their ability to employ asymmetric tactics against our military superiority would be significant...using information warfare or computer network attack."
Senator Durbin (D-IL): "Do you feel that there is any danger that the United States' sale of what we term 'conventional' weaponry around the world creates destabilizing situations?"
Mr. Tenet: "I never thought about it from that perspective....but there's a difference between our pursuit of our legitimate needs to help allies and friends beef up capability -- ...versus a mentality on the part of some countries that everything's for sale...."
Senator Durbin: "When we started on Plan Colombia...the rest of South America was [lukewarm] about hat idea. How do you explain that?"
Mr. Tenet: "Part of it's us, part of it's our involvement....as we make progress against the FARC and the drug trafficking organizations, which is our primary motivation, it's [the violence] going to spill over into those countries" [Colombia's neighbors].
"We project that in coming years, U.S. territory is probably more likely to be attacked with weapons of mass destruction from non-missile delivery means (more likely from non-state entities) than by missiles, primarily because non-missile delivery means are less costly, easier to acquire, and more reliable and accurate. They can also be used without attribution" [excerpt from Mr. Tenet's written testimony read into the record of the committee hearing].
[On the response of other nations to U.S. development of national missile defense] "We're at the front end -- the administration has to make some policy decisions....until there is a program that people decide on and then a strategy to implement it...there are a thousand flowers blooming about all the things that may happen...So what we focus on is trying to give you a sense of what the threat is. Policy response is not our job."
A last observation: while no one can reasonably expect Mr. Tenet or any other intelligence agency head to have every fact at his or her fingertips, what was striking about the question-answer period (in addition to all the instances in which answers were deferred to the closed session) was the number of times -- seven -- and the subjects on which Mr. Tenet's response was a version of "I don't know the answer" (Gulf War MIA, missile defense, links between Colombia miliary and right-wing paramilitaries, selling supercomputers abroad), "we'll work on it" or "we need to think about all that" (generation split among Chinese leaders, predicting Chinese reaction to missile defenses), or (as above) "I never thought of it that way" (effects of U.S. arms sales).
Given the prominence of national missile defense and the growing focus on China as the next major adversary, the intelligence world ought to reach well-grounded views on these subjects as soon as possible.
GAO: Tacair Modernization Program Won't Solve Problem of Aging Fleet
Christopher Hellman, Senior Analyst, chellman@cdi.org
The Pentagon is currently involved in an ambitious plan to modernize its fleet of tactical fighter aircraft. Plans call for the purchase of some 3,700 new fighters -- the Air Force's F-22 "Raptor," the Navy's F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet," and the Joint Strike Fighter, which is being developed for the Air Force Navy and Marine Corps -- and updates to aircraft already in the services' inventories. The new aircraft are estimated to cost almost $350 billion between 1997 and 2026.
According to a new report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), while the services do not have specific targets for the average age of their tacair fleets or retirement dates, historically the average age of the Air Force fleet is 11 years and the retirement age is 22 years. For the Navy, the average age has historically been 7.5 years while the retirement age is 15 years. The Navy's shorter service lives for aircraft are due to the harsher conditions in which naval aircraft operate, including carrier operations involving catapult launches and arrester-hook landings, and the more corrosive ocean environment. The GAO report indicates that the average age of the current Air Force fleet is 13 years, while that of the Navy's fleet is 10 years.
According to the GAO, the current modernization plans will not improve the current situation, let alone get the average age of the fighter fleets back to their historical averages. In fact, age of the fleets will actually increase during the modernization program. In 2011, the half-way point of the modernization program, the average age of the Navy's fleet will increase to 11 years, while the Air Force's will balloon to 21 years. By 2025, at roughly the end of the modernization program, the Navy fleet's average age will be 10 years -- the current average -- while the Air Force fleet's average will be 16 years, or three years above the current average.
In September, 2000, the service chiefs described to Congress the significance of an aging fleet. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee ,they stated that older aircraft require more maintenance and are less frequently available for operations and training, which degrades combat readiness. Further, more funding is required to operate and maintain older aircraft. These funds were being taken from procurement accounts, which in turn delays modernization of the fleet.
The GAO questions this assertion, stating, "In our analysis of the modernization plans, we observed that DoD currently does not have consistent and reliable information to determine the impact of aircraft aging on readiness and operating and support costs." They suggest that other factors, such of the loss of large numbers of experienced mechanics, may contribute to lower aircraft readiness rates. However, the report goes on to say that "if DoD considers reducing the average age of tactical aircraft as a critical goal for their modernization plans, [then] the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review should consider alternatives to the current tactical aircraft modernization plans to achieve this goal." What alternatives? The report does not make such recommendations or suggestions.
For the Air Force, one clear alternative exists. The production lines for F-15 and F-16 fighters remain open, although only a handful of each aircraft are being produced each year. Each aircraft costs roughly $30 million to produce. These are the premier fighter aircraft in the world, and according to an earlier GAO report, aircraft in the current fleet will give the United States unrivaled air superiority until at least 2010. Meanwhile, the F-22, which has not yet entered low-rate production, will cost by Pentagon estimates roughly $90 million per aircraft to produce. The Air Force could drastically reduce the planned purchase of 339 F-22s, if not cancel the program outright, and use the funds to by new, updated F-15s and F-16s at one-third of the cost.
For the Navy, the choices are more difficult, as the only Navy aircraft currently in large scale production is the F/A-18E/F. (Small numbers of the AV-8B "Harrier" are still being produced, although the line is scheduled for closure.) The older aircraft to be replaced, primarily A-6s, F-14s, and older F/A-18C/Ds, are not currently in production. Restarting the lines would be costly, if possible at all. A simpler alternative would be to continue production of the Joint Strike Fighter, which would have an average age of 6 years in 2025.
Ironically, of the three tacair programs, the future of the Joint Strike Fighter is the most uncertain.
For more on the Joint Strike Fighter, see "Whence JSF?" Weekly Defense Monitor, Volume 5, issue #2, January 11, 2001. See also the GAO report "Tactical Aircraft: Modernization Plans Will Not Reduce Average Age of Aircraft," February 9, 2001, (GAO-01-163).
Russia To Begin Destruction of Chemical Stockpile -- According to Zinoviy Pak, director of the Russian Munitions Agency, Russia will begin destruction of its chemical weapons arsenal this summer. The Russian arsenal consists of 40,000 tons of chemical agents and is the world's largest. Russia signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993. It went in to force in 1997, but to date none of the Russian stockpile has been eliminated. The United States has destroyed an estimated 15 percent of its 30,000 ton chemical arsenal.
Defense Democrats Introduce Pentagon Spending Package -- After hearing that President Bush will not immediately seek a special spending package to meet unanticipated Pentagon needs in the current fiscal year, a number of Democrats have introduced a $6.7 billion supplemental spending bill. Introduced by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), the bill includes $1 billion for pay and housing allowances, and $4.3 for "critical readiness needs." Joining Rep. Dicks as original co-sponsors were Reps. Chet Edwards (D-TX), Martin Frost, (D-TX), Norm Sisisky (D-VA) Ike Skelton, (D-MO), and Ellen Tauscher (D-CA).
Navy Will Survive Without Vieques -- Although it will effect fleet readiness, the Navy can live without its training facility in Vieques, according to Admiral Robert Natter, commander of Fleet Atlantic, which operates the facility, in a report he sent to the Pentagon this week. Said Adm. Natter, "Basically, what [the report says] is that if we were to lose Vieques, we will not be an incompetent Navy."
Quotation of the Week -- "The Pentagon does not know how much it spends. It does not know if it gets what it orders in goods and services. And the Pentagon, additionally, does not have a handle on its inventory. If the Pentagon does not know what it owns and spends, then how does the Pentagon know if it needs more money?...Ramping up the Pentagon budget when the books are a mess is highly questionable at best. To some it might seem crazy," Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), on the Senate floor, February 13, 2001, Congressional Record page S1250.
This week on America's Defense Monitor: "An Environmental-Industrial
Complex"
Many Cold War era weapons programs were also jobs programs for high-tech industries in key congressional districts. Yet there is a growing consensus that public spending to find high-tech solutions to the world's mounting environmental problems would be equally beneficial to American workers, while addressing a very real threat to our security and well-being. Should America subsidize this industry too?
Airs in Washington, DC on Sunday, February 18 at 10:30 a.m, on Channel 32.
Airs in NYC on Saturday, February 24 at 7:00 a.m. on Channel 13.
Visit our website for transcripts, CDI resources, and related links.
Regular Price: $39 each
INTERNET PRICE: $29
Order at 800-CDI-3334, or on the web.