The Center for Defense Information


Weekly Defense Monitor
Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW * Washington, DC 20036
(202)332-0600 * Fax (202)462-4559 * www.cdi.org
Volume 5, Issue #14April 5, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Of Military Missions
Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.), Chief of Research, dsmith@cdi.org

One of the many lessons the Pentagon says it has learned since the end of the Cold War is to avoid the gradual (or even sudden) expansion of responsibilities of military forces already deployed on an operation. "Mission creep," as this is called, is usually cited as a contributing factor in the deaths of 18 Americans in the October 1993 attempt to seize a warlord in Mogadishu in the latter stages of an operation that began to help humanitarian relief organizations avert a famine in Somalia.

The Pentagon sometimes encapsulates its mission into a single phrase: "the Armed Forces exist to fight -- and win -- America's wars." For succinctness, this statement is ideal; as an explanation, it is deficient, for its application hinges entirely on how "wars" are defined.

As Shakespeare said, "there's the rub."

The Pentagon's on-line Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms does not define war, conflict, or combat. The first three definitions of war in The Random House Dictionary of the English Language associate war with force of arms, armed hostility, or military operations. The fourth definition speaks only of "active hostility or contention; conflict; contest," while a subsequent entry details at great length the card game known as "war."

This definition infers a number of possible missions associated with military activities: defending by force of arms the nation's "territorial" integrity, preparing for the possibility of armed hostilities, and using military forces to interact with other peoples and nations in ways "other than war."

This simple (or simplistic) list introduces more ambiguities than clarifications. In the 21st century, "territory" could be broadly interpreted to include national "resources" such as trade and banking, the flow of capital into and out of financial markets, communications, electric power grids and other parts of the national infrastructure. Less often considered, but no less important as a national Aresource@ that must be protected, is people. Their health and well-being are more likely to be assaulted by disease, drugs, pollution, and other ills than by foreign militaries.

Indeed, a military that concentrates solely on fighting and winning wars or even preparing to do so risks making a massive blunder because it shortchanges the mission of preventing contests, conflict, contention, or active hostility from flaring into armed hostility -- often at much less cost than military preparations for war.

The connection between the mission of preventive defense and the military mission of fighting the nation's wars was made during a March 26 appearance by former Senator Howard Baker, co-chair of the congressionally mandated task force reviewing the Department of Energy=s nonproliferation programs with Russia, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) (quoting Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), on the task force's recommendation to allocate $30 billion over 8-10 years to reduce dangers of nuclear proliferation): "We have a simple choice: we can either spend the money, reduce the threat, or spend more money in the future to defend ourselves. And I am a strong believer that threat reduction is the first best approach in this case."

Senator Baker: "Russia...has over 40,000 nuclear weapons, over a thousand metric tons of nuclear materials, vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons and materials, and thousands of missiles....there aren't any issues of national defense that are more important, in my view, short of ultimate survival of the nation, than seeing that we reduce the threat of proliferation; and the greatest threat of proliferation is not the development of new sources but the protection and safeguarding of existing sources of nuclear material."

Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE): "Is there any fundamental difference in what you are attempting to do relative to weapons of mass destruction and what we are attempting to do with the national missile defense in terms of weapons of mass destruction, in terms of the objective?"

Senator Baker: "It's a penetrating and important question. And the objectives are the same: they are survival. The point of departure is different: that is, are you going to try to interdict the weapons material or weapons before they are diverted, or are you going to try to catch them after they are launched?"

There is one other difference: cost. DOE's FY 2001 budget for nonproliferation activities is a little over $874 million. Early indications are that this amount will be cut to about $801 million for FY2002. Programs designed to re-employ Russian nuclear weapons experts and to upgrade accountability of nuclear materials will be hit hardest. The Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction program (also known as Nunn-Lugar after its legislative sponsors), which pays for the destruction of Russian nuclear warheads and delivery systems such as missiles, received $443 million in FY2001 and is expected to be funded at about this amount in FY2002. Even without the projected DOE cuts, together these programs come to around $1.3 billion, a sum that may be reduced further after completion of an on-going comprehensive review of all assistance programs to Russia. Meanwhile, the Pentagon this year is spending $5 billion developing missile defenses, the attempt, as Senator Baker said, "to try to catch them after they are launched."

Are prevention and preparation mutually exclusive? No, unless together they expend too many resources. But it is also true that the more comprehensive the prevention, the fewer the missions. And the fewer the missions, the less immediate preparation is needed to be just as (if not more) secure.

As that famous author, Anonymous, said: "A victorious warrior wins, then goes to war; a defeated warrior goes to war, and then thinks about winning."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. General Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Remarks at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., December 14, 2000. General Shelton expanded this mission statement somewhat at the Mid-America Committee Leadership Luncheon in Chicago on March 26, 2001: "Our mission has not changed and that is to deter war; but, if deterrence should fail we must be prepared to defeat all challenges to American security."

Third UN Prepcom for Small Arms Conference Ends With Unresolved Issues
Rachel Stohl, Senior Analyst, rstohl@cdi.org

The third and final Prepcom for the July 2001 UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects was held in New York from March 19-30. While the Prepcom was the final session in the lead-up to the July conference, some important decisions were not made and much work remains to be done before the conference can go forward. Since Member States were not in favor of holding intersessional meetings, it is unclear how all the unresolved issues will be determined.

The 2001 Conference, established by UN Resolution 54/54V, is intended to focus on coordinated international action to deal with the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. The conference will be the first international meeting on small arms and light weapons. Ambassador Camillo Reyes of Colombia will serve as President of the Conference, with Ambassador Mitsuro Donowaki of Japan chairing the high-level section of the conference (a proposal was made, but not agreed upon, to have at least part of the Conference held at the Ministerial level), and Ambassador Michael Weston of the United Kingdom chairing a conference committee.

Government representatives spent many sessions debating the draft Programme of Action. However, in the end, no consensus was reached and no conference document finalized. What is known is that the Programme of Action will have a preamble that may include a statement of principles; a section on preventing, controlling and curbing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons; implementation, including international cooperation and assistance; and follow-up from the July conference. What's unclear is what specific issues will be contained within the draft document; for example, the question of the Conference's overall scope -- whether limited to address only the illicit trade in small arms or broader to consider some aspects of the licit trade -- remains to be resolved. Further, some States issued redlines -- topics considered unacceptable for inclusion in the document -- while others demanded that certain issues not be excluded. At the conclusion of the Prepcom, Member States were told to submit in writing to the UN Secretariat additional suggestions for the Programme of Action.

The U.S. delegation was headed by Ambassador Donald McConnell from the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at the State Department. Ambassador McConnell was joined by several other officials including those from two offices within the Defense Department, two bureaus within the State Department, and the Treasury Department (including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms).

One subject of much deliberation, whose attempted resolution had consistently been put off until the very end was the degree of inclusion in the conference of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society as a whole. Many of the sessions of the third Prepcom were closed to NGOs as government representatives discussed the draft Programme of Action line by line. After significant discussion, the Committee decided without a vote that "attendance would be open to relevant non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. Other non-governmental organizations deemed relevant and competent in the subject matter and scope of the Conference would also be allowed to attend; the Chairman of the Committee would subsequently provide the Committee with a list of those organizations for consideration on a no-objection basis. Accredited non-governmental organizations would be allowed to address the Committee and the Conference during one meeting specifically allocated for that purpose."

Throughout the Prepcom, delegations heard in the official sessions from UN agencies, regional organizations, and NGOs on the detrimental impacts of small arms on all aspects of society, on agencies abilities to carry out their mandates, and on prospects for national, regional, and international action on small arms. The NGO presentations included: the impact of small arms on civil society, the role of civil society in addressing the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, tracing and transparency of small arms, rights and responsibilities of states and their citizens with regard to small arms, and specific measures needed for follow-up and implementation. While most presenters were members of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), a network of over 320 organizations from 70 countries, the National Rifle Association and the World Sports Shooters Council also made statements. Lloyd Axworthy, former Foreign Minister of Canada, representing the Eminent Persons Group, also spoke during the civil society presentations.

While government representatives bicker over semantics and redlines, many feel that the real point of the conference -- saving human lives -- has been lost. "In the past two weeks while delegations have been negotiating at the UN, some 15,000 people have died from small arms and light weapons," said Sally Joss, Coordinator of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). "In the U.S. there was another school shooting during the conference. Conflict is raging in Macedonia, Colombia and Angola. Armed criminal syndicates are destabilizing south east Asian countries. Lives continue to be lost in armed violence in the Middle East. Our message to governments is loud and clear -- save lives, stop gun-running."

To address the multitude of issues raised by small arms throughout the world, IANSA is urging governments to prevent and combat the spread of small arms through six core demands: an international convention on arms trafficking; an international convention to mark and trace small arms; international criteria governing small arms exports based on international law, including human rights; destruction of surplus government weapons and collection of illicit arms from communities affected by armed violence; controls on the possession of weapons by civilians; and increased resources and funds to build the capacity of governments to implement new controls.

NGOs realize that this framework will not alleviate the totality of human suffering caused by small arms proliferation. But will begin the process of alleviating the damage these weapons cause. Moreover, most NGOs agree that the United Nations Conference should be a launching point for future action on small arms, not the end of a process. Governments must be held accountable to push the small arms agenda forward, at the UN Conference and beyond, to ensure that small arms do not continue to be used, in the words of Kofi Annan, as weapons of mass destruction.

For more information on the first Prepcom, see "UN Hosts First Prepcom for 2001 Small Arms Conference," Weekly Defense Monitor, March 9, 2000. For more information on the second Prepcom, see "Second Prepcom for 2001 Small Arms Conference Concludes," Weekly Defense Monitor, January 24, 2001. For general information on the conference and conference process, visit the UN's small arms website or the IANSA website.

Acquisition Experts Review Weapons Development Process
Christopher Hellman, Senior Analyst, chellman@cdi.org

This week a group of current and former Defense Department acquisition officials shared their thoughts on the current weapons procurement system. The panel discussion, sponsored by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), was entitled "Are We Buying the Right Weapons in the Best Way?" Panel participants were Mr. Philip Coyle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Director, Operation Test and Evaluation and now a Senior Advisor at the Center for Defense Information; Dr. Jacques Gansler, former Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology; and Dr. Kenneth Oscar, Acting Assistant Secretary, Acquisition and Technology.

Dr. Gansler identified ten areas where some progress had been made, but where additional focus is needed. The ten areas are:

  1. Developing 21st Century Weapons -- Emphasis on such capabilities as mobility, "smartness," and Command, Control, and Communications (C3) is needed;
  2. Dealing with New Threats -- Particular attention to asymmetric threats such as weapons of mass destruction and information warfare is crucial; 3) Joint and Coalition Operations -- While requirements exist within DoD to emphasize jointness and interoperability, coalition operations need more attention and can be improved through such things as improved technology transfers;
  3. Modernization -- Operations & Maintenance funds need to be used to pay modernization, with an end goal of systems that are cheaper and simpler to operate and maintain, such as the Navy's DD-21 ship program;
  4. High Cost/Long Cycles of Weapons Development -- Controlling cost is now a military requirement in weapons development, and the Joint Strike Fighter program is a good example;
  5. Modernize the Logistics System -- Greater efficiency is needed in monitoring, managing and shipping the military's inventory, as logistics accounts for $80 billion annually;
  6. Long-term Investments in Science and Technology -- Additional funding is needed, and existing funding needs to be shifted more towards the technologies associated with new weaponry;
  7. Understanding the Importance of the Industrial Base in its New Structure -- Maintaining competition and a healthy industrial base in an era of consolidation and increased globalism is essential;
  8. Reduce Excess Infrastructure -- Additional base closures are needed, as well as increased public/private competition for Defense Department work, which routinely reduce costs by 30% to 50%; and
  9. Acquisition Workforce -- Restructuring is needed in government and industry staffing.

Mr. Coyle noted that many military programs work well, but these are the programs about which little is heard, because problem programs draw the majority of public attention. Programs that experience difficulties during their development do so most often because of a "lack of realism." Mr. Coyle indicated four areas where this occurred:

  1. Unrealistic Requirements -- Warfighters naturally want the most capable systems possible, preferably multi-mission systems, which by their nature are more complex;
  2. Unrealistic Costs and Schedules -- Contracts often don't reflect reality in setting costs and schedules. Contractors feel compelled to "buy in" in order to be competitive. Further, items characterized as "off the shelf" often aren't. If a product does not have a realistic commercial application, it needs to be thoroughly tested like any other system;
  3. Unrealistic Contract Agreements/Structures -- The types of contracts and bids need to be addressed. One specific recommendation would be to improve the profitablity of research and development contracts; and
  4. Preparing for a Realistic Operational Environment -- Many current testing programs do not accurately reflect the conditions in which a system will actually operate.

Mr. Coyle also made eight specific recommendations:

  1. Make all program requirement changes subject to approval by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC);
  2. If recommendation #1 is not implemented, make program development costs reimburseable to the contractor;
  3. Allow reasonable profits during the development phase of programs;
  4. Promote outcomes that encourage sustained industry competition, e.g. no "winner take all" contracts;
  5. Promote realistic contracting; e.g., no firm fixed price contracts;
  6. Insure that "off the shelf" products truly are;
  7. Get testers involved early on in the development process; and
  8. Deal with the 'Death Spiral" of sustainment costs of older systems eating in to funding needed for developing and producing new systems.

Dr. Oscar highlighted the difference between simply renewing the fleet with one-for-one replacements of aging equipment with newer models of the same system versus true modernization. Maintaining the fleet by purchasing new items at the same rate as old ones are retired is not modernization. Failing to do even this much, however, will ultimately lead to an aging fleet that is increasingly expensive to operate and maintain, and is eventually subject to block obsolescence. Conversely, wholesale replacement of existing systems with the next generation of weapons is too costly. The key is to determine the optimum time for replacing current systems where the initial costs of new systems and the savings achieved from operating and maintaining them compare favorably with the operations and maintenance costs of the older systems.

Mr. Coyle's recommendation that the development phase be made more profitable raises some interesting issues. As he pointed out, it would solve one of the problems of growing concern to the defense industry -- the ability to continue to attract and retain technology experts. And since under the current system the majority of a program's profits are realized during the production phase, it would reduce some of the existing pressures to rush new systems into production prematurely.

The full text of the discussion will be made available on the POGO website.

CDI's "Briefing Room"

Senate Adds $8.5 Billion to Defense -- This week the Senate adopted an amendment to the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution sponsored by Senator John Warner (R-VA), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, which added $8.5 billion to the defense budget. The resolution sets overall spending caps for federal agencies, but does not specify how the funds will be spent. Earlier, the Senate defeated an amendment offered by Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), a member of the Armed Services Committee, which would have added a similar amount to the 2002 budget and $100 billion to defense over ten years. The main difference between the two amendments was that Senator Landrieu would fund the increase by reducing President Bush's proposed tax cut, while Senator Warner's calls for "corresponding adjustments necessitated by those increase," or in other words, by cuts in non-defense programs. The House, which completed its work on the budget resolution last week, did not include any additional funding for the Pentagon.

Administration to Quit ABM Treaty? -- According to media sources, President Bush is planning to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty despite the insistence of China, Russia and Europe that it remains a crucial pillar of global security. The final decision is due to be taken within weeks. A source close to the Pentagon, said: "I have no doubt we will do it." Senator Jon Kyl, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the Bush administration was "poised" to withdraw. "The treaty is an anachronism of the Cold War that prevents us dealing effectively with the threats of the 21st century."

Yugoslavia Funneled Money to Bosnia -- The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sent money and arms to ethnic Serbs fighting for independence during war in neighboring Bosnia, former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic admitted during a police interrogation. The Bosnian Serbs were one of the three ethnic groups, along with Croats and Bosniaks (Muslims), who fought each other during the 1991-95 Bosnia war. Yugoslavia has openly sided with the Bosnian Serbs, sheltering their leaders from NATO peacekeepers and bankrolling the Serbian entity's post-war military. Milosevic, who served as Yugoslav President during the war, was arrested last week on charges of corruption and abuse of power.

Review Recommends V-22 Overall -- A review of the Marine Corps V-22 Osprey aircraft by the Services Judge Advocate General (JAG) has recommended that the Navy conduct a thorough review of the aircraft's computer software and hydraulics systems. The JAG investigation was begun as a result of the December, 2000 crash of a V-22 that killed all four people on board. The report confirms earlier speculation that the crash was the result of a fault in the hydraulic system, combined with a software problem. The report also concludes that the crew was not at fault in the crash.

Patriot Performs Successful Intercept -- The Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missile successfully engaged and destroyed two simultaneously launched targets during a March 31 test. PAC-3 is a lower-tier theater missile defense system designed to protect troops against attacks from cruise and ballistic missiles as well as enemy aircraft. This was the eighth successful test of the system, which is scheduled to enter full production in 2002. The PAC-3 system is a modernized version of the Patriot made famous during the Persian Gulf War. A recent report by the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation praised PAC-3 for its successful testing record, but noted that the ground component suffers from serious reliability problems.

Quotation of the Week -- "The public, through our negligence, is totally uninformed [on the issue of National Missile Defense]. We're just beginning to discuss this here in Washington, and the way we discuss it in Washington, we act as if the American public has any idea...of what we're talking about," Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), April 4, 2001.

This week on America's Defense Monitor: "Water, Land, People, Conflict"

Today, the greatest threats facing any nation's security may not be military threat. Increasingly, they are complex issues related to the environment such as: population growth, water scarcity, pollution, and economic stability.

Airs in Washington, DC on Sunday, April 8 at 10:30 a.m, on Channel 32.
Airs in NYC on Saturday, April 14 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.