The military’s future
If you want a good look at the shifting strategic military landscape, go read Andrew Krepinevich’s essay in the most recent Foreign Affairs (the link is here, but it’s behind a firewall so you need a subscription).
He focuses on “A2/AD”, which stands for “anti-access/area denial”, a concept en vogue by second-tier military powers. The thinking is that a China or an Iran can’t beat the US in a head-on military engagement, but they can be quite successful in limiting (or driving up the price of) American access to strategic locations. For example, after the US deployed the USS NIMITZ into the Strait of Taiwan in a show of force in 1995-96, China reoriented its strategy to deny the US Navy easy access to that strategic waterway. In practice, this means they’ve set out to target American bases in the Pacific Rim with large numbers of conventional ballistic missiles, essentially denying America’s ability to deploy to the Strait.
Or, in a simulated 2002 wargame against a hostile Persian Gulf power (cough. Iran. cough.), the American General directing the “Persian” forces overwhelmed USN assets transitting the Strait of Hormuz with small suicide boats and a nimble cruise missile force.
The lesson was clear: though tactically superior, the US could be defeated. Sound familiar? Of course, it’s notable that this only involves offensive US incursions. Sound familiar, redux? And of course, no one has the firepower to defeat American forces on US soil.
The upshot is that American military planning has to defend against this denial of access. In a period of limited resources, there’s an opportunity cost to weapons we buy — if we continue procuring weapons we don’t need, our competitors continue to get a leg up. As Krepinevich calls them, they’re “wasting assets” — nice pieces of hardware that are useless in a given strategic context.
Or, you might say that Appropriations bill that force unneeded weapons down the Pentagon’s throat, the responsible Senators are actually weak on defense. Mr. Chambliss, I’m looking in your direction.
Posted in China, DoD, Iran, PPI, US foreign policy, integrated security, military, procurement, spending
December 11th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“Force Application and launch from CONUS” counters future A2/AD strategies. Allows for smaller projected forces and lean less costly force. Technology still rules. R&D weapon development is still required to ensure future security. Combined with term limits to ensure against entrenched obsolete ideological, corrupt representatives of both parties.