THE BEST DEFENSE IS A DEVASTATING OFFENSE
Lt. Cdr. Mark Steven Kirk, USNR, served as the aviation intelligence officer for the "Star Warriors" of Electronic Attack Squadron 209 during a deployment to Aviano Air Base, Italy, during NATO's Operation Allied Force--combat operations in Kosovo--in 1999.
Elected to the 107th Congress from the 10th District of Illinois, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) began his career in government as an aide to Rep. John Porter in 1984. Following service at the World Bank and the State Department, Kirk joined the staff of the House International Relations Committee. In addition to his service on Capitol Hill, Kirk is a lieutenant commander in the Naval Reserve. He has served as the air-intelligence officer for a Navy squadron flying the EA-6B Prowler electronic-attack aircraft, seeing combat duty patrolling the no-fly zone over Northern Iraq and, during Operation Allied Force in 1999, over the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Upon taking office, Kirk changed his status in the Naval Reserve to non-drilling reservist. In addition to his work on the House Armed Services Committee, Kirk serves on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and on the House Budget Committee.
Interview With Rep. Mark Steven Kirk
Editor in Chief James D. Hessman and Senior Editor Gordon I. Peterson interviewed Rep. Kirk for this issue of Sea Power.
Sea Power: How important is your past service in the Naval Reserve to your work now on the House Armed Services Committee [HASC]?
KIRK: My naval service is quite important to my work on the committee. It provides me quintessential ground truth that you get only from serving at the sharp end of the spear. It's a no-spin zone at the forward edge of battle. The only question is whether you are able to defeat the enemy or not. No amount of point papers, press conferences, or revised history will make a difference out there.
A large cadre of members with military backgrounds is now passing from the Congress. Three-quarters of the members elected in 1946 had military backgrounds. I think we are down now to 20 percent. There is another statistic that's even more worrisome. Only 15 of us have any military experience since Desert Storm a decade ago! The great victorious military that Ronald Reagan built--and the lessons learned and the ability to execute the U.S. will, without substantial loss of life on our side--all are things that are well understood by only a dozen or so members of Congress.
And yet, deciding issues of war and peace is the most important responsibility that the Constitution places in the hands of the Congress. We feel a unique burden to turn to our colleagues who do not have military backgrounds to explain, for example, how an air strike is put together or to address fundamental military basics--much like amateurs talk about strategy and professionals talk about logistics. We can help to bring these realities to bear in our discussions.
There is another important factor to consider. Everyone loves high-tech weaponry, but people carry out today's campaigns. One of the most significant problems we have in Congress is understanding what it takes to motivate young men and women to commit their lives to careers in the military and to be highly motivated and expert at what they do.
How do we explain what is necessary to back them up so that when they are flying over Afghanistan or Iraq they feel like their training is good, their equipment is up to speed, their families at home are cared for, and they are receiving the pay and benefits structured so that they want to stay in the service? My military service has been of immense benefit in helping me to understand and articulate those considerations.
During the late 1990s, while serving as a staff member on another committee, you visited 42 countries--including Bosnia, Kosovo, and North Korea. Based on your observations, what type of international-security environment do you think the United States will face during the early decades of this century?
KIRK: The most important and immediate threat is terrorism. The U.S. armed forces are, unfortunately, well experienced with the kamikaze mentality of the suicide bomber. But, even during World War II, kamikaze pilots were military personnel who directed their attacks against military targets. Now we see civilians directing attacks against civilian targets.
We live in a democracy that supports human rights and an open society. How do we defend against civilian suicide bombers seeking to attack civilians? It's a unique challenge.
The second major challenge is that we cannot classify the laws of physics. We will face an enemy armed with weapons of mass destruction, carried by ballistic missiles that promptly deliver them across great distances. We must accept that this threat is an eventuality, and our military forces are going to have to master the threat.
The third issue in the 21st century is the rise of China. It is said that the 20th century was dominated by the emergence of the United States as the preeminent world power. The 21st century will see the continued rise of China. What direction will it take in its foreign affairs, and how will the international system as a whole handle the growth of Chinese income and influence?
There was a time between 1880 and 1917 when the United States represented the vast commercial power of the world economy but did so with comparatively little military power. China now represents a vast share of the growth of income in the world, but it has limited military power. But we know that commercial power can lead to military potential if a society so decides. With the growth of its economy, there is a real possibility that China eventually will expand its military capabilities.
This is a critical issue--not just for the United States, but also for India, the world's largest and most populous democracy. It will be exciting to see how these two democracies, each with a common heritage in Great Britain, will handle the rise of China.
How will the Navy-Marine Corps team's national-security role evolve?
KIRK: I think that the Navy-Marine Corps team's role and capabilities will become even more important in the future. That outlook is based on what we learned in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom.
Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it took the United States four months to respond--with Doolittle's [then-Col. James Doolittle] limited raid on Tokyo with B-17 bombers launched from the aircraft carrier [USS] Hornet. Eight months elapsed before the 1st Marine Division landed on Guadalcanal in the Pacific, and the campaign there did not go well for the U.S. military in the early stages.
We bombed Japan continuously for three years and, with Great Britain, we bombed Germany continuously for four years, before victory in that war. Jumping ahead to Operation Desert Storm, we had five months to assemble our forces and logistic support before starting the air campaign.
During Enduring Freedom we launched our first Tomahawk cruise missiles and dropped our first bombs less than four weeks after the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked. That was the blink of an eye, comparatively speaking, yet every nation around Afghanistan denied the United States the right to originate attacks from within its borders. These geopolitical constraints underscored the utility and value of the Navy-Marine Corps team's contribution.
Approximately 75 percent of the combat sorties over Afghanistan were flown by Navy and Marine Corps aircraft launched from aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea. Pulling off that victory--a victory largely fought by naval aviation against a country that does not have a coastline--was a historic feat of arms.
The operation again showed how much the Marine Corps has evolved from an amphibious force able to attack across the beach into one that can assemble the aircraft and helicopters needed to project power more than 700 miles across rough terrain directly into combat in Central Asia. This assault also was unprecedented in military history, and it underscores the quantum leap in capability that the Navy and Marine Corps have developed in recent years. I don't think this stunning achievement is fully appreciated by the American people.
Were you surprised by the early success of Operation
Enduring Freedom?
KIRK: I was very surprised! I flew in Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, and I didn't think that air power would win the battle that day. It did. During Operation Enduring Freedom, air power--launched from land and sea, and imaginatively integrated with U.S. and Northern Alliance ground forces--was once again decisive.
There is a new Bush corollary to the Reagan doctrine. Under the Reagan doctrine the United States supported indigenous forces to achieve our objectives. Now, not only will we support indigenous forces like the Northern Alliance, we also will be their air force and their forward air controllers. In an age in which we have so many precision-guided munitions, this suddenly becomes militarily possible.
Our growing ability to identify and attack targets on the battlefield in near real time is part of a revolution in air warfare. The Air Force uses a measurement called the "Boyd Loop" to describe the time it takes a military organization to perceive a change on the battlefield and, in turn, execute a response.
During the Napoleonic era, the Boyd Loop was approximately six weeks. During World War II it was roughly one week. In Vietnam it might have been around a day and a half. With more effective access to satellite imagery, we narrowed it to 111 minutes during operations in Kosovo, and we cut it again to roughly 19 minutes during operations in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Taliban were operating on a Boyd Loop of approximately two days.
Many Navy and Marine Corps air crews launched on their missions with no idea of their targets. They were informed en route to Afghanistan from the Arabian Sea or while orbiting high overhead waiting to be called down to execute a mission.
There is no doubt why we won. We were able to change battlefield conditions so dynamically that the Taliban commanders must have been totally out of it--completely unable to respond. They became deaf and dumb chess pieces totally unconnected to one another, and they were totally destroyed.
The carrier battle group's warfare capabilities continue to improve on a near daily basis. That factor, coupled with the Navy's ability to launch prompt and sustained combat operations from the sea--without regard to national sovereignty issues or the need for a large footprint ashore--explains why the Navy-Marine Corps team will be so important to U.S. national security during the challenging years ahead.
The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis was featured in an NBC-TV documentary in April describing its role in the war on terrorism. As one who has served on that ship several times, what was your reaction to the broadcast?
KIRK: I was very proud to see Stennis on the program. We used to say that John C. Stennis, or "J-C-S," meant "just clean something!" She was the most modern carrier in the fleet, and we wanted her to be totally shipshape. In her first deployment she was very useful, sailed around the world, and was homeported in San Diego. Then she carried out another very long deployment. I was very proud that I went through sea trials, CQ [carrier qualification], and a JTFEX [joint task force exercise] with her. As I watched the program, I reflected on the enormous effort that went into building this ship and training the crew to be ready. The result was victory, which is priceless. Having three or four carriers stationed in the Arabian Sea means that the United States is safer--what price do you put on that?
The Navy League has long insisted that the Navy needs 15 carrier battle groups to carry out all of its missions. What do you think?
KIRK: It's a cliche that is repeated over and over again: The first question the president is going to ask in a crisis is "Where are the carriers?" We saw this during Enduring Freedom. The skipper of the USS Enterprise [Capt. James A. Winnefeld] watched the hijacked aircraft hit the World Trade Center on television. He just turned the rudder over and sailed his ship back toward harm's way without any tasking from the U.S. Fifth Fleet. That shows the flexibility and initiative that the Navy can bring to bear when we are threatened. I sign on with the Rumsfeld [Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld] view that in the war on terrorism the best defense is a devastating offense--and that is what our bluewater Navy is capable of.
You touched upon the subject of training in your remarks about the John C. Stennis. The Naval Training Center at Great Lakes [Ill.], in your district, is one of the Navy's oldest training facilities. Are you satisfied with the Navy's plan to recapitalize its infrastructure there?
KIRK: We are making progress. The decision by the Navy to close down the San Diego [Calif.] and Orlando [Fla.] training facilities and recapitalize Great Lakes provided a dramatic opportunity to upgrade the training that is offered the enlisted corps of the Navy.
There was a time when the Navy really did not want to be at Great Lakes. Some people referred to it as "The Great Mistake" and described it as "Old and Cold." Others asked "Why should we be in a place a thousand miles from salt water?" The analysis showed that Great Lakes was the one training facility that could dramatically expand compared to the other two and handle the load of what the Navy has now budgeted--a billion-dollar recapitalization of the facility.
Great Lakes is a base that is half new, half old. The modern facilities reflect the pride and commitment that we have for the new Navy, but I want to see more. My principal initiative is in the area of realistic training.
A group of chief petty officers at Great Lakes met on their own initiative and identified a need for a more realistic and intense training experience to put young recruits under stress--to really challenge them. The premier training experience in the U.S. military in the view of Congress is the Marine Corps' "Crucible." It is a meaningful and powerful experience that has a visible effect on the recruits, and it has captured the popular imagination.
That's what we need for the Navy. We have some of it at Great Lakes during what the Navy calls "Battle Stations." When it is over, you see exhausted recruits totally proud over becoming Sailors. Today's kids want to be challenged--and they are--but this training takes place in a cobbled-together facility that was actually never funded by Congress.
We have just accelerated authorization for an entirely new Battle-Station facility to the 2004 to 2006 time frame. The idea is to build a new facility from the ground up that will permit the recruits to experience one of the worst damage-control scenarios--like what we saw during the Gulf War, a mine detonating under the ship's keel. Young recruits will be in a compartment without electrical power. It will be on fire. They will smell smoke. Seawater will be pouring in.
Should this happen one day out in the fleet, they will be facing it for the second time, because they will have experienced it at Great Lakes. We face enhanced threats in the future, and we must be sure that our Sailors are ready. From my days as a naval intelligence officer, I remember that the Soviet Navy's damage-control philosophy on a submarine was to seal off the fire and run away. The U.S. Navy's philosophy in a submarine is to run toward the fire.
How do you get a 19-year-old in a small compartment without electricity and running out of oxygen to run toward the fire? Our Sailors do that today, but when we have a more realistic training facility we will dramatically improve their damage-control skills and their ability to fight and save their ship.
You facilitated an agreement between the Navy and the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] that provides for the transfer of 48 acres from the VA hospital in Chicago to the Navy for expansion of its facilities at Great Lakes. In return, the Navy will purchase electricity and steam from a VA-sponsored energy center. Should this model be expanded around the country?
KIRK: Yes. Over time the number of veterans in this country is going to decline, and we will be realigning veterans' services. We will face choices similar to what they faced in North Chicago. By combining these two facilities we ensure that veterans' health care continues in northern Illinois, but we also bring with it all of the services budgeted for the active-duty military. There's no need for the taxpayers to buy two two galleys or two laundries, for example.
I visited the joint VA-Air Force health care facility at Nellis [Air Force Base, Nev.], and the staff reported to me that the brand new facility offered health care to active-duty military and veterans at a savings of 25 percent.
Navy shipbuilding: Is the current funding enough? Has there been any progress so far with your committee working with the administration to increase SCN [shipbuilding and conversion, Navy] funding in the future?
KIRK: We want to, but I think the secretary of the Navy [Gordon R. England] perceived the political landscape correctly when he said that there will be many advocates for shipbuilding, but "I am the only advocate for the Navy's O&M [operations and maintenance] account." No lobbyists come to the Hill saying "Replenish Navy spares and provide more money for depot maintenance!"
Secretary England has focused his effort on surging spare parts throughout the fleet. In my experience in VAQ-209 [Electronic Attack Squadron 209] we always had at least one jet down as a "hangar queen"--and a source for spare parts. When George Bush took over as president, that stopped. Now we have all four jets up and running. My understanding is that the aircraft carriers that leave Norfolk now are fully manned. We never saw that before.
I understand that the secretary of the Navy reads The Washington Post like everyone else and thinks that maybe Iraq is on the horizon in the war on terrorism. His focus to make this Navy ready right now is a key national priority.
Secretary England must fight tooth and nail for the O&M budget. No one else will. It is up to the Congress to look for add-ons [i.e., funding increases] for shipbuilding. There are several scenarios for such add-ons. Congress is pretty worried about a smaller Navy, and many committee members want to increase shipbuilding.
Many people say that the Navy faces a Hobson's choice. Rumsfeld said it was the Navy's decision not to increase funding for shipbuilding, but with an inadequate top line, how could it do otherwise? Doesn't the Navy need more money for both requirements?
KIRK: I think the way Secretary England is proceeding is the most politically realistic approach. If he had come in with a large shipbuilding request and underfunded O&M, the Congress would not have increased O&M. By coming in with a healthy O&M budget but at least one ship down in shipbuilding, the Congress is strongly inclined to give him that extra ship. In the end, he wins on both fronts. I think the Navy has a good political strategy.
The Coast Guard faces similar recapitalization requirements for its helicopters, aircraft, and cutters. Some members of Congress have questioned the need for the Coast Guard to have such deepwater capabilities. What do you think?
KIRK: Homeland defense has underscored the need for their mission. We don't know what arrives on our shores in shipping containers today. We hope to have a system in the end where the Customs Service will certify and seal cargo coming to the United States. The Coast Guard also has a role to play overseas.
Closer to our shores, we need to be ready for a Libyan tramp steamer showing up suddenly 12 miles outside of a civilian port and having a naval force that's able to respond to it. That tramp steamer might not just have a weapon of mass destruction aboard. It might also have arms and trained terrorists aboard who will fight that ship into port. We need a capability to respond promptly.
The Marine Corps has chartered an innovative path to its transformation through the doctrine of operational-maneuver warfare. Are you satisfied that its high-priority programs to achieve this transition--the AAAV [advanced amphibious assault vehicle] and MV-22 [Osprey tiltrotor aircraft], to name two--are on track?
KIRK: They are to the best of my knowledge. I am totally supportive of the Marine Corps because of what I saw during Operation Allied Force. A Navy Prowler [EA-6B electronic-warfare aircraft] squadron and a Marine Corps Prowler squadron deploy in totally different fashions. I saw this at Aviano [Air Base, Italy]. My Navy squadron was assigned a broken-down post office with no electricity or water. We had to beg, borrow, and steal all of our equipment because we planned to be deployed on an aircraft carrier and not be deployed ashore in an expeditionary capacity.
The Marine Corps Prowler squadron at Aviano was happy just to receive a muddy field, behind the 31st Marines, because they deployed with all of their equipment. They set up all of the ancillary equipment needed to support the squadron in containers protected by barbed wire and their own security force. This demonstrated to me how unbelievably flexible the Marines are. All they needed was a 50-yard square, and within two days they had an up-and-running Prowler squadron with capabilities equal to any squadron in the fleet.
Look at Camp Rhino [an austere Marine Corps forward-operating base set up near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 2001]. It demonstrated how U.S. Marines could deploy whole units to the field with everything they need for battle organic to the command. It is an unprecedented capability. Frankly, U.S. Air Force air wings and U.S. Army divisions ought to be moving in this direction, because the Marine Corps has developed a doctrine very well adapted to the international-security environment of the early years of the 21st century.
One Marine veteran told us that this was no big deal. "We do it all the time," he said.
KIRK: That is correct, but to the average American it was a very big deal. Most people don't understand just how important it is to be able to train the way you are going to fight. Unfortunately, you get nasty surprises in combat. In the case of the Marines, they bring everything they are going to need. By not assuming anything, they end up being the most capable force on the battlefield.
The Department of the Navy has developed a plan to cut back the numbers in its planned acquisition of Joint Strike Fighters and Super Hornets. Is this a matter of concern to the HASC?
KIRK: There is concern. The Navy plans to reduce its buy of Super Hornets next year from 48 to 44. My principal focus has been the analysis of alternatives on electronic-warfare aircraft--a $60-billion decision for U.S. taxpayers. We are experiencing a tension now between perceived needs in Phase Two of the war on terrorism and the long-term goal of transforming the military so that we are unquestionably superior to any foe in the future.
There is a whole host of similar issues where I don't know where we are going to come down. It is a struggle. It's easier because this president has been so generous with the military budget, but it is still not a decided question because we don't know how long these military budget increases will be sustained.
Some difficult decisions have to be made. I'm not a fan of the Army's Crusader [self-propelled artillery] program, for example, because I think it is a system designed for another era. I'm looking forward to the day when Rumsfeld can take time away from the day-to-day operations of Enduring Freedom to return to his quest for military transition. I think he has the right vision. Unlike the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he is in the operational chain of command. Much of his attention is consumed in the day-to-day conduct of the war.
We appreciate the generous amount of time that you have shared with us. Is there anything else that you would like to say to the Navy League and other readers of Sea Power?
KIRK: I would just say, "Join the Navy League!" Operation Enduring Freedom shows that Mahan's view of the world is truer now in the 21st century than it was in the 19th century when he wrote his book [The Influence of Sea Power Upon History]. *
|
|
