|
It is traditional
that, at or near the end of his term, an outgoing national president of
the Navy League provides an assessment or "summing up" of the
state of the sea services and the state of the Navy League itself. It is
in the spirit of that tradition that I submit the following report to what
I--and, I know, all national presidents--recognize as the "committee
of the whole." In other words, all members of the Navy League, not
just the Steering Committee or the Executive Committee, or the NLUS Board
of Directors.
It is
appropriate, I think, to begin with a few final comments on the war
against the government of Serbia--better put, against Slobodan Milosevic.
Despite the on-again, off-again nature of the cease-fire negotiations, all
Americans can take heart in what, as of the middle of June, does seem to
be the beginning of the end of what easily might have become a long
political and military quagmire. There are numerous problems still to be
overcome, and more than a few political landmines to be avoided. It
remains to be seen, moreover, whether the end of the NATO air campaign and
the withdrawal of Serbian troops from Kosovo signal the start of a true
era of lasting peace in the Balkans or merely the close of another short
chapter in the history of what for centuries has been one of the most
violent regions in the world.
The definitive
"lessons learned" reports have yet to be written, but it already
is generally agreed that the premature U.S./NATO renunciation of the
ground-forces option was a major blunder, as was the lack of a clear
"exit strategy." Presumably, neither of those mistakes will be
repeated in the future.
A less evident
but perhaps even more important lesson is this: It is now overwhelmingly
clear that the wars of the 21st century will almost certainly be of
relatively short duration but extremely high intensity. In practical terms
what this means is that there will be very little time, if any, for the
massing of U.S. and allied forces in the combat zone. Additionally, there
will be absolutely no time at all to develop, test, and build the weapons
of war that those forces will need if they are to have any hope of
winning.
If this analysis
is correct--the Gulf War and the NATO air campaign against the government
of Serbia are the best evidence that it is--the implications for U.S.
national security policy are profound and dictate at least the following:
(1) America's forward-deployed forces--whether land-based air and ground
units or naval forces at sea in international waters--must be fully
combat-ready at all times; (2) The stockpiles of weapons, equipment,
ammunition, and various other supplies and consumables now prepositioned
overseas should be maintained in quick-breakout status, and must be
periodically both tested and modernized; (3) U.S. airlift and sealift
assets should be significantly expanded and upgraded to ensure the
continued sustainment of combat forces beyond the initial stages of
conflict; and (4) Probably the most important of all: U.S. defense
acquisition policies must be revised to ensure the procurement of enough
ships, aircraft, weapon systems, and spare parts to meet reasonably
foreseeable requirements. This shockingly common-sense approach would
represent a major change, of course, from the present acquisition
policy--which, even though it has never been publicly admitted, seems
always to assume a best-case/lowest-cost outcome of any overseas conflict
involving U.S. forces.
Here the evidence
is clear: The administration's long-term defense strategy postulates
forces sufficient to fight, and win, two medium theater wars
simultaneously or "nearly simultaneously." But few if any U.S.
military professionals would argue that the nation's armed forces would be
able, today, to win two wars, particularly in different theaters, at or
about the same time.
The young men and
women in service today represent the finest this nation produces. They are
well-trained, well-motivated, and well-led. They do--superbly--everything
their country expects of them, and a lot more. But they are overworked,
overcommitted, and underpaid. All of which has made recruiting difficult,
and retention even more so.
In recent years
many if not all defense budget decisions have been made for primarily
political purposes--e.g., to lower budget deficits and/or to make more
money available for "entitlements" and other domestic
programs--rather than to meet validated national-security requirements.
All of the nation's armed services have been consistently underfunded for
quite a few years, have been made to do more with less, and have had to
compensate for funding shortfalls by overworking their equipment and their
people.
The Navy is an
excellent case in point. Its operating tempo is the highest it has ever
been in times of peace. There are now just over 320 ships in the active
fleet. Close to 50 percent of them are underway on any given day, and more
than 30 percent are usually deployed overseas. The administration's FYDP
(future-years defense plan) postulates further cuts, to a fleet of only
about 300 ships by 2003. However, the current and outyear budget
projections will sustain a fleet of just over 200 ships. The aviation and
weapons inventories suffer from similar requirements/funding mismatches.
What makes this a problem of even greater magnitude is that the FYDP
numbers themselves are best-case projections. The Navy's real
requirements, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have told Congress, are for 15
carrier battle groups (vice the current 12), more amphibious ships as
well, and closer to an overall total of 400 ships in the active
fleet--including a minimum of 72 SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines)
rather than the 50 now projected.
The Marine Corps
is in much the same situation. The post-Cold War closure of hundreds of
former U.S. overseas bases means that in many areas of the world
forward-deployed Marine expeditionary units are the only combat-ready
ground forces immediately available to regional commanders in times of
crisis. The need for additional Marine security detachments at U.S.
embassies overseas and for additional FAST (fleet antiterrorism security
team) units has put additional strains on the Corps' limited manpower.
Always the most forward-looking of the nation's armed forces, the Marine
Corps is seeking to increase its combat capabilities through procurement
of a "mobility triad" of Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, LCACs
(landing craft, air cushion), and AAAVs (advanced amphibious assault
vehicles). Once again, though, exemplary planning has been consistently
undercut by a lack of sufficient funds, and the result is that most of the
major procurement decisions have been pushed into the outyears.
The U.S. Coast
Guard, which because of Navy cutbacks has been playing an increasingly
vital national-defense role, is perhaps the most underfunded of all of the
nation's armed services. Not only is this politically and militarily
imprudent, it is also economically foolhardy. The Coast Guard is one of
the few agencies in government that demonstrably returns several dollars
in services to the American taxpayer for every dollar appropriated. It is
also the world's premier lifesaving organization, and that distinction
alone should give it a higher budgetary priority than it has received in
recent years.
Finally, the
U.S.-flag Merchant Marine is still in extremis. Our U.S.-flag ships carry
less than 4 percent of this nation's two-way trade tonnage--which is
expected to double, and perhaps triple, within the next 25 years. The U.S.
port structure required to manage the throughput of this massive increase
in cargo also is in need of repair, renovation, and upgrading. A
"Manhattan Project" approach to address and assess the nation's
overall maritime requirements, commercial as well as military--and to
develop and implement a remedial plan of action--might be what is needed.
Nothing else that has been proposed so far seems likely to evolve into a
long-term program that will meet America's maritime needs in the 21st
century.
I will close this
President's Message with a brief status report on the Navy League itself.
We are in excellent shape, both fiscally and from an organizational and
programmatic point of view. The League's annual Sea-Air-Space Exposition
is the premier naval/maritime exhibition in the world. Our corporate
affairs, legislative education, awards, and youth programs all have
expanded in recent years. The two principal NLUS educational
publications--Sea Power Magazine and the annual Almanac of Seapower--are
leaders in their respective fields. The Navy Leaguer, which focuses on
news about, and/or of interest to, our 330-plus NLUS councils
worldwide--is a growing success. We have a highly professional and very
hard-working headquarters staff.
It is our Navy
League councils that are the heart and soul of the Navy League, and that
work most closely with the sea services on a day-to-day basis--I want to
most emphatically include our overseas councils in that description. The
scope and variety of council programs, and the dedication and generosity
of our individual members (corporate members as well), are our greatest
strengths.
With all that
said, I also should point out that we cannot become complacent. We need
new members. Thousands more! We also need additional funding if we are to
continue, and to expand, the programs we sponsor on behalf of the nation's
sea services. And we must always keep in mind that our principal goal and
primary mission is to help our nation's sea services in every way
possible. It is without question that they need our help today more than
ever before in our nation's history. We should never lose sight of that
fact.
Space does not
permit the listing of the many, many individual members who have helped
Pam and me so much over the past two years--among the most wonderful and
most rewarding years of our lives. But we love you all, and we
appreciate--more than mere words can express--everything that you have
done for us. We will remember you always.
Jack Fisher takes
over the helm of the Navy League at the end of our 1999 national
convention in Chicago. Pam and I ask that you give him and Kit the same
friendship and support that you have always given us. God bless you all,
and may you have fair winds and following seas.
|
