Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Times
May 14, 2008 By Thom Shanker
COLORADO SPRINGS — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned the military and its contractors on Tuesday that expensive new conventional weapons must prove their value to current conflicts, marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they are to be included in further Pentagon budgets.
“I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called next-war-itis — the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict,” Mr. Gates told a conference here sponsored by the Heritage Foundation.
“Over all,” he added, “the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need today.”
Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular the Future Combat Systems program and the F-22, the Air Force’s advanced warplane. Both have come under scrutiny of Pentagon budget officers questioning whether either will be required for missions similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Future Combat Systems, an Army initiative entailing a vast combat-gear overhaul whose total cost could exceed $200 billion, “must continue to demonstrate its value for the types of irregular challenges we will face,” as well as for the full-blown land warfare for which it was designed, Mr. Gates said.
The secretary defended his order to accelerate production of heavily armored mine-resistant troop transports for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even at $1 million each, he said, the vehicles have proved their value by saving lives of American military personnel from improvised explosives and suicide bombings, which Mr. Gates described as “the weapon of choice for America’s most dangerous and likely adversaries.”
Addressing those who question whether the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has left the Army stretched to the breaking point and the nation unprepared for other conflicts, he acknowledged that “it is true that we would be hard pressed to launch a major conventional ground operation elsewhere in the world at this time.”
But he warned any adversary against thinking that the United States had dropped its guard, saying that while the Army and the Marines carried the brunt of the nation’s current combat effort, the Air Force and the Navy would be “America’s main strategic deterrent” against potential adversaries like Iran, North Korea and China. He called for careful spending to modernize and expand both of these services.
Mr. Gates’s views may not prevail beyond the end of the Bush administration, but the next president will face the same competing military priorities, while the services can be expected to renew their push for their favorite weapons programs. While disagreeing on what to do about the war in Iraq, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have both said they would expand the number of soldiers and marines, and ensure that ground forces are properly equipped and trained for fighting insurgencies and terrorists.
In a steady stream of speeches and initiatives, Mr. Gates has made clear that he will aggressively seek to shape Pentagon policy through the end of his tenure.
The lessons of global conflict over the last quarter-century, he said Tuesday, demonstrate the risk that “smaller, irregular forces — insurgents, guerrillas, terrorists — will find ways, as they always have, to frustrate and neutralize the advantages of larger, regular militaries.”
He cautioned against the “backsliding that has occurred in the past,” as when, after the Vietnam War, counterinsurgency skills were lost as the military returned to preparing for a major conventional conflict against a nation-state rival.
“The risk of overextending the Army is real,” Mr. Gates said. “But I believe the risk is far greater — to that institution, as well as to our country — if we were to fail in Iraq. That is the war we are in. That is the war we must win.”
May 14, 2008 By Thom Shanker
COLORADO SPRINGS — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned the military and its contractors on Tuesday that expensive new conventional weapons must prove their value to current conflicts, marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they are to be included in further Pentagon budgets.
“I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called next-war-itis — the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict,” Mr. Gates told a conference here sponsored by the Heritage Foundation.
“Over all,” he added, “the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need today.”
Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular the Future Combat Systems program and the F-22, the Air Force’s advanced warplane. Both have come under scrutiny of Pentagon budget officers questioning whether either will be required for missions similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Future Combat Systems, an Army initiative entailing a vast combat-gear overhaul whose total cost could exceed $200 billion, “must continue to demonstrate its value for the types of irregular challenges we will face,” as well as for the full-blown land warfare for which it was designed, Mr. Gates said.
The secretary defended his order to accelerate production of heavily armored mine-resistant troop transports for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even at $1 million each, he said, the vehicles have proved their value by saving lives of American military personnel from improvised explosives and suicide bombings, which Mr. Gates described as “the weapon of choice for America’s most dangerous and likely adversaries.”
Addressing those who question whether the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has left the Army stretched to the breaking point and the nation unprepared for other conflicts, he acknowledged that “it is true that we would be hard pressed to launch a major conventional ground operation elsewhere in the world at this time.”
But he warned any adversary against thinking that the United States had dropped its guard, saying that while the Army and the Marines carried the brunt of the nation’s current combat effort, the Air Force and the Navy would be “America’s main strategic deterrent” against potential adversaries like Iran, North Korea and China. He called for careful spending to modernize and expand both of these services.
Mr. Gates’s views may not prevail beyond the end of the Bush administration, but the next president will face the same competing military priorities, while the services can be expected to renew their push for their favorite weapons programs. While disagreeing on what to do about the war in Iraq, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have both said they would expand the number of soldiers and marines, and ensure that ground forces are properly equipped and trained for fighting insurgencies and terrorists.
In a steady stream of speeches and initiatives, Mr. Gates has made clear that he will aggressively seek to shape Pentagon policy through the end of his tenure.
The lessons of global conflict over the last quarter-century, he said Tuesday, demonstrate the risk that “smaller, irregular forces — insurgents, guerrillas, terrorists — will find ways, as they always have, to frustrate and neutralize the advantages of larger, regular militaries.”
He cautioned against the “backsliding that has occurred in the past,” as when, after the Vietnam War, counterinsurgency skills were lost as the military returned to preparing for a major conventional conflict against a nation-state rival.
“The risk of overextending the Army is real,” Mr. Gates said. “But I believe the risk is far greater — to that institution, as well as to our country — if we were to fail in Iraq. That is the war we are in. That is the war we must win.”