United States National Security Strategy For The Next Century AUTHOR Major Richard A. Conty, Jr., USMC CSC 1989 SUBJECT AREA - National Security EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Title: UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FOR THE NEXT CENTURY Thesis: I propose that the U.S. use technology to "annihilate" enemies rather than following its current policy of maintaining a large standing army to fight other large standing armies by conventional means. Issue: During the Reagan years this country rebuilt its armed forces and improved and built upon existing national strategic goals. My proposed national security strategy for the 21st century will improve upon the strategy now in place, because if current strategy is continued this country will run out of manpower and money supporting a large armed force. I propose that we use high technological weapons to destroy our enemies, reduce the size of our armed forces overseas, create a National Service within the United States for all 18-20 year old literate males. Examples are given of how high tech can work for us. Other examples are given of what other countries do with National Service. The armed forces would be used to augment the U.S. Customs Service. The National Service will be a basis for teaching entry-level skills in a wide variety of professions. Conclusion: The United States can no longer afford economically or demographically to man an enormous armed force. We can still be a world power in all the important arenas without having forward deployed ground forces in Europe and the Far East. We must take care of our own internal problems in the country and stop being the world's policeman. UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FOR THE NEXT CENTURY THESIS STATEMENT. I propose that the U.S. use technology to "annihilate" enemies rather than following its current policy of maintaining a large standing army to fight other large standing armies by conventional means. I. STRATEGY BACKGROUND A. C & S College Strategy Symposium B. United States current strategy (unclassified) C. Proposed concept II. THREE MAJOR REASONS PROPOSED CONCEPT WILL WORK A. Technology B. Dwindling manpower pool C. More economical III. U.S. OBJECTIVES/INTERESTS A. Peace B. Protect interests at home and abroad C. Defensive posture D. Monroe Doctrine E. Trade/economics IV. NEED FOR TECHNOLOGY/IMPROVEMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS A. Strategic Defensive Initiative (SDI) B. Other high-tech platforms 1. AWACs 2. Satellites 3. EA-6Bs 4. SR-71s 5. Strategic Air Command (SAC) 6. Submarine forces V. POLICY OF "ANNIHILATION" VI. WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS A. Far East B. Europe VII. REDEPLOYMENT OF OVERSEAS FORCES TO CONUS A. Border patrol B. Drug interdiction C. Terrorist interdiction VIII. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL SERVICE A. 18-20 year-old males 1. Armed Forces 2. Reserves 3. Non-combat type services IX. PRESIDENTIAL DESIRES UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY FOR THE NEXT CENTURY This research paper presents a strategy that blends some of the concepts and positions given during the strategy symposium at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College this past fall, current open source national strategy, along with some of my own ideas that are a dramatic departure from current national security strategy. I propose that the U.S. use technology to "annihilate" enemies rather than following its current policy of maintaining a large standing army to fight other large standing armies by conventional means. I will set the stage for what I will build on. President Reagan in his 1988 White House report stated that at the outset of his administration he had four broad objectives that underpinned our national strategy. They were: First, to restore our nation's military strength after a period of decline in which the Soviet Union overtook us in many critical categories of military power; Second, to restore our nation's economic strength and reinvigorate the world economic system. Third, to restore the nation's international prestige as a world leader; and Fourth, to restore pride among all Americans and carry our message to the world that individuals and not governments should control their economic, spiritual and political destinies. Our national security strategy continues to be aimed at reinforcing the gains we have achieved in each of these areas, while employing all the elements of our national power -- political, economic and military -- in a coordinated way to advance the full range of national security interests.1 President Reagan also wrote about U.S. interests: Our National Security Strategy reflects our national interests and presents a broad plan for achieving the national objectives that support those interests. The key national interests which our strategy seeks to assure and protect include: 1. The survival of the United States as a free and independent nation, with its fundamental values intact and its institutions and people secure. 2. A healthy and growing U.S. economy to provide opportunity for individual prosperity and a resource base for our national endeavors. 3. A stable and secure world, free of major threats to U.S. interests. 4. The growth of human freedom, democratic institutions, and free market economics throughout the world, linked by a fair and open international trading system. 5. Healthy and vigorous alliance relationships .2 There are three major reasons why the strategy I am proposing is better than that currently in place. First, because of the great advances in weapons technology, our current policy is outdated. Second, my proposed strategy is essential because of the dwindling pool of men qualified to serve in our armed forces. To meet projected out-year end-strengths would almost certainly require reinstituting the draft. For political reasons, reinstitution of the draft is highly unlikely in peacetime. Third, my proposed strategy would be more economical because it would eliminate our physical presence in the Fear East and in Europe as we know it today. Furthermore, it would place those returned troops into jobs at home that would help our society and our economy. Although my proposal is both economically and demographically more practical than current policy, it would not reduce our ability to meet our current national strategy and national objective goals. This shift in policy will allow the U.S. to remain a superpower. No longer would we play "tit for tat." No longer would we allow U.S. Treaties or U.S. sovereign soil abroad to be violated. We should adopt as one of our principles of war, as the Soviets have, the principle of "annihilation. " The U.S. currently is satisfied with containment. However, the policy of containment has failed in the past. Containment failed in Korea, Cuba and Vietnam. The principle of annihilation was indirectly espoused by Patton in the closing days of World War II to solve problems he foresaw with the Soviet Union. Patton advised that, rather than stopping in Berlin in 1945, the U.S. should advance into the Soviet Union and overtake its government. He predicted, that if the U.S. did not dismantle the new Soviet Union, their grandchildren would kill our grandchildren. This is a good possibility. To eliminate world confusion, the U.S. should notify other countries of our policy shift. These statements would be distributed in writing to all countries via the United Nations: o Our intent is never to start a war. o We will protect our interests at home and abroad. o We are in a defensive posture. o Monroe Doctrine is an absolute, i.e., no intervention into our hemisphere. o Trade with all nations is desired. If we implemented the policy of annihilation, it would become the responsibility of every member of a foreign nation to keep their government in check or they will pay the ultimate price. Some leaders or factions of countries would put us to the test. In response, we should announce to the world that it is not our intent to use our impending attack on a stated nation or group as a stepping stone to invade somewhere else, but rather that our intention is to exact retribution for violating American interests. We should warn other countries not to interfere. Then we should "annihilate" the problem. This would only have to be tested once to convince others that reprisal will be certain, immediate and harsh if American interests are violated. When the United States started developing "safeguard" in the 1960s, skeptics in the scientific community believed that the key technologies needed to build an antiballistic missile ("ABM") system were simply out of reach, similar to modern day skeptics are convinced that today's Strategic Defense Initiative ("SDI"), or "star wars," is a grand delusion. Today, SDI's critics and proponents alike agree that one of the most daunting challenges will be writing the computer programs that will run the system .... The software will require some 10 million lines of operational code for controlling sensors, identifying and tracking targets and pointing weapons. What's more, it will have to work perfectly the first time, since there is no practical way of testing it. Some leading software specialists say it simply cannot be done.3 I maintain that SDI is a very important link in our overall defensive strategy. Lieutenant General Daniel O. Graham (ret.), Director of High Frontier, a Washington-based, pro-SDI organization, says If Phase I of SDI could stop 30 percent of a massive Soviet attack it could certainly deal with accidental or rogue attacks by the likes of Colonel Kaddafi of Libya -- an increasing concern as long-range missiles proliferate in third-world countries. 4 Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Insti- tute, a Washington-based think tank, offers this food for thought: If thousands of years of bloody history have proved anything, it is that there is no utopian answer to the problem of war. And a space-based defense would not make nuclear weapons obsolete. The threat of a nuclear holocaust is too serious to ignore, however. Maybe SDI will turn out to be too expensive or too complex to deploy. Maybe -- maybe not and we'll never know unless we try.5 To implement my proposed strategy, we must make certain changes and assumptions. We must assume we have a foolproof Strategic Defense Initiative ("SDI") program in place. In 1988, then-President Reagan, an advocate for SDI wrote: Our SDI program is making great progress, moving us toward the prospect of a safer world -- one which depends for its security on strategic defense, rather than on the threat of mutual nuclear retaliation.6 We would also need to continue to improve and maintain our AWACs, satellites, EA-6B type coverage, SR-71s and the full spectrum of intelligence gathering capabilities. We would need to increase the size of our submarine forces and the size of Strategic Air Command ("SAC"). Some of these national assets would be armed with cruise-type missiles that would have different warheads available depending on the target and desired effect on target, from conventional High Explosive ("HE") to dial-a-rad clean or dirty nuclear weapons. The use of such weapons platforms gives us the stand-off advantage of never having to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver of close combat. Right now we have the capability of relatively pin-point accuracy at the right time and place. We still would meet our national objectives, such as deterrence, escalation control and favorable war termination without the bloodying of U.S. ground forces. Our expanded, unseen and underwater "gunboat diplomacy" would give us command and control of the seas. Also surface combatants having harpoon, cruise and the newest missile, standoff land-attack missile ("SLAM"). Our current technology gives us the capability of going directly to the enemy capital. We no longer have to fight a long war of attrition and many campaigns to get to a capital and its leadership as has been our history in warfare. Technology now allows us to fight with little or no risk to our forces. By having weapons that can literally fly into someone's house that we specifically target, we now take out the problem at the top, not at the bottom. Eliminating enemy leaders, headquarters, command and control systems, etc., will immediately turn the tide of war or terrorism to a neutral status. If we were to follow my strategy, we would leave our European and Far East allies the responsibility of protecting themselves. However, we would make clear to allies and enemies alike that in time of need, such as in the event of Soviet aggression or attack, we will attack the Soviet Union in order to protect our friends and comply with treaties. We would still protect our allies, but from afar. Devoting large amounts of American manpower and resources to our allies is no longer necessary to protect U.S. interests. Implementing my proposal is not just a sound defense strategy. It is also essential because of the diminishing pool of qualified people to serve in our armed forces. Demographics show us that the U.S. male cohort eligible for military service is decreasing, while the need for more men in uniform is rising. Part of my proposed strategy to deal with the dwindling qualified male cohort and to save money is to reduce the size of our active duty ground forces abroad. Furthermore, it frees up a large number of these young people to combat problems facing us at home. Our returned armed forces would be an invaluable asset here at home. Most would become part of the Reserves or the Guard. Some of the newly returned European and Korean occupation forces would be transformed into border patrol, drug and terrorist interdiction forces, primarily on our southern border. Others would augment U.S. customs in ports. Only 5% of overseas incoming cargo is inspected. Most of the small decked amphibious ships would go into the reserves also. Assisting on the seaward side would be several new fleets of hydrofoils for intercepting and destroying incoming drug smugglers. The real threat to this nation is not a nuclear exchange with the Soviets. The greatest external threats to this nation are "hot head" leaders who could export terrorism and drugs to our country. Internal problems like drugs, pollution, overpopulation, mismanagement of natural resources and illiteracy present grave dangers to our society and our economy. Under my proposal, the Marine Corps would remain intact and play a major part of our country's Force in Readiness. The Marine Corps could best be utilized in several ways. Along with the large decked amphibious ships, the Marines would go right to the source of the drug growers and manufacturers. Marines would defend against drugs as they would other enemies of our nation, foreign or domestic -- by annihilation. Foreign soil assaults would be conducted with or without the help of the host nation. This would eliminate the supply side of the problem. The demand side needs to be treated from within. Also, Marines could be used in mobile training teams, along with U.S. Army Special Forces in underdeveloped or new nations that need and request basic military training to train their armed forces to ensure peace and tranquility in their own nations to ensure a democratic society. These U.S. forces could also be used to assist in keeping the peace in time of a hostile insurgency of a democratic nation. The key would be for us not to get involved with attrition warfare but to go to the top of the insurgency leadership and eliminate it. An essential component of this reduced active posture would also include an increased reserve, including National Service of some sort for all males 18-20 years of age. Under this concept, all functional, literate males between 18 and 20 years of age would have to participate in activities that benefit our national defense and well-being, such as active duty military service, reserve armed forces, the National Guard, the Peace Corps, Vista, Fish and Game, national hospital service, National Parks and state roads commissions and the like. National Service is widely accepted and expected in many countries. Below is listed what is currently mandatory in some of our NATO ally countries: West Germany: Men drafted for a 15-month term in the military may instead serve three years with the police or border patrol, two years overseas in a program like the Peace Corps or 10 years part time as a volunteer for civil defense and disaster relief. Conciencious objectors may substitute 20-month civilian service in lieu of military or police service. France: All men serve one year of compulsary service, either military, domestic civilian or overseas civilian. Denmark: Lottery in which about 40% of all 19 year old men serve for nine months in the military. Spain: Men serve 18 months in military upon turning 21. Exceptions for only sons. Below is an example of a voluntary program: Britain: Volunteers may enter either the Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), the British equivalent of the Peace Corps, or the Community Service Volunteers (CSV), which covers a range of human services.7 In my proposal, the large, broad-based Reserve and Guard components would serve as a force in readiness in case the need arose for the U.S. to fight a more conventional attrition war. The other components of the National Service would educate, provide jobs and entry level skills for young men and women and save money. To increase competition for the active-duty positions, thereby ensuring that the military will get the highest quality applicants, active-duty military would receive higher pay and better benefits. Men reenlisting past their two year commitment would receive other benefits. All people successfully finishing whatever two year program they entered would be eligible for GI Bill-type education benefits. Only active-duty armed forces members would qualify for VA-type housing loans at reduced rates. In summary, our nation must be strong and have the national will to fight and win. The "old" ways of attrition warfare are obsolete. We as a country no longer have to project ourselves on a hostile shore forcibly, tactically maneuver to an enemy and conduct massive campaigns to break the enemy. Technology now allows us to annihilate the appropriate target, such as enemy leadership and command and control. We can no longer afford, economically or demographically, to have an enormous standing armed force that liberals argue "does nothing" in peacetime other than be present and one that drains the economy of manpower and money. Former President Reagan says it best: We must never forget that freedom is never really free; it is the most costly thing in the world. And freedom is never paid for in a lump sum. Installments come due in every generation. All any of us can do is offer the generations that follow a chance for freedom.8 In the final analysis, this is the assurance that our national security strategy seeks to provide. To help protect our friends and allies, and other U.S. interests abroad, we must not only possess national strength, but we must be able to project this power -- diplomatic and informational, economic and military -- across great sea and air distances. In the military sphere, we must maintain the capability to secure our worldwide lines of communication; to project military power quickly; to sustain forces at great distances for extended periods of time; and to pose a credible deterrent to those who might contemplate aggression against our allies and friends. We as a country must be ready to employ military power in coordination with diplomacy and economic policy. The ultimate goal when applying military force, or projecting military power, is to encourage political solutions. War is the least desireable alternative, but only by being prepared to wage war successfully can we deter it. ENDNOTES 1 Ronald Reagan, "National Security Strategy of the United States (The White House, January 1988), p. iv. 2 Reagan, 3. 3 Harry Manning, "Star Wars," International Combat Arms, the Journal of Defense Technology (January 1989), p. 19. 4 Manning, 21. 5 Manning, 25. 6 Reagan, iv. 7 Joseph P. Shapiro "The Push for National Service," U.S. News and World Report (February 13, 1989), p. 23. 8 Reagan, v. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Carlucci, Frank C. Annual Report to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1990. 2. Department of Defense. "America ... and the Defense Challenges Ahead" Defense 89 (January/February 1989). 3. Housman, Damian. "SLAM" International Combat Arms. The Journal of Defense Technology (March 1989), 88. 4. Kelley, Paul X. "The Amphibious Warfare Strategy" U.S. Naval Institute (January 1986), 18. 5. Manning, Harry. "Star Wars" International Combat Arms The Journal of Defense Technology (January 1989), 18. 6. Reagan, Ronald. "National Security Strategy of the United States" The White House (January 1988). 7. Schneider, Barry R. "Evaluating the Strategic Triad" Journal of Defense & Diplomacy (January 1989), 34. 8. Shapiro, Joseph P., Sheler, Jeffrey L., and Whitman, David. "The Push for National Service" U.S. News and World Report (February 13, 1989), 20. 9. Westwood, James T. "Strategic Antisubmarine Warfare" Journal of Defense & Diplomacy (February/March 1989), 13.
