Find a Security Clearance Job!

Military

The Military's Role In Emerging Missions
CSC 1993
SUBJECT AREA - Warfighting
                         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title:   The Military's Role In Emerging Missions
Author:  Lieutenant Colonel T.W. Spencer, United States Marine
         Corps
Thesis:  The U.S. military, and its civilian superiors, must
scrutinize and evaluate the assignment of non-traditional
missions to the armed forces to ensure that they serve the
national security interests.
Background:  Political upheaval throughout the world appears to
have left the U.S. military without a well-defined mission.
These same changes have caused the U.S. to emerge as the world's
only superpower.  However, America's recent economic downturn and
deficit, in concert with the election of a President with an
emphasis on a domestic agenda, have resulted in competing demands
on a shrinking U.S. budget.  The fact is that defense is not a
high priority with the current administration or the majority of
the American people.  As the military, by necessity, thins its
ranks, reduces its divisions, decommissions its ships, reduces
its fighter wings, and closes its bases, there will be a
tremendous temptation to assume any mission assigned by competent
authority.  It is likely that military leaders will feel
compelled to accept non-traditional missions in an effort to
justify the maintenance of the force and to restrict further
defense cuts.  The U.S. military is currently involved in drug
interdiction operations. Within the past decade it has
participated in ventures as diverse as firefighting in
Yellowstone National Park, disaster relief operations in Florida
and Hawaii, and riot control operations in Los Angeles.
Recommendation:  Military leaders must avoid the temptation to
accept, without question, every potential mission.  The critical
issue is whether the acceptance of such missions contributes to
military readiness and unit cohesion.  Any mission that detracts
from the primary training mission and degrades the proficiency of
the military must be brought to the attention of the civilian
leadership.  To do otherwise provides a disservice to the
American taxpayer and does not provide America with the product
expected during time of armed conflict.
                                              LtCol T.W. Spencer
                                              CG 1
TITLE:   THE MILITARY'S ROLE IN EMERGING MISSIONS
Thesis Statement: The U.S. military, and its civilian superiors,
must scrutinize and evaluate the assignment of non-traditional
missions to the armed forces to ensure that they serve the
national security interests.
I.   Political upheaval throughout the world has left the U.S.
     military without a well-defined mission.
     A.   The former Warsaw Pact has been dismantled.
     B.   Communist states, to include Cuba and North Korea, are
          in decline.
     C.   Preconditions for an Arab-Israeli peace accord exist.
II.  The U.S. has emerged as the world's remaining superpower.
     A.   With superpower status comes responsibility.
     B.   Third and fourth world nations do not possess the
          ability to improve their position without U.S./U.S. led
          assistance.
     C.   America's humanitarian aid to Bangladesh and Somalia
          is likely to be the precursor of such use of the
          military.
III. The U.S., despite its status as a superpower, is plagued by
     internal difficulties.
     A.   There are many competing interests for few
          discretionary dollars.
     B.   The American public's preoccupation with drugs has made
          drug interdiction part of the National Military
          Strategy of the United States.
     C.   Felonious criminal acts have continued to rise for the
          past two decades.
     D.   Inner-city problems are well-documented, accentuated by
          the riots in Los Angeles.
     E.   The economic downturn has dominated America's attention
          and was a contributing factor in President-elect
          Clinton's victory in the 1992 election.
     F.   America's domestic problems have caused the majority of
          Americans to adopt an "America First" outlook.
IV.  Despite the cessation of the Cold War, and the economic
     necessity for a defense drawdown, America's military is
     enjoying unparalleled institutional respect.
     A.   The victory over Iraq portrayed the military as a
          "high-tech" and efficient force.
     B.   The military's accessibility to the press in recent
          operations has contributed to the acclaim.
     C.   America's military is viewed as drug-free, highly
          educated, and physically fit.
     D.   America's military leaders must ensure that the
          military is not allowed to regress to the post-World
          War II and post-Vietnam status.
V.   America's respect for its military, along with its general
     disdain for Congress and its frustration with the status
     quo, have led to the increased use of the armed forces in
     internal affairs.
     A.   Do such missions enhance the overall readiness posture
          of military units?
     B.   The U.S. military is involved in drug interdiction
          throughout the western hemisphere, and has been
          involved in missions as diverse as firefighting,
          domestic humanitarian assistance, and riot control.
     C.   Military involvement in drug interdiction is evolving
          into a long-term commitment.
VI.  Today's environment should cause every American to be
     concerned.
     A.   External threats to America's security continue to
          abound.
     B.   The military must fight the perception that there is
          no threat to America's security.
     C.   America must make decisions regarding the future course
          of the military.
     D.   Military leaders must be selective in accepting non-
          traditional missions without question.
                   THE MILITARY'S ROLE IN EMERGING MISSIONS
    The Preamble to the Constitution states that the purpose of
the armed forces is "... to provide for the common defense...."
This traditional role, to provide for the national defense and to
defend the Constitution, is interspersed with a long history of
military support for national goals that are short of war.  In
such undertakings, the purpose has been to promote national
security and protect national interests.  Military operations
within this category have ranged from general military service to
the nation, such as surveying railroads and waterways in the past
century and providing protection to the U.S. mail services, to a
wide variety of actions abroad in support of foreign policy.(13)
Recent world (the dissolution of the former Soviet Union) and
national events (the election of a candidate to the Presidency
with an emphasis on a domestic policy) have provided indications
that the U.S. will reorient its focus.(1:52)  General John R.
Galvin, USA (Ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, in a
recent address to the students of the Marine Corps University,
stated that the armed forces of this nation should accept any
mission presented.  This view is shared by many, both in and out
of the military.  However, in an uncertain world, this approach
may prove to be less than prudent.  The U.S. military. and its
civilian superiors, must scrutinize and evaluate the assignment
of non-traditional missions to the armed forces to ensure that
they serve the national security interests.
    Political upheaval throughout the world appears to have left
the U.S. military without a well-defined mission.(2:9)  In the
euphoria following the collapse of European communism, there was
great hope within this country and abroad for a new world order.
The dismantling of the former Warsaw Pact has contributed to this
view and has even prompted some to question the need for the U.S.
to continue its membership in the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO).  This is a legitimate question that finds
its basis in the fact that the threat to American security
interests in the region have declined or disappeared.(2:10)  In
addition to the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the
subsequent break-up of the Warsaw Pact, other worldwide events
have contributed to the perception that American interests abroad
are no longer in peril.
    Communist states outside of the European theater have suffered
significant economic difficulties.  These problems are
threatening their continued existence as communist states.  There
is little doubt that the problems experienced by North Korea and
Cuba are linked to the inability of the Soviet Union to continue
to sponsor them as client states.  However, the probability of
North Korea or Cuba finding another sponsor with similar
interests, or with the economic capital to provide each with the
amount of necessary assistance, is very doubtful.  It is just as
doubtful that either will be able to accomplish the required
economic recovery on its own.  It is likely that these two
countries will modify their approaches and become more
responsible members of the community of nations, if only because
of economic necessity.  Should financial problems fail to cause
this to happen, the age of their leaders may be the factor that
causes social change to occur.  The power and personality of each
country's leader have been critical factors in resisting change
and maintaining a closed society.   Through a combination of
ruthlessness, dedication to communist dogma, and disdain for the
west, these two dictators have maintained a grip on power for
over three decades.  As they are succeeded, change can be
expected.
    The U.S. has capitalized upon its successes in the Persian
Gulf War and is attempting to build upon them to bring a lasting
peace to the area.  U.S. intervention, in the face of an
aggressive, brutal dictator, at the request of the government of
Kuwait, was not viewed as another case of American intervention
and expansionism in the region.  The majority of Arab nations
supported and joined the U.S. led coalition that led to the
defeat of Iraq.  These same Arab nations viewed Saddam Hussein's
incursion into Kuwait as the unlawful bullying of a small, peace-
loving, Arab neighbor.  The U.S.'s ability to maintain the
coalition in the face of tremendous internal Arabic pressure to
disband the coalition was a tribute to U.S. diplomacy.  This
played a large role in terminating the conflict on terms
favorable to the U.S.
    The U.S. used its influences to keep a powerful regional ally,
Israel, from joining in the conflict.  This was accomplished
despite efforts by the government of Iraq to draw Israel into the
fray and to split the coalition.  It was also a tribute to the
government of Israel.  The ability of the U.S. to lead the
coalition to military victory, maintain the coalition, and keep
Israel from entering the war, served as a testament to America's
growing influence in the Middle East.  It also showed that the
U.S. was capable of employing diplomatic skills to restrain its
long-time friend, while assisting in the resolution of a problem
that many in the Arab world viewed as an "Arab only" problem.
These skills improved the U.S.'s status in the eyes of regional
leaders such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  It helped heal some of
the painful memories that were incurred the last time the U.S.
was asked to assist in the Middle East from 1982-83, in Lebanon.
    The results of this U.S. economic, political, and military
commitment to the Middle East reestablished U.S. presence in the
region.  Immediately following the end of the war, the U.S. used
its new-found influence to bring the Arab states and Israel to
the peace table.  While progress has been slow, and much remains
to be accomplished, the fact that these rival nations are
discussing the resolution of the great differences that face them
is a step in the right direction.  Most knowledgeable diplomats
and observers expected progress to be measured slowly.  The
current administration is taking steps to again get the peace
talks moving.  Initial indications are that all parties are
inclined to be receptive to the idea.  The most positive sign is
that Syria appears ready to be an active, positive influence in
the process.  Preconditions now exist for an Arab-Israeli peace
accord that would bring an end to the bloodshed that has plagued
the area since the establishment of the state of Israel.  This
development has further contributed to the notion that military
forces are no longer needed to protect American interests in the
region and that America's military role is ill-defined.
    The end of the Soviet Union and the push for democratic reform
in many of its former states, the reunification of Germany, the
problems facing the remaining communist states in the world, and
the potential for peace in the Middle East, provide signs that
world peace may be attainable.  The United Nations played a role
in the Persian Gulf War and its approval of U.S. actions added
legitimacy to those actions.  Many now believe that the United
Nations is in a position to perform in the role that was
envisioned when it was founded.  The performance of that body
during the Persian Gulf conflict not only gave legitimacy to U.S.
actions but improved its stature significantly.  While the
performance of the United Nations remains hindered by the
activities of some of the sovereign states that comprise it, its
position is improved.
    All of these factors have combined to give a large degree of
hope for world peace and to leave the U.S. as the world's only
remaining superpower. With superpower status, however, comes
responsibility.  The actions of the U.S. have global
implications, economically, politically, and militarily.
Developments on Wall Street affect stock markets in other
countries and their economies and American trade policy and
foreign investments are watched carefully abroad.  There is
concern beyond America's shores about the U.S. trade deficit  and
about the U.S. budget deficit.  The foreign press corps reported
the results of the recent general election to an interested
audience in their countries.  The statements which President Bush
and Governor Clinton made about foreign policy were of great
interest, as the entire world would be affected by policy
decisions and potential shifts in political direction.  Foreign
governments looked carefully at statements regarding foreign aid,
the status of immigrants and refugees, and U.S. policy toward the
environment.   The governments of Germany, Japan, and South
Korea, where U.S. troops are permanently stationed, looked for
indications of change within the U.S. military establishment.
Changes of the U.S. military posture stood to affect their
readiness posture and, in the case of Germany, the front-line
defense of the European theater.  Additionally, withdrawal of
U.S. forces from foreign soil would have an economic impact upon
these countries, as they would be forced to pay a larger portion
of their internal defense bill.  When the U.S. makes decisions
involving the instruments of national power, foreign governments
are routinely affected.  It is difficult for the U.S. to make a
decision regarding economic policy, for example, without
affecting the remaining instruments of power.
    Third and fourth world nations do not possess the ability to
improve their position without U.S. or U.S.-led assistance.
(12:E3)  The distance between the industrialized nations and the
remainder of the world is growing wider.  These underdeveloped
countries, in Central and South America, Africa, and Asia do not
possess the industrial and economic base necessary to develop
substantially without foreign assistance.  In many of these
countries an extremely small middle class exists, if one exists
at all.  There is a limited distribution of wealth, with the
majority of it residing in the hands of a few.  Conditions such
as poverty, lack of upward mobility for the masses, and unequal
distribution of resources, tends to lead to civil unrest and
government instability.
    Most of these third and fourth world do not have the ability
to tend to their own internal affairs and definitely do not
possess the wherewithal to deal with natural disasters such as
famine, pestilence, and others associated with the weather.  U.S.
and United Nations sponsored relief efforts, such as Operation
Sea Angel in Bangladesh and Operation Restore Hope in Somalia,
will likely be requested in the future to assist third and fourth
world countries and give them the ability to deal with such
disasters.(2:8)  Recently, the Cable News Network (CNN) and The
Washington Post have begun to publicize famine as it exists in
Sudan.  The appeal is to the morality of the American people,
showing starving, helpless, hopeless children.  It is apparent
that underdeveloped countries cannot think of industrializing and
creating a dynamic, growing middle class when they are unable to
deal with the basic necessities of their people and unable to
provide items such as food, shelter, and security.  As the
world's remaining superpower, America has an obligation to help
those less fortunate, the argument goes.
    The U.S., despite its status as a superpower, is plagued by
internal difficulties.  Economic decisions made by the Congress
over the course of several decades have led to an American
deficit of several trillion dollars.  A large portion of the
Gross National Product (GNP) goes to service the interest on the
debt.  Combined with a bloated entitlements program and an
inability to cap rising health care costs, the government is left
with few discretionary dollars to address domestic priorities.
Establishing the order of these domestic priorities is difficult.
Depending upon the audience, they include the environment, the
war on drugs, education, reforming health care (to include
addressing the AIDS issue), trimming the deficit, crime in
America's streets, the issue of abortion, women's rights, and
minority equality.  Each of these issues has compelling arguments
as to why it should be assigned a higher relative priority.
    Some, such as former Presidential candidate H. Ross Perot,
argue that no other issue can be addressed until the budget
deficit problem is resolved. Still others see the issue of public
schools and the quality of America's educational system as the
first priority, stating that until America's youth receive an
education that will allow them to be competitive, all other
issues are insignificant.  The American public's preoccupation
with illegal drugs has made drug interdiction part of the
National Military Strategy of the United States.  Illegal drug
use plays a role in the work place, affects America's
competitiveness, and has an influence on the issue of health
care.  Many Americans feel that drug use is the biggest threat to
America's internal security and must be the first issue
addressed.  Among the other issues, felonious criminal acts have
continued to rise for the past two decades and many citizens are
afraid to leave the security of their own homes.  Domestic
terrorism, such as the recent bombing of the World Trade Center
in New York, have heightened such fears.  Some reasonably new
types of criminal acts, like car-jackings, have also contributed.
Further, inner-city problems are well-documented, accentuated by
the riots in Los Angeles following the verdict acquitting four
police officers in the alleged beating of Rodney King.
    Identification of the problems confronting America is not the
problem.  The problem lies in establishing priorities.  It is
important to note that America's military readiness is no longer
a priority for the majority of Americans.  America's priorities
are directed internally and toward an economic downturn which has
dominated America's attention.  President Clinton's ability to
focus upon the economy, to the satisfaction of American voters,
was a large factor in his victory over former President Bush in
the 1992 election.  America's domestic problems have caused the
majority of Americans to adopt former Republican candidate Pat
Buchanan's view of "America First."
    Despite the cessation of the Cold War, and the economic
necessity for a defense drawdown in order to address other more
pressing problems, America's military is experiencing
unparalleled institutional respect.  It is certainly higher than
at any time since the conclusion of the Vietnam War.(8:50)  The
U.S. led victory over Iraq in the Persian Gulf War portrayed the
military as a technically-oriented, efficient, well-lead force.
Around-the-clock news coverage, including press conferences with
military leaders in Saudi Arabia, boosted America's confidence in
the military.  The success of the air and ground campaigns, and
the manner in which they were planned, orchestrated, and executed
played a large role in this perception.  This acclaim is not
restricted to the jubilation surrounding America's relatively
quick and expense-free (in terms of human sacrifice) victory in
the Gulf War.  U.S. citizens view the military as drug-free,
highly educated, motivated by a spirit of volunteerism, and
physically fit.  The Gulf War brought the military to the center
of America's attention for an extended period of time, and in a
manner that was complimentary to the military.  However positive
the public's current image of the military, military leaders must
actively work to maintain this reputation.  The U.S. military of
a few years ago (post-Vietnam War period) did not enjoy a
favorable reputation.  Military recruiters experienced difficulty
in achieving assigned recruiting quotas in the early days of the
all-volunteer force.  Very few of the new recruits possessed high
school credentials, the military was not viewed as a viable
career option by the most qualified of America's youth,
recruiting scandals were commonplace, and the military had
serious problems maintaining morale.  Drug abuse, serious
criminal activities, and violations of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice were rampant and many recruits were discharged
prior to completing their first term of enlistment.  The bombing
of the battalion landing team headquarters in Beirut, Lebanon,
resulting in 241 American casualties, and the disaster at Desert
One in Iran, when the military attempted to rescue American
hostages, contributed to the view that the military was on the
decline.  The Reagan administration's attention to the military
corrected most of the deficiencies, but it required nearly a
decade to properly address the problems.(8:50)  As after World
War II, when the military was neglected, rebuilding the military
and the defense industry took time.
    The military has not dominated America's attention since the
Gulf War, excluding the humanitarian intervention in Somalia.
Even that effort no longer receives attention in daily news
reports.  The Washington Post recently concluded that the
military's mission in Somalia was accomplished and the troops
should be brought home.  President Clinton's agenda does not
include a major role for the military.  As he promised during the
course of his campaign, he is focused on domestic issues.
Following his lead, America is focused on the same agenda.
    America's current appreciation and respect for its military,
the potential long-term pitfalls notwithstanding, along with its
general disdain for a scandal-plagued Congress and frustration
with the status quo, have led to the increased use of the armed
forces in internal affairs.(6:47)  Does the acceptance of such
missions enhance the military training and readiness posture, the
ability to react to crises, and the ability to defend the
nation's security interests worldwide?  The military is
accountable to the American people through the President.
Therefore, missions assigned to the military affect, and are the
responsibility of, every American citizen.  The military is one
of the elements of national power, the others being economic and
political.  In theory, the military is the tool of last resort.
In reality, civilian policymakers consider the military first
during crises.  Grenada and Panama are two of the recent examples
in which the President and the National Security Council (NSC)
exercised the military option first.  The question is whether the
military will be the first option in internal affairs, as it has
been in foreign affairs.  Is this really the desire of the
American people and is the military prepared to perform such
duties?
    The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, limits the legal
involvement of the military in civilian law enforcement within
the continental United States.(11)  The armed forces cannot
provide direct assistance in the form of arrests, searches, or
seizures;  however, the military can provide advice and indirect
assistance.(3:25)  Posse Comitatus was amended in 1981 to allow
the military to participate in drug intervention operations.
Posse Comitatus was originally written to prevent the incremental
involvement of the military in matters appropriately assigned to
the police.(13)  While it can be amended, as it was in 1981, is
this really the desired direction for the U.S. military?
    In the past decade, government officials have directed that
the military participate in ventures as diverse as firefighting
in Yellowstone National Park, disaster relief operations in
Florida and Hawaii, riot control operations in Los Angeles, and
drug interdiction operations throughout this hemisphere.  The
military does not have the option of declining such missions, as
they pertain to national security and are directed by competent
authority.  The Constitution does not differentiate between
foreign and domestic issues in determining matters of national
security.  Interpretation of the Constitution is not the issue.
The question is whether established state and federal
governmental organizations are better suited to deal with many of
the domestic security issues.  Military leaders do have an
obligation to ensure that the established political goals allow
the military requirements inherent in those goals to be
accomplished.  There must be a clear mission statement issued to
them.(13)  The military also has an obligation to inform its
civilian leadership when assigned requirements force them to make
tradeoffs in capabilities.(7)
    The military has been involved in drug interdiction operations
since the mid-1980s.  It is evolving into a long-term commitment
on the part of the military as a result of President Bush's
declared war on drugs.  On the surface, drug interdiction appears
to be a mission the military should undertake.  There is no
question that America's appetite for drugs is a national vice.
The preoccupation with drugs is placing a tremendous strain on
society and the economy.(9:19)  Participation in drug
interdiction also provides the military with a real-world mission
during a period in which the public perceives a diminished threat
to national security.(2:11)  It allows the military to focus on a
security mission when there is no longer a monolithic foreign
threat (Soviet Union) to America's security.  In a time of
declining Department of Defense dollars, the Congress has shown
no reluctance in providing funding to such operations.
    Many military leaders have been advocates of military
participation in drug interdiction operations from the time of
President Bush's declaration.(11)  They saw utility in the
experience that military staffs would gain in conducting joint
planning exercises with rigid time limitations and real-world
constraints.(3:26)  They also saw the experience and training
value that small unit leaders could obtain in conducting raids
and other such associated activities.  Additionally, operations
Blue Lightning and Hat Trick II in 1985 and 1986, both of which
were conducted with military assistance, were considered
successful.  In the operations, federal agents seized 1.7 million
pounds of marijuana and 11 tons of cocaine and made 1,300
arrests. (3:26)
    In 1989, former Secretary of Defense Carlucci, speaking to the
Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), stated that he was
opposed to the assignment of a law enforcement mission to the
armed forces.(3:26)  That notwithstanding, as of April 1991, over
100 military are assigned on a full-time basis to the various law
enforcement agencies.(10)  Additionally, armed forces personnel
are actively involved in source eradication and drug interdiction
(aircraft, vessels), and on the domestic front with seminars and
community-oriented drug prevention programs.(4:70)  The Marine
Corps conducts training courses at Quantico, Virginia, and San
Diego, California, for civilian law enforcement agents about to
deploy to Latin America.(3:26)
    The proliferation of illegal drugs is a national concern, as
is disaster relief and the safety of America's streets and
cities.  There is little question that the U.S. military's recent
participation in domestic issues of this nature has assisted in
drug interdiction, restored order to Los Angeles, and brought
relief to the devastated areas of Florida and Hawaii.  There is
also little question that the military will benefit by continuing
to perform drug interdiction and other non-traditional missions.
Such missions will justify the maintenance of a strong, capable
military force.  This is particularly true now, during a period
when the public perceives a diminished threat to national
security and during a period of force reductions mandated by a
declining economy.  The difficulty lies in the allocation of
national assets, such as the military, and in which assets to
apply to a particular problem.
    Today's environment should cause every American, to include
members of the military, to be concerned.  Public confidence in
its military is high, while confidence in its civilian leadership
is low.  The military is becoming more frequently involved in
domestic matters.(2:4)  Funding for, and maintenance of, a strong
military does not appear to be a priority with the current
administration.  There is an ongoing fight to prioritize
diminishing federal funds.  The military is being required to
train tor additional domestic missions.(2:11)  The situation in
the former Soviet Union is very unstable, with hard-line
communists continuing to fight for control.  Instead of one
potential adversary to point to, America now has multiple
potential adversaries in the region, many of which possess
nuclear weapons.  Islamic fundamentalism continues to be a cause
for great concern throughout the Middle East.  The situations in
Cuba and North Korea are far from resolved.  Many parts of Africa
are suffering from famine and disease and may require U.S.
military assistance.  Throughout all of this, the military is
downsizing and the defense industry is converting to a domestic
footing.  One has only to refer to the lessons of post-World War
II and the aftermath of Vietnam for concern to grow.
    Even during a period of defense drawdowns, the U.S. military
can perform missions that have not traditionally been assigned.
The issue comes down to tradeoffs.  What tradeoffs are the
American people going to accept as the military trains for
missions that it does not routinely perform?(2:11)  Is the
American public willing to pay the military to perform domestic
disaster relief operations when it is already funding the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and when the mission of the
Red Cross is to handle such crises?(2:12)  Is it willing to allow
the military to become involved in handling domestic violence and
cpolice work when Posse Comitatus was specifically designed to
prohibit such involvement and when local, state, and federal law
enforcement agencies already exist for those specific
purposes?(4:73)  Do Americans want their tax dollars spent
overseas in humanitarian assistance efforts when tremendous
domestic concerns exist in the U.S. and when the United Nations
exists to handle those types of problems?  Does it want the
military involved in drug interdiction operations when federal
agencies estimate they are able to interdict no more than 5-15
per cent of all drugs flowing into this country and when the real
problem lies in reducing demand?(5:20)  Finally, is America
willing to divert its military attention inward when the
potential for so many external threats to national security are
present?(2:11)
    From the military perspective, military leaders must avoid the
temptation to accept, without question, every potential
mission.(2:14)  Some would argue that to do otherwise is to
ignore the reality of the times.(7)  However, the least
controversial solution is to accept, without hesitation, every
mission provided by the President and the Congress.  The critical
issue is whether acceptance of such missions contributes to
military readiness and unit cohesion.  As force reductions occur,
the armed forces must ensure that their primary responsibility,
national defense, is met.  The training value gained by
firefighting, disaster relief, providing food for the hungry, or
tracking a Cessna aircraft with an AWACS, during drug
interdiction operations, must be carefully reviewed.(2:11-12)
Any mission that detracts from the primary training mission and
degrades from the proficiency of the military must be brought to
the attention of the civilian leadership.  To do otherwise
provides a disservice to the American taxpayer and does not
provide America with the product expected during time of armed
conflict.
                          BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.  Auster, Bruce.  "The Pentagon Scramble to Stay Relevant."
         U.S. News & World Report, December 30, 1991/January 6,
         1992.
2.  Dunlap, Charles.  "The Origins of the American Military Coup
         of 2012."  Parameters, 22 (Winter 1992-1993).
3.  Flores, Susan., Maj, USMC.  "The Marine Corps and the War on
         Drugs."  Marine Corps Gazette, (January 1989).
4.  Hoffman, Carl., LtCol, USMC.   "The Military and the Drug
         War:  What Can We Do?"    Marine Corps Gazette, (March
         1992).
5.  Hudson, Anthony., Capt, USMC.  "War on Drugs."  Marine Corps
         Gazette, (March 1990).
6.  Ivany, Robert.  "Soldiers and Legislators:  Common Mission."
         Parameters, 21 (Winter 1992-1993).
7.  Matthews, Jack., LtCol, USMC (Ret). Command and Staff
         College faculty.  Personal interview about emerging
         missions.  Quantico, Virginia, February 9, 1993.
8.  Morganthau, Tom.  "The Military's New Image."  Newsweek,
         March 11, 1991.
9.  Moriarty, Robert.  "Supply and Demand."  Marine Corps
         Gazette, (March 1990).
10. Pratt, Nick., Col, USMC. Command and Staff College faculty.
         Personal interview about emerging missions.  Quantico,
         Virginia, February 9, 1993.
11. Public Law 100-436 (1988).
12. Schmitt, Eric.  "U.S. Forces Find Work as Angels of Mercy."
         The New York Times, January 12, 1992.
13. Symolon, William., Col, USMC.  Chief of Staff, Marine Corps
         Base.  Personal interview about emerging missions.
         Quantico, Virginia, February 25, 1993.
14. Willis, Grant.  "A New Generation of Warriors."  Navy Times,
         March 16, 1991.
13. Wilson, Gary., LtCol, USMC, and Wilson, Sandy., Capt, USMC.
         "The Drug War Revisited."  Marine Corps Gazette, (March,
         1990).



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list