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.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
