In a major military strategy blueprint sent to the US Congress
on Monday, the Pentagon unveiled its evaluations and visions in
areas of strategic priorities, war planning, resources allocation
and force structure for the entire US armed forces in next 20
years.
The 92-page paper, called as the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR), is the first released report of its kind, since the United
States declared its global war on terror in 2001.
Therefore, it is not surprising that anti-terrorism takes much
of the center stage of the document.
?
In comparison with the two previous QDRs, this one, for the first
time, calls for shifting strategic priorities from conventional
wars to terrorism, the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the
so-called "countries at strategic crossroads."
However, the changes were seen by many analysts as an adjustment
and refinement process, rather than a fundamental overhaul.
While the new QDR underlines changes which reflects the ongoing
war in Iraq and the threat of terrorism, the essentials of US
military doctrine are left largely intact, they said.
Terrorism reshapes priorites
Obviously, the protracted war in Iraq and the ongoing worldwide
campaign against terrorism have changed much of the US military
thinking and the new QDR is full of imprints of these events.
The document begins with the declaration, "The United States is
a nation engaged in what will be a long war."
"Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, our nation has fought a
global war against violent extremists who use terrorism as their
weapon of choice, and who seek to destroy our free way of life, "
it follows.
US Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who is in charge of
drafting the QDR, said the military must changes its Cold War-era
ways and refocus on "asymmetric challenges."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld summarized the strategic
objectives outlined in the QDR in four priorities, namely,
defeating terrorist networks, defending the homeland in depth,
preventing the acquisition or use of WMDs and shaping the choices
of "countries at strategic crossroads ", a term refers to nations
which the Pentagon perceives as potential rivals.
The first three targets are all key elements of the war on
terror and the QDR envisions three major measures to meet these
goals, including strengthening the special forces, establishing
coordination headquarters to counter WMD threats, and earmarking
1.5 billion US dollars to protect the homeland from potential
attacks of chemical and biological weapons.
In the previous QDR released in 2001, the Pentagon laid out the
so-called "1-4-2-1" formula for wartime force planning.
It requires the US military to have enough forces to defend
homeland; operate in four "forward regions" in the world; "swiftly
defeat" adversaries in two overlapping conventional wars; "win
decisively" one of them.
However, the Iraq war has forced changes on the mindset. Rather
than operating in the four "forward regions", the US troops now
should operate around the globe, said the new QDR.
The harsh realities in Iraq also led to the document's
acknowledgement that the terms of "swiftly defeating" or "winning
decisively" may be "less useful" for an unconventional
conflict.
The QDR also urges the military to accelerate important
organizational changes to create more agile and expeditionary
forces which can win wars with a smaller number of people and few
more sophisticated weapons.
The document also reaffirms the need to restructure troop
deployment and military bases around the world, envisioning the
military could send troops to any hotspot worldwide instantly in
the future.
?
Attempting to create an "one-size-for-all" force to deal with
various challenges, the QDR stresses that from now on, the war
planning should be based on capabilities rather than threats.
Various constraints
Some US analysts said although the new QDR made a number of
important adjustments and proposals, the implementation of these
new ideas won't be easy, due to various constraints.
First of all, the soaring budgetary deficits and the Bush
administration's tax cut initiatives have limited the financial
resources for making a broad range of changes.
Steve Kosiak, a researcher at the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessment (CSBA), a Washington-based thinktank, said to
achieve the QDR goals, the Pentagon has three choices: adding
money, cutting weapons or reducing troops.
However, none of them seems easy under current
circumstances.
Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute,
another thinktank, doubted the QDR's claims on the capability of
waging overlapping wars around the world.
The realities in Iraq have already demonstrated the fact that
the US military has been seriously stretched, and conducting a
similar-size campaign elsewhere is viewed as unrealistic by many
analysts.
Fundamentals left intact
Over the years, the Pentagon has made many policy and strategy
changes responding to different global environments.
However, reading through all the strategy papers the US military
has released in recent years, one can still find the common clue.
That is, to maintain the military advantage and secure the
country's place in the world, which is the same ultimate goal
underneath various policy initiatives.
The new QDR still reflects some unchanged fundamentals and
principals.
One of them is to go on offensive. The US military has long
believed it should preempt any enemy attack and the new QDR's
emphasis is calling for an operation range around the globe.
Secondly, the new strategy blueprint cuts none of the major
weapon programs, which shows that the Pentagon planners still
regard absolute advantage in weapons and military power as one of
the most crucial measures to keep the country's leading place.
The QDR also reaffirms the importance of military alliance. The
document said "alliances are clearly one of the nation's greatest
sources of strength," and the United States "places great value on
its unique relationships" with countries such as Britain, Australia
and Japan.
(Xinhua News Agency February 8, 2006)
