THE NEW CHALLENGE September 25, 1996

NewsHour coverage September 17, 1996 Defense Secretary William Perry discusses the recent hostilities in Iraq and the state of the Gulf War coalition. February 29, 1996 Charlayne Hunter-Gault interviews retired Admiral William Owews, former vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the role of the modern armed forces just before his retirement. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the military.

Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Haiti -- missions very different than the World War II-style battle against the Soviet Union that the U.S. military had been preparing for forty years. Now, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines must be ready for limited engagements with a few hundred or thousand troops to a full regional war. The 1.5 million members of the armed forces must also train for such complex missions as drug interdiction in Latin America to border patrol in Korea to preventing rogue states from possessing arms of mass destruction. All of these missions, though, must be carried out with fewer and fewer troops. To face this brave new world, then, the generals and admirals say they need the latest in battlefield technologies, such as the new F-117 stealth fighter, but with shrinking federal budgets and soaring price tags, providing that technology may prove difficult. Our forum asks: How is the armed forces preparing for a post-Cold War world? Are the high-tech weapons worth their expense? Will there ever be a "peace dividend," or should the United States increase military spending? Your questions are answered by Andrew Knepinevich, director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, a Washington-area think tank.

---

Trevor Bender of Woodbridge, VA asks:

With the end of the Cold War and the refocus of U.S. military assets against Third World actors, should not the United States openly abandon the archaic restrictions of the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty and leverage its technological advantage to provide TBMD (theater ballistic missile defense) protection for its troops abroad?

Andrew Knepinevich responds:

The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was intended to limit the development and deployment of defenses aimed at intercepting intercontinental-range ballistic missiles in order to avert an escalation of the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race (with each side building more and more offensive nuclear forces to overcome the other side's defenses).

Critics argue that some provisions of the ABM Treaty now pose obstacles to the development of theater ballistic missile defense (TMD) systems of the kind the U.S. might need to protect U.S. forces from the theater-range ballistic missiles now possessed by many Third World countries. It is, however, far from clear that abandoning the ABM treaty to avoid these constraints is either wise or necessary.

For the past several years, U.S. and Russian negotiators have been working on an agreement that would clarify some of the language in the ABM Treaty in order to minimize the impact of the Treaty's constraints on the development of TMD systems. Moreover, they recently reached agreement on the first part of an understanding concerning these issues.

Randy Rentschler of San Francisco, CA asks:

While many questions about the size and cost of our military has to do with what role we wish it to play, my concern has to do with the overall reduction in government programs.

Is Congress using the military budget - acquisitions, the type of weapons sought, personnel decisions, Guard, Reserves, etc. - as "last great jobs program in Congress" and is this a significant contributer to the problems that the military facing?

Andrew Knepinevich responds:

According to the Defense Department, U.S. defense related industries currently employ some 2.26 million people. This is well below the 3.67 million people employed in those industries in 1987, at the height of the Reagan buildup, but still somewhat above the level employed in 1981, the year Ronald Reagan came into office.

This year, Congress is poised to add some $11 billion to the Clinton administration's defense budget request. Some critics charge that Congress was motivated to add this funding primarily by a desire to keep defense jobs back home. To some extent, however, the Congressional add-ons also clearly reflect policy differences between Congress and the administration over which Defense Department programs are necessary to adequately meet U.S. security requirements.

Dan Updegraff of Hesperia, CA, asks:

Is it still necessary to have such a large standing Army? Wouldn't it be better to reduce the size of our Army, increase our Army Reserve capability, and allow the Marine Corps to be our rapid deployment force? Wouldn't this allow for more money for high tech and special operations?

Andrew Knepinevich responds:

Whether or not the U.S. should rely more heavily on Army reserve (i.e., Reserve and National Guard) troops, depends in large part on the kinds of military operations one expects the United States to be involved in in the future. If it is assumed that substantial warning time will be available then there would be time to mobilize reserve forces. If warning time is limited, however, reserves forces might not prove very useful. It also depends on the roles assigned to reserve forces. Desert Shield/Storm showed that men and women in the reserves who are assigned to transportation, logistics and other support units can be mobilized and deployed relatively rapidly--in part because the jobs they are called upon to do in wartime are often quite similar to the civilian jobs they hold in peacetime.

By contrast, reserve combat units need considerably more time to prepare. Because of this, Army reserve brigades mobilized during the Gulf War were not used in combat (although some argue that they would have performed effectively had they been used). Since active Army units can cost as much as four times more to support than reserve Army units, shifting to the reserves could certainly yield significant savings.

Joel Brokaw of Cleveland, OH, asks:

Since the Gulf War, the military keeps trying to sell expensive high-tech weapons as the answer to today's military problems. How effective are they, and do we really need to spend a million dollars for a cruise missile when that money can be used for schools, job programs and parks?

Andrew Knepinevich responds:

Many of the initial claims made for weapon systems by the Defense Department and defense contractors after the Gulf War were clearly inflated. Nevertheless, most defense analysts inside and outside of the Pentagon believe the U.S. edge in weapons technology was critical to our success in the Gulf War, and would be equally and possibly more important in any future conflict.

In judging the effectiveness of new weapon systems, however, it is crucial not to lose sight of the fact that the quality and training of the troops operating these weapon systems is probably even more important than the technology they incorporate. This is especially important because if too much is spent on buying new weapon systems, too little funding may be available for training.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.