Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (15955)	9/11/2001 12:37:52 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 59480

From a UK point of view...read Sir Timothy Garden's bio first and it is even more interesting.... Future of US Defence Policy By Sir Timothy Garden The shape of future US defence policy is becoming a little clearer. There were considerable concerns in Europe last year that any Bush Administration might seek to disengage from peacekeeping missions in general and the Balkans in particular. The new Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has now made it clear that the US will maintain its contributions to Bosnia and Kosovo, while NATO remains there. However, the early budget announcements by President Bush have surprised many in the US military. The Republican Party is seen as being strong on defence. The overstretch and under-resourcing of American forces was a significant election issue. Yet George W.Bush announced that he would only propose a minor uplift in defence spending for the next year. The extra $4.5 bn would cover military pay rises and improvements to military housing. Many had expected an uplift of perhaps $50bn to try to put back some of the necessary sustainability in the US military capability. Bush has made it clear that he does not intend to appropriate more money for Defence until a radical review of defence strategy has been completed. It would have been the time for the usual four yearly review of Defence Policy in any event. Currently, the US military is sized on the assumption that they might have to conduct two Gulf War type conflicts nearly simultaneously. The timing of such commitments is arranged so that transport for one such conflict can be used subsequently for the second. This is obviously a highly artificial assumption, and it is difficult to envisage the circumstances under which such scenarios might prevail. Many in the military were hoping that the new Bush Administration might posit - and fund - a more demanding requirement: perhaps two simultaneous major operations. They may be disappointed. The new (although recycled) Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has announced three goals for his area of responsibility. His first goal is "to improve the quality of life, wages and morale of the US armed forces as well as strike a balance among levels, commitments and deployments". It is interesting seeing quality of life for the troops as the first listed priority, and indeed the one aspect to be addressed in the Bush national budget. US forces are in as desperate a situation as those in the UK, but the Americans seem to be more ready to try to fix the problem. Rumsfeld’s second priority is "to develop capabilities to defend against missiles, terrorists, and threats to US information systems and space assets". These are new requirements, and may require very large investments. National Missile Defence (NMD) has been trailed by all parts of the new US Administration, and it is not surprising to find it among the key tasks for the Department of Defence. The third and last goal is "to take advantage of the technological revolution to create a 21st century military establishment". This will sound odd to Europeans who already see the US forces as a technological generation ahead of their own forces. It is in this area that the review process over the coming months will focus. The talk is of US military power skipping a generation of technology, although few seem able to say what this means in practice. While much was trumpeted about the Revolution in Military Affairs over the past few years, progress has been mixed and different across the US army, navy and air force. Writing from here in the mid-West of the USA, it is clear that the real budget priority for Bush is to deliver on his tax reduction proposals. Some $1.6 trillion is to be handed back to tax payers over the next 10 years. It may be that, as with so many other nations, defence spending will be constrained by the trick of redefining the nature of the security problem. NMD will be expensive. That means that compensating savings may be needed in the increasingly expensive manpower, and that may be done by focusing on technological alternatives. Defence Secretary Rumsfeld has said that the Pentagon needs to engage brains before opening the taxpayer’s wallet. The Review may look for a less demanding requirement, and then further downsize the military force needed by making optimistic assumptions about the benefits that technology will bring. Ground forces may be particularly vulnerable to cuts. From a UK industrial perspective, it may be time to worry about those programmes which are at the cheap and cheerful end of the spectrum. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) may have a battle to maintain its place in the future plans of the US military. That would leave a gaping hole in UK future air force and navy plans. Whatever the outcome, it is clear that much work will be needed to keep the US and Europe pointing in the same direction in defence matters. tgarden.demon.co.uk Air Marshal Sir Timothy Garden is a former bomber pilot and is currently Visiting Professor at the Centre for Defence Studies, King’s College London. tgarden.demon.co.uk Read his complete bio first....including the Fabian Society link...