REBUILDING AMERICA S DEFENSES - …

1 REBUILDING . AMERICA 'S. DEFENSES . Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New century A Report of The Project for the New american century September 2000. ABOUT THE PROJECT FOR THE. NEW american century . Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New american century is a non- profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote american global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project. William Kristol is chairman of the Project, and Robert Kagan, Devon Gaffney Cross, Bruce P. Jackson and John R. Bolton serve as directors. Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, AMERICA faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades?

2 Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to american principles and interests? [What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes american principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. AMERICA has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire.

3 The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of american leadership.. From the Project's founding Statement of Principles ____PROJECT FOR THE NEW american CENTURY____. 1150 Seventeenth Street, , Suite 510, Washington, 20036. Telephone: (202) 293-4983 / Fax: (202) 293-4572. REBUILDING . AMERICA 'S. DEFENSES . Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New century DONALD KAGAN GARY SCHMITT. Project Co-Chairmen THOMAS DONNELLY. Principal Author REBUILDING AMERICA 'S DEFENSES . Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New century CONTENTS. Introduction .. i Key Findings .. iv I. Why Another Defense Review? .. 1. II. Four Essential Missions .. 5. III. Repositioning Today's Force .. 14. IV. REBUILDING Today's Armed Forces .. 22. V. Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force .. 50. VI. Defense Spending .. 69. Project Participants REBUILDING AMERICA 's DEFENSES : Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New century INTRODUCTION.

4 The Project for the New american Either alternative seemed to us century was established in the spring of shortsighted. The United States is the 1997. From its inception, the Project has world's only superpower, combining been concerned with the decline in the preeminent military power, global strength of AMERICA 's DEFENSES , and in the technological leadership, and the world's problems this would create for the exercise largest economy. Moreover, AMERICA stands of american leadership around the globe at the head of a system of alliances which and, ultimately, for the preservation of includes the world's other leading peace. democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. AMERICA 's Our concerns were reinforced by the grand strategy should aim to preserve and two congressionally-mandated defense extend this advantageous position as far into studies that appeared soon thereafter: the the future as possible.

5 There are, however, Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review potentially powerful states dissatisfied with (May 1997) and the report of the National the current situation and eager to change it, Defense Panel (December 1997). Both if they can, in directions that endanger the studies assumed that defense budgets relatively peaceful, prosperous and free would remain flat or continue to shrink. As condition the world enjoys today. Up to a result, the defense plans and now, they have been deterred from doing so recommendations outlined in the two reports by the capability and global presence of were fashioned with such budget constraints american military power. But, as that in mind. Broadly speaking, the QDR power declines, relatively and absolutely, stressed current military requirements at the the happy conditions that follow from it will expense of future defense needs, while the be inevitably undermined.

6 NDP's report emphasized future needs by underestimating today's defense Preserving the desirable strategic responsibilities. situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent Although the QDR and the report of the military capability both today and in the NDP proposed different policies, they future. But years of cuts in defense shared one underlying feature: the gap spending have eroded the american between resources and strategy should be military's combat readiness, and put in resolved not by increasing resources but by jeopardy the Pentagon's plans for shortchanging strategy. AMERICA 's armed maintaining military superiority in the years forces, it seemed, could either prepare for ahead. Increasingly, the military has the future by retreating from its role as the found itself undermanned, inadequately essential defender of today's global security equipped and trained, straining to handle order, or it could take care of current contingency operations, and ill-prepared to business but be unprepared for tomorrow's adapt itself to the revolution in military threats and tomorrow's battlefields.

7 Affairs. Without a well-conceived defense policy and an appropriate increase in i REBUILDING AMERICA 's DEFENSES : Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New century defense spending, the United States has been of the DPG, in our judgment, remain sound. letting its ability to take full advantage of the And what Secretary Cheney said at the time remarkable strategic opportunity at hand slip in response to the DPG's critics remains true away. today: We can either sustain the [armed]. forces we require and remain in a position to With this in mind, we began a project in help shape things for the better, or we can the spring of 1998 to examine the country's throw that advantage away. [But] that defense plans and resource requirements. would only hasten the day when we face We started from the premise that greater threats, at higher costs and further military capabilities should be sufficient to risk to american lives.

8 Support an american grand strategy committed to building upon this The project proceeded by holding a unprecedented opportunity. We did not series of seminars. We asked outstanding accept pre-ordained constraints that defense specialists to write papers to explore followed from assumptions about what the a variety of topics: the future missions and country might or might not be willing to requirements of the individual military expend on its DEFENSES . services, the role of the reserves, nuclear strategic doctrine and missile DEFENSES , the In broad terms, we saw the project as defense budget and prospects for military building upon the defense strategy outlined modernization, the state (training and by the Cheney Defense Department in the readiness) of today's forces, the revolution waning days of the Bush Administration. in military affairs, and defense-planning for The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted theater wars, small wars and constabulary in the early months operations.

9 The papers were circulated to a of 1992 provided a At present the group of participants, chosen for their blueprint for United States experience and judgment in defense affairs. maintaining faces no (The list of participants may be found at the preeminence, end of this report.) Each paper then became precluding the rise global rival. the basis for discussion and debate. Our of a great power AMERICA 's goal was to use the papers to assist rival, and shaping grand strategy deliberation, to generate and test ideas, and the international should aim to to assist us in developing our final report. security order in While each paper took as its starting point a line with american preserve and shared strategic point of view, we made no principles and extend this attempt to dictate the views or direction of interests. Leaked advantageous the individual papers.

10 We wanted as full before it had been and as diverse a discussion as possible. formally approved, position as far the document was into the future Our report borrows heavily from those criticized as an as possible. deliberations. But we did not ask seminar effort by cold participants to sign-off on the final report. warriors to keep defense spending high and We wanted frank discussions and we sought cuts in forces small despite the collapse of to avoid the pitfalls of trying to produce a the Soviet Union; not surprisingly, it was consensual but bland product. We wanted to subsequently buried by the new try to define and describe a defense strategy administration. that is honest, thoughtful, bold, internally consistent and clear. And we wanted to Although the experience of the past spark a serious and informed discussion, the eight years has modified our understanding essential first step for reaching sound of particular military requirements for conclusions and for gaining public support.