- - Vitality and productivity of the global economy
- Security of international sea, air, and space, and information lines of communication
- Access to key markets and strategic resources.
Protecting these interests requires vigorous commitment and support. It entails effective diplomacy, a strong economy, and a watchful and ready defense. When U.S. interests are protected, America and its friends prosper from peace and freedom. When U.S. interests are challenged, the Nation must possess the strength and resolve to provide for their defense.
A Changed Security Environment
An assessment of the global security environment involves a great deal of uncertainty about the potential sources of military threats, the conduct of war in the future, and the form that threats and attacks against the Nation will take. History has shown that rapid and unexpected changes, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, can transform the geopolitical landscape. It also has demonstrated that new military technologies can revolutionize the form of military competition and the nature of armed conflict in ways that render military forces and doctrines of great powers obsolescent. While contending with such uncertainty is a key challenge for U.S. defense planning, certain features and trends of the security environment define not only today's geopolitical and military-technical challenges but also highlight critical operational challenges that the Nation's armed forces will need to master in the future.
Current Security Trends
Although U.S. military forces enjoy superiority in many dimensions of armed conflict, the United States is likely to be challenged by adversaries who possess a wide range of capabilities, including asymmetric approaches to warfare, particularly weapons of mass destruction. The United States cannot predict with a high degree of confidence the identity of the countries or the actors that may threaten its interests and security. But it is possible to identify the trends that will give rise to important threats and opportunities.
Key Geopolitical Trends. The international system, which was characterized during the Cold War by the division of countries into enduring and ideologically defined geopolitical blocs, has become more fluid and unpredictable. America's alliances have remained strong. But relations with other countries are often characterized both by competition and cooperation. U.S. strategy must take into account the important new geopolitical trends shaping the world.
Diminishing protection afforded by geographic distance. As the September 2001 events have horrifically demonstrated, the geographic position of the United States no longer guarantees immunity from direct attack on its population, territory, and infrastructure. Although the United States and its overseas forces were vulnerable to Soviet missiles during the Cold War, it is clear that over time an increasing number of states will acquire ballistic missiles with steadily increasing effective ranges. Moreover, economic globalization and the attendant increase in travel and trade across U.S. borders has created new vulnerabilities for hostile states and actors to exploit by perpetrating attacks on the U.S. homeland.
Regional Security Developments. Although the United States will not face a peer competitor in the near future, the potential exists for regional powers to develop sufficient capabilities to threaten stability in regions critical to U.S. interests. In particular, Asia is gradually emerging as a region susceptible to large-scale military competition. Along a broad arc of instability that stretches from the Middle East to Northeast Asia, the region contains a volatile mix of rising and declining regional powers. The governments of some of these states are vulnerable to overthrow by radical or extremist internal political forces or movements. Many of these states field large militaries and possess the potential to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Maintaining a stable balance in Asia will be a complex task. The possibility exists that a military competitor with a formidable resource base will emerge in the region. The East Asian littoral - from the Bay of Bengal to the Sea of Japan - represents a particularly challenging area. The distances are vast in the Asian theater. The density of U.S. basing and en route infrastructure is lower than in other critical regions. The United States also has less assurance of access to facilities in the region. This places a premium on securing additional access and infrastructure agreements and on developing systems capable of sustained operations at great distances with minimal theater-based support.
The United States and its allies and friends will continue to depend on the energy resources of the Middle East, a region in which several states pose conventional military challenges and many seek to acquire -- or have acquired -- chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and enhanced high explosive (CBRNE) weapons. These states are developing ballistic missile capabilities, supporting international terrorism, and expanding their military means to coerce states friendly to the United States and to deny U.S. military forces access to the region.
With the notable exception of the Balkans, Europe is largely at peace. Central European states are becoming increasingly integrated with the West both politically and economically. An opportunity for cooperation exists with Russia. It does not pose a large-scale conventional military threat to NATO. It shares some important security concerns with the United States, including the problem of vulnerability to attack by ballistic missiles from regional aggressors, the danger of accidental or unauthorized launches of strategic weapons, and the threat of international terrorism. Yet, at the same time, Russia pursues a number of policy objectives contrary to U.S. interests.
While the Western Hemisphere remains largely at peace, the danger exists that crises or insurgencies, particularly within the Andean region, might spread across borders, destabilize neighboring states, and place U.S. economic and political interests at risk.
Increasing challenges and threats emanating from the territories of weak and failing states. The absence of capable or responsible governments in many countries in wide areas of Asia, Africa, and the Western Hemisphere creates a fertile ground for non-state actors engaging in drug trafficking, terrorism, and other activities that spread across borders.
In several regions, the inability of some states to govern their societies, safeguard their military armaments, and prevent their territories from serving as sanctuary to terrorists and criminal organizations can also pose a threat to stability and place demands on U.S. forces. Conditions in some states, including some with nuclear weapons, demonstrate that potential threats can grow out of the weakness of governments as much as out of their strength.
Diffusion of power and military capabilities to non-state actors. The attacks against the U.S. homeland in September 2001 demonstrate that terrorist groups possess both the motivations and capabilities to conduct devastating attacks on U.S. territory, citizens, and infrastructure. Often these groups have the support of state sponsors or enjoy sanctuary and protection of states, but some have the resources and capabilities to operate without state sponsorship. In addition, the rapid proliferation of CBRNE technology gives rise to the danger that future terrorist attacks might involve such weapons.
Developing and sustaining regional security arrangements. U.S. alliances, as well as its wide range of bilateral security relationships, are a centerpiece of American security. The United States has enjoyed unparalleled success in building regional security arrangements. In addition, the United States has demonstrated an unmatched ability to develop coalitions of states to confront particular challenges, including Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. This ability will be critically important in responding to the events of September 11, 2001. These security arrangements and coalitions constitute a formidable combination of actual and potential power that enables the United States and its partners to make common cause to shape the strategic landscape, protect shared interests, and promote stability.
Increasing diversity in the sources and unpredictability of the locations of conflict. Together, these trends produce a geopolitical setting that is increasingly complex and unpredictable. Unlike the Cold War period, where the key geographic regions of competition were well defined, the current period has already imposed demands for U.S. military intervention or activity on virtually every continent and against a wide variety of adversaries. The United States will not be able to develop its military forces and plans solely to confront a specific adversary in a specific geographic area. Instead, the United States could be forced to intervene in unexpected crises against opponents with a wide range of capabilities. Moreover, these interventions may take place in distant regions where urban environments, other complex terrain, and varied climatic conditions present major operational challenges.
Key Military-Technical Trends. Technology in the military sphere is developing as rapidly as the tremendous changes reshaping the civilian sector. The combination of scientific advancement and globalization of commerce and communications have contributed to several trends that significantly affect U.S. defense strategy.
Rapid advancement of military technologies. The ongoing revolution in military affairs could change the conduct of military operations. Technologies for sensors, information processing, precision guidance, and many other areas are rapidly advancing. This poses the danger that states hostile to the United States could significantly enhance their capabilities by integrating widely available off-the-shelf technologies into their weapon systems and armed forces. For the United States, the revolution in military affairs holds the potential to confer enormous advantages and to extend the current period of U.S. military superiority. Exploiting the revolution in military affairs requires not only technological innovation but also development of operational concepts, undertaking organizational adaptations, and training and experimentation to transform a country's military forces.
Increasing proliferation of CBRNE weapons and ballistic missiles. The pervasiveness of proliferation in an era of globalization has increased the availability of technologies and expertise needed to create the military means to challenge directly the United States and its allies and friends. This includes the spread of CBRNE weapons and their means of delivery, as well as advanced conventional weapons. In particular, the pace and scale of recent ballistic missile proliferation has exceeded earlier intelligence estimates and suggests these challenges may grow at a faster pace than previously expected. Likewise, the biotechnology revolution holds the probability of increasing threats of biological warfare.
Emergence of new arenas of military competition. Technological advances create the potential that competitions will develop in space and cyber space. Space and information operations have become the backbone of networked, highly distributed commercial civilian and military capabilities. This opens up the possibility that space control - the exploitation of space and the denial of the use of space to adversaries - will become a key objective in future military competition. Similarly, states will likely develop offensive information operations and be compelled to devote resources to protecting critical information infrastructure from disruption, either physically or through cyber space.
Increasing potential for miscalculation and surprise. Together, these military-technical trends create an increased potential for miscalculation and surprise. In recent years, the United States has been surprised by the speed with which other states have progressed in developing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. In the future, it is unlikely that the United States will be able accurately to predict how successfully other states will exploit the revolution in military affairs, how rapidly potential or actual adversaries will acquire CBRNE weapons and ballistic missiles, or how competitions in space and cyber space will develop.
Emerging Operational Challenges
These geopolitical and military-technical trends will profoundly shape the future security environment. U.S. adversaries will have new capabilities that previous opponents lacked. U.S. defense strategy must take into account the need to transform U.S. forces to address several key emerging operational challenges that are inherent in current security trends. These challenges and an associated set of operational goals are explored in depth in Section V of this report.
State of the U.S. Military
To secure U.S. interests and objectives despite the challenges of the future security environment is the fundamental test for U.S. defense strategy and U.S. Armed Forces. While U.S. military forces - comprising a total force of Active, Reserve, and National Guard forces - remain the best trained, best equipped, and most capable in the world, there are significant challenges that are eroding the advantage the United States currently enjoys. These challenges affect the readiness and tempo of personnel and units, the major weapons systems of the Armed Forces, and the defense infrastructure.
While U.S. forward-deployed and "first to fight" forces are trained and ready, other operational units are less ready. During the past decade, DoD sustained readiness of "first to fight" forces, but fiscal constraints prevented other units from achieving desired readiness levels. For example:
- The degraded readiness of non-deployed carrier airwings has made it increasingly difficult to return those airwings to desired readiness levels when they deploy.
- The U.S. military has an existing shortfall in strategic transport aircraft. This shortfall is aggravated by continuing low readiness of the C-5 airlifter, which has had an average peacetime mission capable rate over the last five years of approximately 60 percent. This readiness level is about eight percent below peacetime performance objectives for this aircraft.
- The readiness of the Army's highest priority units has been sustained at the expense of non-divisional and Reserve Component units and the institutional Army.
- The uniquely American superiority in training is eroding, particularly as evident in the aging infrastructure and instrumentation of U.S. training ranges.
Excessive operational demands on the force have taken a toll on military personnel. Since the end of the Cold War, the Armed Forces experienced a reduction of total personnel but an increase in the demands placed on those smaller forces. One indication of this increased operational tempo has been the growing reliance on the Reserve Component. The high tempo of operations, coupled with continued demand for workers in the private sector, adversely impacted the ability of the Armed Forces to recruit and retain quality people for a number of years.
While competition from a strong economy has made retention difficult, Services face additional personnel challenges as a result of a decade of downsizing. Because of the reduced accessions during most of the last 10 years, the Services must achieve higher than historic retention rates in order to properly man the force in the future.
The quality of life in the military is critical to retaining a Service member and his or her family. Recent surveys conducted by the Department indicate that the two primary reasons that Service members leave or consider leaving are basic pay and family separation. The current junior officer force has a proportionately higher married population than ever before experienced. Also, a very high proportion of married junior officers have dual-career marriages. As a result, the Armed Forces must not only retain the Service member, but also retain his or her family. Family separation due to extended deployments has a significant impact on a family's propensity to remain in the military.
The Department of Defense must recruit, train, and retain people with the broad skills and good judgment needed to address the dynamic challenges of the 21st century. Having the right kinds of imaginative, highly motivated military and civilian personnel, at all levels, is the essential prerequisite for achieving success. Advanced technology and new operational concepts cannot be fully exploited unless the Department has highly qualified and motivated enlisted personnel and officers who not only can operate these highly technical systems, but also can lead effectively in the highly complex military environment of the future.
DoD's civilian workforce also must be transformed to meet the challenges of the future. An increasing number of civilian personnel are nearing retirement age. In addition, as a result of downsizing in recent years, DoD has not sufficiently emphasized efforts to bring talented young civilian personnel into the Department to develop them to fill leadership positions. This has been particularly true with respect to young people with the skills needed to address emerging science and technology needs.
The pressure to maintain near-term readiness has also limited DoD's ability to recapitalize the force. At the end of the Cold War, the Department made a conscious decision to cut its procurement accounts and lived off the systems procured as a result of investments made in the 1980s. Although procurement spending has increased in recent years, it remains at historically low levels. As a result, many major systems are approaching the end of useful service. This in turn results in reduced mission capable rates, increased operating costs, and frustration in keeping aged equipment operational. The effect is to reduce the readiness of the force.
In addition, the defense infrastructure also has suffered from underfunding and neglect. Defense infrastructure includes facilities such as the piers, runways, and hangars that support U.S. combat forces, the buildings where DoD personnel work, and the housing in which military personnel and their families live, and training space. These facilities are supported in two ways: sustainment and recapitalization. In recent years, facility sustainment was funded at only 75-80 percent of the requirement. The result is a deterioration of facilities and an accumulating restoration backlog that has been estimated to cost over $60 billion. Recapitalization was also significantly underfunded. While the private sector replaces or modernizes facilities at an average rate of once every 57 years, defense infrastructure has fallen well short of that standard. For example, in 2001, the facilities replacement rate is 192 years. The result is a decaying infrastructure that is less and less capable of supporting current military needs. This trend must be reversed. If the sustainment of existing facilities and recapitalization continues to be neglected, the resulting facilities infrastructure will not be capable of supporting combat readiness. Also, the difficulty of retaining a workforce, which works and lives in substandard conditions, will only increase.
The Department of Defense cannot transform the force to deal with tomorrow's security threats without also addressing today's challenges. DoD must reverse the readiness decline of many operational units, selectively recapitalize the force, and arrest the decay of aging defense infrastructure.
1. The east Asian littoral is defined as the region stretching from south of Japan through Australia and into the Bay of Bengal.
 |
 |
 |