The DoD civilian and military leadership approached the force planning task acutely aware of the need to provide over time a richer set of military options across the operational spectrum than is available today and to ensure that U.S. forces have the means to adapt in time to surprise. The new force-sizing construct specifically shapes forces to:
- Defend the United States;
- Deter aggression and coercion forward in critical regions;
- Swiftly defeat aggression in overlapping major conflicts while preserving for the President the option to call for a decisive victory in one of those conflicts - including the possibility of regime change or occupation; and
- Conduct a limited number of smaller-scale contingency operations.
In doing so, DoD will maintain sufficient force generation capability and a strategic reserve to mitigate risks. This new construct - which supports the defense strategy - has four underlying elements.
First, it places new emphasis on the unique operational demands associated with the defense of the United States and restores the defense of the United States as the Department's primary mission.
Second, the approach shifts the focus of U.S. force planning from optimizing for conflicts in two particular regions - Northeast and Southwest Asia - to building a portfolio of capabilities that is robust across the spectrum of possible force requirements, both functional and geographical. This approach to planning responds to the capabilities- based strategy outlined above. It focuses more on how an adversary might fight than on who the adversary might be and where a war might occur. The shift is intended to refocus planners on the growing range of capabilities that adversaries might possess or could develop. It will require planners to define the military objectives associated with defeating aggression or coercion in a variety of potential scenarios in addition to conventional cross-border invasions. It calls for identifying, developing, and fielding capabilities that, for a given level of forces, would accomplish each mission at an acceptable level of risk as established by the National Command Authorities.
Third, the new construct serves as a bridge from today's force, developed around the threat-based, two-MTW construct, to a future, transformed force. The United States will continue to meet its commitments around the world, including in Southwest and Northeast Asia, by maintaining the ability to defeat aggression in two critical areas in overlapping timeframes. The United States is not abandoning planning for two conflicts to plan for fewer than two. On the contrary, DoD is changing the concept altogether by planning for victory across the spectrum of possible conflict.
Fourth, the new construct for the first time takes into account the number and nature of the tasks actually assigned to the Armed Forces. Unlike previous force-sizing constructs, the new construct explicitly calls for the force to be sized for defending the homeland, forward deterrence, warfighting missions, and the conduct of smaller-scale contingency operations. As a result, the construct should better account for force requirements driven by forward presence and rotational issues. It will also better address requirements for low-density/high-demand (LD/HD) assets, enabling forces (e.g., transport aircraft), and active and reserve force-mix issues.
Defend the United States
The highest priority of the U.S. military is to defend the Nation from all enemies. The United States will maintain sufficient military forces to protect the U.S. domestic population, its territory, and its critical defense- related infrastructure against attacks emanating from outside U.S. borders, as appropriate under U.S. law. U.S. forces will provide strategic deterrence and air and missile defense and uphold U.S. commitments under NORAD. In addition, DoD components have the responsibility, as specified in U.S. law, to support U.S. civil authorities as directed in managing the consequences of natural and man-made disasters and CBRNE-related events on U.S. territory. Finally, the U.S. military will be prepared to respond in a decisive manner to acts of international terrorism committed on U.S. territory or the territory of an ally.
Ensuring the safety of America's citizens at home can only be achieved through effective cooperation among the many federal departments and agencies and state and local governments that have homeland security responsibilities. It is clear that the roles, missions, and responsibilities of the many organizations and agencies involved in national preparedness must be clearly delineated through an integrated interagency process. The Office of Homeland Security, which is responsible for overseeing and coordinating a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard the United States against terrorism and respond to any attacks that may come, will lead this important process.
Those who respond first to any incident will likely be those closest to the event - local law enforcement and emergency response personnel. It was clear from the diverse set of agencies involved in responding to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that the Department of Defense does not and cannot have the sole responsibility for homeland security. DoD must institutionalize definitions of homeland security, homeland defense, and civil support and address command relationships and responsibilities within the Defense Department. This will allow the Defense Department to identify and assign homeland security roles and missions as well as examine resource implications. DoD must be committed to working through an integrated inter-agency process, which in turn will provide the means to determine force requirements and necessary resources to meet our homeland security requirements. DoD must bolster its ability to work with the organizations involved in homeland security to prevent, protect against, and respond to threats to the territorial United States. In particular, the Defense Department will place new emphasis upon counter terrorism training across federal, state, and local first responders, drawing on the capabilities of the Reserve and National Guard.
Preparing forces for homeland security may require changes in force structure and organization. For example, in conjunction with the ongoing review of national preparedness requirements undertaken by the Vice President, DoD will continue to examine the roles and responsibilities of its Active and Reserve forces to ensure they are properly organized, trained, equipped, and postured to provide for the effective defense of the United States. It is clear that U.S. forces, including the United States Coast Guard, require more effective means, methods, and organizations to perform these missions. As part of this examination, DoD will review the establishment of a new unified combatant commander to help address complex inter-agency issues and provide a single military commander to focus military support.
Defending the United States, which is the critical base of operations for U.S. defense activities worldwide, will be a crucial element of DoD's transformation efforts. Integration of protection mechanisms (e.g., counterintelligence, security, infrastructure protection, and information assurance) will be a key component. In particular, the United States must enhance its capabilities to protect its critical infrastructure, especially infrastructure that supports oil and gas transportation and storage, information and communications, banking and finance, electrical power, transportation, water supply, emergency, and government services.
Deter Forward
As a global power, the United States has important geopolitical interests around the world.
DoD's new planning construct calls for maintaining regionally tailored forces forward stationed and deployed in Europe, Northeast Asia, the East Asian littoral, and the Middle East/Southwest Asia to assure allies and friends, counter coercion, and deter aggression against the United States, its forces, allies, and friends.
As this strategy and force planning approach are implemented, the United States will strengthen its forward deterrent posture. Over time, U.S. forces will be tailored increasingly to maintain favorable regional balances in concert with U.S. allies and friends with the aim of swiftly defeating attacks with only modest reinforcement and, where necessary, assuring access for follow-on forces. A key objective of U.S. transformation efforts over time will be to increase the capability of its forward forces, thereby improving their deterrent effect and possibly allowing for reallocation of forces now dedicated to reinforcement to other missions.
Security cooperation will serve as an important means for linking DoD's strategic direction with those of its allies and friends. DoD will focus its peacetime overseas activities on security cooperation to help create favorable balances of military power in critical areas of the world and to deter aggression and coercion. A particular aim of DoD's security cooperation efforts will be to ensure access, interoperability, and intelligence cooperation, while expanding the range of pre-conflict options available to counter coercive threats, deter aggression, or favorably prosecute war on U.S. terms.
Major Combat Operations
U.S. forces will remain capable of undertaking major combat operations on a global basis and will train to be effective across a wide range of combat conditions and geographic settings. The focus will be on the ability to act quickly when challenged and to win decisively at a time and place and in the manner of the President's choosing.
For planning purposes, U.S. forces will remain capable of swiftly defeating attacks against U.S. allies and friends in any two theaters of operation in overlapping timeframes. Combat operations will be structured to eliminate enemy offensive capability across the depth of its territory, restore favorable military conditions in the region, and create acceptable political conditions for the cessation of hostilities. In addition, U.S. forces will degrade an aggressor's ability to coerce others through conventional or asymmetric means, including CBRNE weapons. U.S. forces will fight from a forward deterrent posture with immediately employable forces, including long-range precision strike capabilities from within and beyond the theater, and rapidly deployable maneuver capabilities.
At the direction of the President, U.S. forces will be capable of decisively defeating an adversary in one of the two theaters in which U.S. forces are conducting major combat operations by imposing America's will and removing any future threat it could pose. This capability will include the ability to occupy territory or set the conditions for a regime change if so directed.
Smaller-Scale Contingencies
The new planning approach requires the United States to maintain and prepare its forces for smaller-scale contingency operations in peacetime, preferably in concert with allies and friends. This approach recognizes that such contingencies could vary in duration, frequency, intensity, and the number of personnel required. DoD will explicitly plan to provide a rotational base - a larger base of forces from which to provide forward- deployed forces - to support long-standing contingency commitments in the critical areas of interest. These long-standing commitments will, in effect, become part of the U.S. forward deterrent posture.
Moreover, DoD will ensure that it has sufficient numbers of specialized forces and capabilities to ensure that it does not overstress elements of the force when it is involved in smaller-scale contingency operations.
Current Forces
Today's force structure - both Active and Reserve components - is the baseline from which the Department will develop a transformed force for the future. The current force structure, shown in the table below, was assessed across several combinations of scenarios on the basis of the new defense strategy and force sizing construct, and the capabilities of this force were judged as presenting moderate operational risk, although certain combinations of warfighting and smaller-scale contingency scenarios present high risk.
- Army
- Divisions (Active/National Guard) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/8
Active Armored Cavalry/Light Cavalry Regiments . . . . . . . .1/1
Enhanced Separate Brigades (National Guard). . . . . . . . . . . 15
Navy
- Aircraft Carriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Air Wings (Active/Reserve) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10/1
Amphibious Ready Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Attack Submarines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Surface Combatants (Active/Reserve). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108/8
Air Force
- Active Fighter Squadrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Reserve Fighter Squadrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Reserve Air Defense Squadrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Bombers (Combat-Coded). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Marine Corps (3 Marine Expeditionary Forces)
- Divisions (Active/Reserve). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3/1
Air Wings (Active/Reserve) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3/1
Force Service Support Groups (Active/Reserve). . . . . . . . . . 3/1
Just as U.S. forces have transformed in the past, the process of fundamental transformation to sustain U.S. military advantages, meet critical operational goals, and dominate future military competitions has begun.
The Department of Defense has embarked on an ambitious transformation of U.S. military forces to meet such challenges. As this transformation effort matures - and as it produces significantly higher output of military value from each element of the force - DoD will explore additional opportunities to restructure and reorganize the Armed Forces.
To support this strategy, DoD will continue to rely on Reserve Component forces. To ensure the appropriate use of the Reserve Components, DoD will undertake a comprehensive review of the Active and Reserve mix, organization, priority missions, and associated resources. This review will build on recent assessments of Reserve Component issues that highlighted emerging roles for the Reserve Components in the defense of the United States, in smaller-scale contingencies, and in major combat operations.
 |
 |
 |