.
By Sandra I. Erwin
President Obama last week said the United
States is ready to move beyond the war on terror. The nation's military,
meanwhile, is preparing for a future of continuous combat.
“I
don’t see any indication that things are going to settle down or become
peaceful,” said Gen. James F. Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps.
Speaking
at The Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., May 29, Amos said he
is convinced that the U.S. military during the next two decades will be
just as busy as it has been during the past 12 years of war. When asked
to forecast the Marine Corps’ future missions, Amos said, “I see much of
what we’re going through right now. I don’t see any of it waning away. I
don’t see major theater wars. I see thorny, difficult, challenging,
human intensive — not necessarily technology intensive — conflicts.”
Amos
cited the crisis in Syria, the activities of Lebanon’s Islamist group
Hezbollah, developments in Iran, Iraq, Mali and North Korea as
potentially requiring U.S. armed intervention over the coming years.
None of these boiling pots will settle down, he said. Extremist groups
continue to threaten the United States, Amos added. “We may think we are
done with them. But they are not necessarily done with us.” The nation
might be inclined to cut military spending, but “You can’t ignore the
world I just described,” Amos said. “You can’t turn your back on it.”
Amos’
vision of the future echoes the views of other military leaders who
believe the post-Afghanistan era will be one of perpetual war.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, has said the military expects to be on a permanent war footing.
Defense officials do not see the end of the Afghanistan war as the
beginning of a peaceful era. They view the Arab Spring and Iran’s
nuclear ambitions as ticking time bombs. Although the odds of a
large-scale war are low, the “chance of violence for ideological and
other purposes is exponentially greater,” according to Dempsey.
The
military chiefs’ worldviews, while not diametrically opposed to the one
Obama laid out May 23, illustrate the challenge the administration
faces as it tries to reshape national security priorities and comply
with congressionally mandated budget cuts.
In a speech at the
National Defense University last week, which mostly focused on the use
of drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists, Obama described the
future of the war on terror as one that requires a different, not
necessarily military, response. “Our nation is still threatened by
terrorists. … We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted
and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11,” Obama said.
“Now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions about the nature of
today’s threats, and how we should confront them. … We must define the
nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of
James Madison’s warning that ‘No nation could preserve its freedom in
the midst of continual warfare.’”
Unrest in the Arab world has
allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria,
he said. But there are differences from 9/11. “In some cases, we
confront state-sponsored networks like Hezbollah that engage in acts of
terror to achieve political goals. … While we are vigilant for signs
that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on
operating in the countries and regions where they are based.”
Framing
the debate over the future missions of the U.S. military is a defense
budget crunch that will squeeze all branches of the armed services. Amos
acknowledged that mandatory budget cuts, known as sequestration, are
“real,” and not likely to go away. Nonetheless, he said, it is important
for the military to maintain its global presence. The Marine Corps, for
instance, will downsize from 202,000 to 182,000. It plans to redeploy
forces that are currently in Afghanistan to the Asia-Pacific region.
How
that will be accomplished with less money remains to be seen. Analysts
have criticized Pentagon officials for being unrealistic about what they
can afford to do in the future. “It has become uncommon to show in any
detail how the quantity of proposed forces -- the number of units,
assets, and personnel — actually correlate with specific security
challenges and outcomes,” said Carl Conetta, director of the Project on
Defense Alternatives at the Center for International Policy.
In
the current debate, he said, “vague generalities have prevailed. …
America’s current strategic and economic circumstances require a
stricter interrogation of what passes for defense requirements.”
Amos
said budget cuts “will have real impact,” but at the same time, “there
are engagement responsibilities our nation needs to acknowledge,” he
said. “I am not in denial on sequestration [but] we do have global
responsibilities."
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1158#.UaZbQT-2ECc.twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment