Mort Zuckerman
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | In Afghanistan, the American military disproved the old saw that generals are always ready to fight the last war. The Pentagon won the Gulf War a decade ago with more than 500,000 troops, tank divisions, and bombers. In the inaccessible mountains of Afghanistan, it smashed the Taliban more swiftly and effectively than anyone thought possible. We did it through a powerful combination of technological prowess and information warfare. For the first time, we used ground spotters on the battlefield linked to satellites in space to provide targeting information accurate within several meters.
We used JSTARS radar, drones, unarmed aerial vehicles, and satellites to monitor and improve visibility, reducing the "fog of war" by transmitting video and other targeting data back to command posts and attack aircraft, dramatically increasing battlefield transparency. We also reduced sensor-to-shooter time-the gap between finding a target and destroying it-to less than 20 minutes. The information system became what the Pentagon likes to call a "force multiplier."
America today has the infantry divisions, the tanks, bombers, guns, and aircraft carriers to overwhelm any conventional enemy. We can easily prevail in the kind of conflict that dominated the world from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 to the end of the 20th century, wars waged predominantly by states, fought for territory by armies that generally resembled one another.
Unconventional war. But military spending is enormously expensive. The Bush administration is asking for an increase in the defense budget of almost $50 billion this year and, by 2007, an additional $100 billion more than the Clinton administration envisaged. We have to decide our priorities because, as Sen. John McCain pointed out, not everything is affordable. The priorities must turn on an assessment of our likely enemies. We no longer have to resist thousands of Soviet tanks rolling toward the Fulda Gap.
We may have to fight that kind of conventional land war in North Korea or somewhere in the Middle East, and we must be prepared to do that. But the most likely enemy we face today is the international, nonstate terrorist organization. Like the rogue states that often host them, the terrorists know that on the open battlefield, we are overwhelming. That's why these new adversaries plan to strike directly at cultural, political, and population targets. They understand just how big an impact these attacks can have on markets, communications, and cultural icons and how hard it is to attack them when they secrete themselves in civilian populations or in remote, inaccessible places.
The terrorists' arsenal is asymmetrical, ranging from low-cost, low-tech military hardware up to weapons of mass destruction. We must respond to this threat accordingly, projecting effective military power with ever greater rapidity into any location on the planet. We need systems that can be deployed quickly without local bases or substantial prepositioning of supplies.
We are at one of those rare moments when new technology can marry with new strategy. The history of warfare is littered with those who failed to make such adaptations. Seven centuries ago, heavily armed knights on horseback were rendered obsolete by archers with 6-foot bows; in World War II, the blitzkrieg of Nazi Panzers and fighter planes rendered irrelevant the Maginot line and slow-moving soldiers of our allies.
The secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has recognized this and has made some tough choices. The Army wanted to spend $11 billion on the Crusader artillery system. But Rumsfeld has made the right choice in deciding to spend the money instead on systems that are stealthier, more lethal, more able to strike at long distances, and able to operate without the huge logistic trains or vulnerable bases near the conflict.
We cannot limit the technologies of tomorrow's battlefields by failing to wean ourselves from Cold War capabilities. It is natural that members of Congress representing the districts in Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania where jobs will be lost are fighting to maintain the Crusader program. It would be unfair to say they put local jobs before national security. But that will be the effect if the first major turning point in the transformation of our military capacity is stymied by yesterday's thinking.
Rumsfeld has a formidable opposition to overcome. But what will be the
effect if we allow vested-interest politics and an sclerotic military culture
to join with the iron phalanx of contractors and members of Congress to
reinstate Crusader? Rumsfeld must convince the House and Senate
appropriation committees, including Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of
Alaska and Democrats like Sen. Robert Byrd and Rep. John Murtha. It
would be tragic to focus on the kinds of battles we will not be fighting
and so risk losing the battles we are certain to face against the terrorists
arrayed against
Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Mort Zuckerman is editor-in-chief and publisher of U.S. News and World Report. Send your comments to him by clicking here.
04/30/02: Roller-coaster nation
04/25/02: A critical tipping point
04/15/02: Israel's endgame will impact the free world
03/21/02: In the face of pure evil
03/14/02: A man on a mission
03/07/02: Land of the Sinking Sun
02/12/02: Speaking truth about energy
01/15/02: Putting our house in order
01/12/02: Talking points for 2002
12/24/01: The shape of things to come
12/11/01: Finally, a clarity of vision
12/04/01: Apocalypse now
11/26/01: The Big Apple's core
11/06/01: What it will take to win
10/22/01: Getting the mayor's message
10/08/01: A remedy for repair
10/01/01: A question of priorities
09/26/01: Our mission, our moment
09/11/01: Running the asylum
08/29/01: Hail, brave consumer
06/14/01: Blackouts --- or blackmail?
06/01/01: A time to reap --- and sow
05/25/01: A question of confidence
05/18/01: A question of confidence
05/04/01: Making the grade
04/26/01: The caribou conundrum
04/19/01: Chinese boomerang
03/27/01: The man of the moment
03/20/01: The Fed must be bold
03/15/01: Japan on the brink
03/01/01: Rethinking the next war
02/09/01: The education paradox
01/08/01: How the bottom fell out
01/03/01: Quipping in the new year
12/20/00: A time for healing
11/13/00: The need for legitimacy
10/30/00: Arafat's bloody cynicism
10/18/00: Arafat torches peace
10/03/00: A great step backward
09/08/00: The Perfect Storm
08/29/00: Don't blow the surplus
08/15/00: Voting for grown-ups
08/01/00: Arafat's lack of nerve
07/17/00: Can there be a new peace between old enemies? Or will new enemies regress to an old state of war?
07/11/00: A time to celebrate
06/19/00: A bit of straight talk
06/08/00: Using hate against Israel
05/26/00: Is the Federal Reserve trigger-happy?
04/18/00: Tensions on the 'Net
04/13/00: A paranoid power
03/10/00: Fuel prices in the red zone
02/25/00: Web wake-up call
02/18/00: Back to the future
01/21/00: Whistling while we work
01/11/00: Loose lips, fast quips
12/23/99: The times of our lives
12/14/99: Hey, big spender
11/18/99: Fountain of Youth
11/04/99: An impossible partner
10/14/99: A nation divided
10/05/99: India at center stage
09/21/99: Along with good cops, we need a better probation system
09/08/99: Though plundered and confused, Russia can solve its problems
08/31/99: The military should spend more on forces and less on facilities
08/05/99: Squandering the surplus
07/06/99: More than ever, America's unique promise is a reality
06/24/99: The time has come to hit the brakes on affirmative action
06/15/99: America should take pride in honoring its responsibilities
06/02/99: The Middle Kingdom shows its antagonistic side
05/11/99: Technology's transforming power is giving a lift to everything
05/04/99: The big game gets bigger
04/30/99: On Kosovo, Russia talked loudly and carried a small stick
04/21/99: No time to go wobbly
04/13/99: The Evil of two lessers