-
7. Implications for the Force
- Georgetown University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
145 7 Implications for the Force In response to a soldier’s question about lacking the appropriate training and equipment for counterinsurgency in Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld quipped, “you go to war with the army you have.” That may be true, but the secretary of defense is responsible for determining the type of military the country needs. This is important not only when the military is engaged in warfare but also during peacetime missions such as security cooperation. Given that security assistance missions are so different from combat, it is imperative for the military to develop concepts and capabilities appropriate to work with partners outside of combat zones in permissive environments. Rumsfeld’s successor , Robert Gates, wrestled with this: “The U.S. military’s ability to kick down the door must be matched by its ability to clean up the mess and even rebuild the house afterward.”1 Thus Secretary Gates called for a balanced force structure that would prepare the military for future conflict but would also ensure that the military changes to incorporate the lessons of current operations that challenge the U.S. military in noncombat ways. This is represented not only in defense strategy but also in military concepts for development of the force. Asmydiscussionofthetraditionalist,modernist,andirregularwarfareschools in chapter 3 suggests, how force development is undertaken will have profound implications for getting the future military force right both in size and in scope. Four basic categories of military activity underlie force development: combat, security, engagement, and relief and reconstruction.2 Combat remains a core mission for the military, but the last three categories reinforce that the Defense Department wants “to develop a stable environment in which civil society can be built and that the quality of life for the citizenry can be improved.”3 Talking about thenewcapstoneconceptforjointoperations,retiredMarinecolonelJerryLynes said, “Things have changed significantly. We have taken our traditional principles of war and added to them.”4 Key among these is peacetime engagement in permissive environments. Since engagement is premised on preventing conflict by empowering partners to confront their own security challenges, it is arguably 146 Chapter 7 more important and more likely for the U.S. military than combat. This chapter explores how the U.S. military is developing concepts and capabilities to promote regional stability through building partners’ capacity. Concept for Force Development One of the enduring changes to defense planning that secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made was the introduction of capabilities-based planning.5 In contrast to the Cold War–model of “be better than the Soviets” or the 1990s model of threat-based planning against Iraq and North Korea, capabilities-based planning broadens the scope. It asks the question, what type of capabilities does the military need? To identify the appropriate capabilities, the military first identifies strategic challenges, such as ungoverned maritime spaces. It identifies strategic objectives, such as assuring friends and allies, and it identifies the missions that it is likely to conduct in the future, such as combined maritime security operations in the Gulf of Aden. Planners set planning targets, such as enabling a partner to conduct maritime security operations within five years. Capabilitiesbased planning develops joint concepts, such as building partnerships, and it presents capability options, such as mobile training teams teaching port security. Finally, capabilities-based planning selects forces, such as a Navy explosive ordnance disposal unit embarked on a high-speed vessel. Defense programmers can use this approach to apply resources to deliver a capability or opt to assume risk by not funding the program and using existing assets.6 A key dimension in the capabilities-based planning model is developing joint concepts, which are the ways something might be done. Concepts are an endto -end stream of activities that define how elements, systems, organizations, and tactics combine to accomplish national objectives or tasks.7 By specifying ways or concepts, the military departments can then develop required capabilities and attempt to limit redundancies. For example, there are many ways for the military to conduct global strike operations: submarine launched missiles, precision weapons delivered by bombers, or sabotage missions conducted by Special Forces. The choice is ultimately the president’s, but the Defense Department sees its role as developing options with various levels of risk involved. Similar logic can be applied to developing capabilities for security assistance. Linking concepts to overall national objectives, the “Capstone Concept for Joint Operations” serves as a guide to future force development, characterizes the future operating environment for policymakers and others that...