These past few years have changed the security equation around the world, but one fundamental fact has not changed. The United States will remain a global power with global interests. Protecting these interests requires U.S. security commitments around the globe and, when U.S. interests are threatened, a willingness to use American military forces. Therefore, the Department of Defense must maintain well-trained, well-equipped, and highly effective armed forces. When the call comes, the nation wants its armed forces to be ready to respond, to succeed quickly, and to suffer the fewest possible casualties.
These security requirements can be defined in terms of three challenges. The first challenge is to take every appropriate action to prevent a reemergence of the nuclear threat that the United States faced during the Cold War. There are still about 25,000 nuclear weapons in Russia and three other former Soviet republics. Today, the Department is focused on helping Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan eliminate the former Soviet nuclear arsenal on their soil and helping Russia reduce its arsenal.
The United States also faces other nuclear threats through the danger of proliferation, and U.S. efforts in Iran and in the recent Agreed Framework with North Korea exemplify vigilance in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. For America's part, the Department has recharted it own nuclear course through the Nuclear Posture Review, which maintains a prudent level of U.S. nuclear forces to deter or defend against any possible threat or aggression. Ballistic missile defenses are a key element in responding to the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as protecting U.S. fighting forces from tactical ballistic missiles.
The second challenge is to determine the appropriate strategy and force structure for the new era and to continue to properly manage the post-Cold War drawdown of the U.S. armed forces without sacrificing the readiness of these forces to respond to threats in an increasingly complex world. Historically it has been difficult to maintain ready, capable forces while reducing the military. The rapid drawdown of U.S. forces after World War II led to problems in the Korean War. The drawdown after the Vietnam War also created imbalances in U.S. forces. The Department is currently about two-thirds of the way through a resource drawdown, which from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s will amount to about a 40 percent reduction in the budget in real terms. The challenge is to carry out this reduction while maintaining the right size, shape, and quality of forces needed to defend America's interests in the post-Cold War world. The Administration's Bottom&-Up Review (BUR), conducted between February and October 1993, met this rightsizing challenge by assessing the threats and opportunities of the new security environment, articulating a defense strategy that would protect and advance U.S. interests in this new era, and then determining the military forces and programs necessary to support this strategy. The budget priorities have been allocated to support that strategy.
The third challenge is to reformulate policies for the use or threat of use of American military power. In this new security environment, it seems the United States will face virtually limitless calls for American involvement in containing threats. The United States does not, however, have limitless resources. America neither can nor should respond to every crisis or conflict. Therefore, one of the principal challenges America faces as a nation in this new era is to decide when and how to employ its military forces and assets in the pursuit of national objectives.
PREVENTING THE REEMERGENCE OF A POST-COLD WAR NUCLEAR THREAT
The Cold War, particularly the Cold War nuclear threat, had four distinguishing characteristics. First, nuclear deterrence was a primary focus of the Department, consuming enormous resources, upwards of about $50 billion a year during the peak years, and occupying some of America's most talented scientists and engineers. Second, this period was distinguished by a dangerous arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. Third, it gave rise to a web of treaties which were intended to control that arms race and reduce the danger of war. Finally, during much of the Cold War the United States lived with the reality of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD. By the late 1960s, both the United States and the Soviet Union had the capability to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike that would effectively destroy the other's society.
Now, with the end of the Cold War, there have been fundamental changes. The nuclear threat posed by the former Soviet Union is now greatly reduced and of a different character. Cooperative efforts to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons in states of the former Soviet Union have seen success and have contributed significantly to U.S. security. At the same time, the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) poses a large and growing threat to U.S. interests and security around the world. The Department has undertaken a number of initiatives to address these changes.
Cooperative Threat Reduction
Only one country -- Russia -- has sufficient nuclear weapons to threaten U.S. national survival. Today Russia is a partner rather than an enemy; but in Russia and the other New Independent States, the outcome of the political, economic, and social reforms that are underway is very uncertain. U.S. policy toward Russia must take into account both the promise that comes with the ending of the Cold War and the danger of a recurrence -- in very different forms -- of the nuclear threat.
With the demise of the Soviet Union, Congress initiated the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program to assist the New Independent States in the destruction and dismantlement of nuclear, chemical, and other weapons of mass destruction and to prevent proliferation of those weapons. CTR directly improves U.S. national security by helping to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction and weapons production capabilities in Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. CTR consists of 36 cooperative projects between the United States and Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan that help to dismantle the former Soviet nuclear arsenal, enhance nonproliferation efforts, reorient the Soviet weapons industry to civilian production, and generally help reduce the former Soviet force structure.
The CTR program provides dismantlement and demilitarization assistance to Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, with priority placed on accelerating strategic offensive arms elimination. Additionally, the CTR program provides assistance to enhance the safety and security of nuclear materials with emphasis on strengthening the entire chain of custody -- from weapons elimination and dismantlement to the ultimate storage of plutonium. Another important CTR project involves assistance to Russian efforts to destroy the 40,000 tons of declared chemical weapons agent Russia inherited from the former Soviet Union. Without substantial technical and monetary assistance, Russia will have difficulties meeting the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) destruction schedules. The CTR program is assisting Russia to choose a technology to destroy its chemical stockpiles, as required by the CWC. Finally, future CTR priorities include efforts to demilitarize the nuclear infrastructure which supported the massive Soviet weapons arsenal.
The CTR program is a small investment with a big payoff. The United States spent billions of dollars defending against weapons of mass destruction in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. CTR is a cost-effective way of eliminating the need to defend against these weapons in the years to come. Continuing this program of defense by other means will continue to enhance U.S. national security for the future.
Counterproliferation Initiative
The Department's motivation for its counterproliferation strategy was born of military necessity resulting from the experiences of the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein's activities with weapons of mass destruction, ranging from a surprisingly large nuclear weapons development program to the actual use of ballistic missiles, demonstrated the need for DoD to take into account the likely presence of WMD in major regional conflicts.
Preventing proliferation of nuclear, biological, chemical, and missile capabilities is, and will remain, the paramount objective of DoD's Counterproliferation Initiative. Counterproliferation efforts are not alternatives to nonproliferation, but add prudent non-nuclear means to deter and respond to WMD use against U.S. forces or allies. While U.S. policies are directed at preventing proliferation in the first place, determined proliferators often will be able to succeed because of worldwide advances in technology and greater access to dual-use technology and material in world trade. Certain countries of concern to the United States are among the most determined to get this technology. Where proliferation occurs, the United States must be prepared to protect its troops, interests, and allies.
Military preparedness is at the very heart of what is new about DoD's Counterproliferation Initiative. Unlike during the Cold War, in today's security environment U.S. forces deployed to defeat aggression in key regions of the world will likely face the use, or threat of use, of weapons of mass destruction. DoD's Counterproliferation Initiative is the response to these new circumstances. Through these programs, the Department is working to ensure that the threat from, and the implications of, weapons of mass destruction are integrated into every aspect of defense planning, programming, and acquisition. The Counterproliferation Initiative is oriented toward five key areas: policy and doctrine formulation, military responses, intelligence support, new technologies, and international cooperation.
The Agreed Framework with North Korea reflects the seriousness with which the United States approaches the challenge of nuclear proliferation. The paramount concern in this critical region was halting the existing North Korean nuclear program, poised last June to leap forward in its production of weapons-grade plutonium. Under the Agreed Framework, North Korea has halted and must eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons-related program, and comply fully with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) full-scope safeguards. The Agreed Framework has been structured in a step-by-step fashion and will be verified by both the IAEA and the United States. If the North Koreans fail to comply, the United States and the international consortium will cease providing the financing of alternative sources of energy in the form of heavy heating oil and proliferation-resistant nuclear reactors and cease the provision of other benefits. If fully implemented, this agreement will have prevented the emergence of a new and dangerous nuclear power and will have made a crucial contribution to regional stability.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSES
Another aspect of protecting U.S. forces and allies from the threat of WMD is increased emphasis on theater missile defense. As a top priority, the Department is continuing to implement the rapid development and deployment of theater missile defenses to protect forward-deployed U.S. and allied forces and allied population centers. This focus will address the immediate threat to U.S. forces deployed throughout the world. The second priority is national missile defense technology which will provide a hedge against the emergence of a strategic ballistic missile threat to the United States.
The national missile defense technology readiness program provides this hedge because its objective is to develop and maintain the option to deploy an early ground-based antiballistic missile defense capability for the United States against limited attacks by ballistic missiles. This program will ensure the capability to deploy a national missile defense before a new strategic ballistic missile threat could achieve operational status.
Nuclear Posture Review
Since the Cold War has ended, the United States has seized the opportunity to make fundamental changes. The United States has dramatically reduced nuclear program expenditures, from $50 billion a year heading down to $15 billion a year with a corresponding reduction in personnel devoted to this program. Instead of competition and buildup of weapons, there is cooperation and reductions. Since 1988, the United States has reduced U.S. strategic nuclear weapons by 50 percent and tactical nuclear weapons by 90 percent. Programs have been terminated or cut back, such as the small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile and the Peacekeeper missile. Although treaties remain essential, unilateral and informal bilateral reductions in nuclear weapons play a much greater role in U.S. security.
Along with these dramatic changes, the U.S. nuclear posture -- the way DoD thinks about nuclear weapons -- needed to change. To undertake this change and rechart the course of the U.S. nuclear posture, the Department undertook the Nuclear Posture Review.
The Nuclear Posture Review is the equivalent, for nuclear forces, of the 1993 Bottom-Up Review of conventional forces, undertaken to address the significant changes in America's role in the world and the military consequences of these changes. The Nuclear Posture Review was the first review of U.S. nuclear policy in 15 years, and the first ever to include policy, doctrine, force structure, command and control, operations, supporting infrastructure, safety, security, and arms control in a single review.
The enduring reality of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War world underscores the importance of the United States retaining a prudent level of nuclear forces. The United States will retain strategic nuclear forces sufficient to deter any future hostile foreign leadership with access to strategic nuclear forces from acting against U.S. vital interests and to convince it that seeking a nuclear advantage would be futile. Therefore, the United States will continue to maintain nuclear forces of sufficient size and capability to hold at risk a broad range of assets valued by such political and military leaders. Against this backdrop, the Nuclear Posture Review dealt with two major issues. The first issue was how to achieve the proper balance between leading the way to a safer world and hedging against the unexpected. Leading involves creating the conditions for further, continuing reductions of nuclear weapons. Given that there are still approximately 25,000 nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, the United States needed to hedge against a reversal of reforms and the nuclear reduction process and a return to an authoritarian military regime in Russia hostile to the United States.
The second issue faced during the Nuclear Posture Review was how to improve the safety and security of the remaining nuclear forces. Due to instabilities rising from dramatic social, political, and economic reforms underway in Russia and the other New Independent States, the United States must be especially concerned with the security of nuclear components and material in those nations. Thus, the Review considered what actions and programs should be undertaken to fully achieve those benefits, both in the United States and in Russia.
One of the most important results of the Nuclear Posture Review was a reduction in the strategic nuclear force structure the United States plans to retain after START II implementation. Although the total number of warheads does not differ from that allocated by the START II Treaty, the Nuclear Posture Review recommended several adjustments in strategic nuclear force posture and eliminated two entire categories of nonstrategic nuclear weapons. The United States is encouraging Russia to make similar reductions.
While no new strategic nuclear systems are either under development or planned, the weapons aboard the retained systems represent the leading edge of technology, both in safety and effectiveness. These changes create a more stable and higher quality force that will allow for further strategic arms reduction if appropriate, without compromising security or the nuclear guarantee.
In the Nuclear Posture Review, the Department of Defense has struck a prudent balance between leading the way to a world with fewer weapons and hedging against the unexpected. It recognizes that, even in the post-Cold War environment, the United States continues to require a nuclear deterrent. The strategic triad has been streamlined and adjusted, as have nonstrategic nuclear forces, to account for the reduced role nuclear weapons play in U.S. national security. Major force reductions and cost savings are already underway, leading to a smaller, safer, and more secure U.S. nuclear force.
RIGHTSIZING THE FORCE AND MANAGING THE DRAWDOWN
The end of the Cold War left the United States' armed forces with a strategy, force structure, and infrastructure no longer appropriate to the new security environment. This situation presented the Department of Defense with a two-part challenge: first, to determine the right size and structure of U.S. forces to protect and advance American interests in this new era; and second, to manage the reduction and reshaping of American forces so that they remain the most ready and capable military forces in the world.
Refining and Implementing the Bottom-Up Review
This two-fold challenge motivated the Department to undertake a back-to-basics review of the U.S. defense strategy, military forces, and overall defense program. This unprecedentedly comprehensive and collaborative undertaking came to be known as the Bottom-Up Review.
The BUR provided the blueprint for sizing and shaping U.S. general purpose forces and continues to be refined as the basis for the Administration's five-year defense program. The BUR involved extremely close cooperation between the civilian and military staffs in DoD. The Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense conducted extensive analyses of many types of operations to identify requirements representative of those U.S. forces should be able to meet to carry out the nation's defense strategy.
Based on an in-depth assessment of the new security environment and a rethinking of U.S. defense strategy, the Bottom-Up Review determined that U.S. forces must be prepared to meet four key requirements. First, they must be able, together with regional allies, to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. Second, U.S. forces must be able to maintain a strong U.S. overseas presence in peacetime. Third, they must be able to conduct a variety of operations short of a major regional conflict, operations which still require significant combat forces and specific capabilities. And finally, they must be able to deter and prevent the effective use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. territory, forces, and allies.
Taking these requirements into account, and the additional requirement to use limited resources efficiently, the Department of Defense is in the process of implementing the BUR and building the righ-size force to meet the security challenges of the post-Cold War world. This process is detailed in Part III of this report.
While the Bottom-Up Review provided the analytic framework for the defense program, it was never intended to be the final word for U.S. defense planning. The Review established the broad outline of the defense program, but the Department understood that many of the details of that defense program were still to be defined. It was also understood that the results of the Bottom-Up Review could not remain stagnant as the world changed. Therefore, the BUR identified areas requiring further exploration and assessment, as well as areas that would have to be constantly refined within the overall framework.
In addition to ongoing examination since the BUR's completion, the Department has undertaken a number of major efforts to broaden and refine the analysis underlying the U.S. defense program. For example:
While these efforts have confirmed the BUR's overall findings and direction, they have also recommended important adjustments to the defense program. These follow-on efforts validate the results of the BUR as a foundation for DoD defense planning and illustrate the flexibility of the Review as an evolving framework.
Achieving Critical Force Enhancements
In order to ensure that a smaller force is capable of supporting a still ambitious U.S. defense strategy, the BUR identified several critical force enhancements: improvements to strategic mobility, including airlift, sealift, and prepositioning; advanced precision-guided munitions to increase the lethality and survivability of U.S. forces; enhancements to surveillance and command, control, and communication capabilities; and improved readiness among selected reserve component forces, particularly 15 brigades of the Army National Guard. With these enhancements, the programmed force will be able to support the strategy well into the next century. These critical enhancements are a work in progress, and the Department is monitoring their progress closely.
Sustaining Readiness
The key test of the Department's success in managing this drawdown is whether U.S. forces are ready to deploy and fight effectively, at a moment's notice. Generally, there are three kinds of readiness: near, medium, and long-term. None of these categories is more important than the others, but some require more immediate attention.
Near-term readiness refers to the ability of U.S. forces to perform their assigned tasks right now, if called upon to do so. This type of readiness requires constant attention and, to a large extent, robust operation and maintenance (O&M) funding for each Service. The FY 1995 budget included an increase of 5.7 percent in the O&M accounts to support a force that is 7 percent smaller; the proposed FY 1996 budget is similarly robust.
While the events of last year demonstrated that U.S. forces must be ready, they also highlighted the challenges associated with keeping them in that condition. Because of numerous contingency operations and delays in the supplemental appropriations needed to pay for them, the Department experienced some cash flow shortfalls that were particularly acute in the last quarter of FY 1994. In response, the Department reallocated O&M funding to those units actively engaged in operations and those that must be ready to deploy early should a major regional conflict arise. As a consequence, readiness in a few other units dipped below normal peacetime levels. Now that the funds from supplemental appropriations have been received, these units will be brought up to their normal peacetime readiness levels. However, this situation highlights the need for quick action, from both the Department and Congress, on supplemental appropriations to cover the costs of contingency operations conducted by U.S. forces. In addition, the Department is requesting a Readiness Preservation Authority which would sustain readiness-related activities while the Department awaits supplemental appropriations to pay for contingency operations late in the fiscal year.
Medium-term readiness is associated most closely with the morale and esprit de corps of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. These intangibles are maintained by ensuring the best possible quality of life for people in uniform and their families. Quality of life falls into three general categories: standard of living for servicemembers; demands made on personnel, especially time away from family; and other ways people are treated while in the service.
Maintaining a good quality of life for the men and women of the armed forces is crucial to readiness because it helps to attract and retain well-trained, highly skilled people with good morale. No weapon system is better than the people who operate and maintain it; therefore, in allocating resources, the Department puts people first in its priorities.
President Clinton announced an initiative to increase the Department's budget by $25 billion over the next six years. This was specifically targeted to maintain the readiness of U.S. forces. This initiative includes money to fully fund training, reduce maintenance backlogs, fund munitions requirements, and alleviate the high tempo of operations for selected units.
Long-term readiness is influenced most by modernization of military equipment. The technological advantage enjoyed by U.S. forces is crucial in any conflict. Technological advantages also allow for more efficient use of U.S. forces.
The Department must make some tough, wise choices concerning how to spend its resources to upgrade or build new weapon systems. Some will have to be delayed or cancelled. The President's initiative to boost defense spending over the six-year budget period will allow DoD to keep more of its modernization programs on track. In any event, the Department retains the ability to support the National Security Strategy, while the force enhancements identified in the Bottom-Up Review are being funded.
Implementing the Drawdown
As it continues to reduce force structure, the Department also must reduce its overhead and do business better. It is crucial that every possible defense dollar goes to maintaining strong forces. There are three ways the Department is improving efficiency: cutting infrastructure, reforming the acquisition system, and promoting integration of the defense and commercial industrial bases.
The base realignment and closure (BRAC) process is central to reducing unneeded military infrastructure. The base closings authorized in 1991 and 1993 are being implemented now, and a new round of base closures will begin in 1995. But, the Department must do more to bring infrastructure in line with force structure to get the savings needed. For instance, while force structure has been reduced by more than 30 percent, infrastructure has been reduced less than 20 percent.
The Department is also in the process of overhauling its acquisition system by making three revolutionary changes: buying commercial products more often, making greater use of commercial buying practices, and replacing military specifications with performance standards. In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, which will allow the Department to fully pursue these changes. Additionally, DoD has implemented procedures to ensure that the use of performance standards will be the norm when procuring equipment, and that military specifications will only be used in cases where they are absolutely necessary. By simplifying the acquisition process, DoD hopes to realize substantial savings while maintaining the high quality of its systems.
The Department also needs to draw on a broad national industrial base composed of commercial companies, dual-use technology companies, and defense-unique companies. This is critical, because DoD can no longer afford to rely solely on a large defense-unique industrial base for two reasons. First, it is uneconomical, both for DoD and for its suppliers. Because of the cut of about two-thirds in the procurement budget from its peak in the 1980s, DoD spending alone will not support a large defense-unique industrial base. Second, although in the past the defense sector produced the most critical technologies, today many of the technologies the Department is most interested in -- computers, software, communication -- are being driven by commercial, not defense, developments. By helping to merge the defense and commercial industrial bases, DoD will be able to acquire state-of-the-art technology, which will keep U.S. forces the most technologically advanced in the world, at an affordable cost.
REFORMULATING POLICIES FOR THE USE OR THREAT OF USE OF MILITARY POWER
U.S. interests stem from historical ties throughout the world and the importance of the international economy to domestic prosperity. In contrast to World War II and the Cold War, most of the current and foreseeable threats to these interests do not threaten the survival of the United States. The problems, though, are complex and difficult. One of the principal challenges is to know when and how to use military force and military forces in this new security environment, when the threats involve interests short of national survival.
It has become increasingly clear that the post-Cold War world will present the United States and the other market democracies with many more cases for possible military engagement than their resources can support. As 1994 began, there were conflicts of a significant scale in over a dozen countries; U.N.-sponsored peace operations were active in 17 different countries. The United States and the international community have a growing stake in peace among and within nations throughout the world. At the same time, resources are limited, and military intervention is not the best or even an effective way to resolve many conflicts. Hence, the United States must exercise great care in using military forces as instruments of national policy.
Hierarchy of Interests
There are three basic categories of cases in which the United States may use its armed forces. The first involves cases in which U.S. vital interests are threatened. The second involves cases in which the United States has important, but not vital, national interests at stake. The third involves cases of strictly humanitarian concern.
An interest is vital if it involves the survival of the United States or key allies and friends, if it involves critical U.S. economic interests, or if it involves the danger of a future nuclear threat to the United States or its allies. If the United States determines that it faces a threat to a vital interest, it must be prepared to use military force to deter or end that threat. It also requires taking action as a hedge against future threats to U.S. vital interests.
For example, in October 1994, Iraq tested the U.S. resolve to defend vital interests when it threatened Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia by massing troops on Kuwait's border. The rapid reinforcement of U.S. air, naval, and land forces in the region, as part of Operation Vigilant Warrior, gave America the capability to deter aggression before it began. By backing words with military power, the United States reassured its allies and friends that it takes such threats seriously.
This does not mean that a threat to U.S. vital interests immediately requires a full military response. On the Korean Peninsula, North Korea's pursuit of a nuclear weapons program, coupled with its forward-deployed million-man army, created a dangerous situation that threatened U.S. vital interests. The United States pursued active diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue. At the same time, the Administration was prepared to seek international economic sanctions against North Korea and augmented allied defenses in the Republic of Korea. Faced with a resolute international community, North Korea fortunately committed to halt and eventually dismantle its dangerous nuclear program.
The second category includes cases in which important, but not vital, U.S. interests are threatened. In these cases, decisionmakers must consider the use of some level of force commensurate with the interests at stake. Options range from using U.S. military assets for logistical operations to employing U.S. combat forces. In these situations, military forces should only be used where they are likely to accomplish the objectives set for them, and where the costs and risks of military engagement are commensurate with the interests at stake. Generally, the United States will have the option of participating in such operations as part of a multinational effort. Multilateral operations, including peace operations, are an important component of U.S. strategy and, when used selectively and effectively, can protect and advance U.S. interests. They offer the United States a way of sharing costs in operations which address threats to U.S. national security. However, America must always maintain the ability to act alone.
In Haiti, for example, the United States was prepared to use force against the illegal military regime because it threatened U.S. interests in protecting democracy in this hemisphere, preventing a desperate new wave of refugees, and halting a cruel, systematic reign of terror over the Haitian people. Initially, diplomacy was tried. After exhausting all other alternatives, the United States and its allies threatened to use force to remove the military regime from power. In this case, the threat turned out to be sufficient to convince the military regime to step down, permitting the democratic government to return to power.
In Bosnia, unlike Haiti, it would take more force than is justified by U.S. interests to try to impose a comprehensive peace settlement. That is not to say that no U.S. interests are involved; the United States has an interest in preventing the war and its consequences from spreading beyond Bosnia. The United States and the international community generally share an interest in preventing large-scale and serious abuses of human rights, such as those perpetrated repeatedly in Bosnia since 1991. Further, the United States has humanitarian interests in trying to limit the violence and relieve suffering while the international community seeks to broker a peace settlement. These are real interests, but they are also limited interests. In Bosnia, U.S. actions have been and must remain proportional to these interests, taking into account the potential costs and risks of other alternatives.
Bosnia is also an example of selectively using military power for limited objectives. To help keep the conflict from spreading, a small U.S. Army infantry unit is deployed in Macedonia as part of a U.N. peacekeeping force. In addition, U.S. forces are participating in NATO efforts to limit the violence and casualties while diplomatic efforts to reach a settlement continue.
The final category of cases involves humanitarian concerns. Here the question involves use of military forces, rather than military force. Generally, the military is not the best tool to address long-term humanitarian concerns. The U.S. government has ongoing, established programs to assist international and nongovernmental agencies in providing humanitarian relief to populations in need. The Defense Department's focus will remain on its warfighting missions rather than on humanitarian operations.
But under the following conditions, the use of armed forces to provide humanitarian assistance is appropriate:
Rwanda is the most recent example of how military forces can be used to help relieve a humanitarian crisis. Clearly, this crisis was outstripping the ability of civilian relief organizations to respond. Consequently, DoD brought its unique capabilities, such as airlift and water purification, to bear on the crisis, and those forces made a difference -- they saved tens of thousands of lives. Once the immediate crisis was under control, U.S. forces turned relief efforts over to civilian agencies and withdrew.
Criteria for the Use of Force
After evaluating the interests at stake and the costs of the operation, the Administration will consider many specific factors before deciding whether to commit forces, what objectives to assign to them, and what level of forces to employ. Prominent among these factors are:
CONCLUSION
As a global power with global interests, the United States has not only the opportunity, but also the responsibility, to help ensure a safer world for generations of Americans. As President Clinton has said, "As the world's greatest power, we have an obligation to lead and, at times when our interests and our values are sufficiently at stake, to act."
The Department of Defense is doing its part to seize this opportunity. As the Department completes the transition to a post-Cold War military force structure, it has undertaken a number of programs and initiatives to ensure this force is well-trained, ready, and able to deter or respond quickly to a range of potential new threats and opportunities.
The world has changed dramatically over the past few years, but one thing remains constant -- a strong military force, comprised of the best men and women society has to offer, is the nation's best insurance policy. Each and every element of the defense program is built around and supports this fundamental priority.
