As stated in the National Security Strategy, the Bottom-Up Review, and the National Military Strategy, the Department of Defense will field and sustain the military capabilities needed to protect America and advance its interests. The United States is the only nation capable of unilaterally conducting large-scale, effective military operations far beyond its borders. There is and will continue to be a great demand for U.S. forces, not only to protect the United States from direct threats and to help maintain peace and stability in regions critical to U.S. interests, but also to help support multinational efforts to bring peace to regions torn by ethnic, tribal, or religious conflicts and to ameliorate human suffering.
MILITARY MISSIONS
Supporting the Administration's strategy of engagement requires that the United States maintain robust and versatile military forces that can accomplish a variety of missions, as delineated in the Bottom-Up Review:
The focus of U.S. planning for major theater conflict is on the need to be able to project power and to deter, defend against, and defeat aggression by potentially hostile regional powers. Today, such states are capable of fielding sizable military forces that can cause serious imbalances in military power within regions important to the United States, with allied or friendly states often finding it difficult to match the power of a potentially aggressive neighbor. Such states may also possess WMD. Hence, to deter aggression, to prevent coercion of allied or friendly governments and, ultimately, to defeat aggression should it occur, the United States must prepare its forces to assist its friends and allies in confronting this scale of threat.
The planning for fighting and winning these MRCs envisages an operational strategy that, in general, unfolds in the following ways:
U.S. military strategy calls for the capability, in concert with regional allies, to fight and decisively win two MRCs that occur nearly simultaneously. As a nation with global interests, it is important that the United States maintains forces with aggregate capabilities on this scale. Obviously, the United States seeks to avoid a situation in which an aggressor in one region might be tempted to take advantage when U.S. forces are heavily committed elsewhere. More fundamentally, maintaining a two MRC force helps ensure that the United States will have sufficient military capabilities to deter or defeat aggression by a coalition of hostile powers or by a larger, more capable adversary than is foreseen today.
U.S. forces fighting alongside their allies are capable of fighting and winning two nearly simultaneous MRCs today. With programmed enhancements to U.S. mobility/prepositioning assets, as well as improvements to surveillance assets, accelerated acquisition of more effective munitions, and other key improvements, U.S. military forces will retain and improve upon this capability.
STABILITY THROUGH OVERSEAS PRESENCE
The need to deploy or to station U.S. military forces abroad in peacetime is also an important factor in determining its overall force structure. U.S. forces permanently stationed and rotationally or periodically deployed overseas serve a broad range of U.S. interests. Specifically, these forces:
The importance of overseas presence forces was demonstrated in October 1994 when Iraqi Republican Guard divisions began significant movements toward the border with Kuwait. Forward-deployed U.S. forces, some of which were participating in Operation Southern Watch, combined with the timely arrival of additional air, naval, and land forces which fell in on a recently prepositioned equipment set, provided a credible deterrent to the threat of Iraqi aggression.
By improving the defense capabilities of its friends and demonstrating its commitment to defend common interests, U.S. forces abroad enhance deterrence and raise the odds that U.S. forces will find a relatively favorable situation should a conflict arise.
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
U.S. defense strategy also requires that military forces be prepared for a wide range of contingency operations in support of U.S. interests. Contingency operations are military operations that go beyond the routine deployment or stationing of U.S. forces abroad but fall short of large-scale theater warfare. These operations are an important component of U.S. strategy and, when used selectively and effectively, can protect and advance U.S. interests. In 1994, such contingency operations ranged from Operation Vigilant Warrior to humanitarian operations in Rwanda.
The United States will always retain the capability to intervene unilaterally when its interests are threatened. The United States will also advance its interests and fulfill its leadership responsibilities by providing military forces to coalition operations, some of which may support U.N. Security Council Resolutions. For instance, in September and October 1994, the United States deployed approximately 20,000 troops to Haiti as part of a multilateral effort (Operation Uphold Democracy) to reinstate the democratically elected president and government of Haiti and provide a secure and stable environment for the return of functional governance. In addition, the United States will also continue to participate in multinational peace operations, authorized by the United Nations, as a cost-effective tool for preserving and restoring peace and stability in key regions. In such cases, the United States invokes the authority and support of the international community and benefits from sharing the military and financial burden with others.
Smaller-Scale Combat Operations
The United States will maintain the capability to conduct smaller-scale combat operations unilaterally, or in concert with others, when important U.S. interests are at stake. These operations generally are undertaken to provide for regional stability (Grenada), promote democracy (Panama), or otherwise respond to conflicts that affect U.S. interests.
Peace Operations
Peace operations include operations ranging from traditional peacekeeping to peace enforcement. Peacekeeping involves military or paramilitary operations that are undertaken with the consent of all major belligerent parties and are primarily designed to monitor and facilitate implementation of an existing truce agreement and support diplomatic efforts to reach a long-term political settlement. Peace enforcement is the application of military force or the threat of its use to compel compliance with generally accepted international norms, resolutions, or sanctions. The purpose of peace enforcement is to maintain or restore peace and support diplomatic efforts to reach a long-term political settlement.
These operations are usually authorized by the U.N. Security Council. They may be conducted by the United Nations, as in the case of most traditional peacekeeping operations, by a multinational coalition led by a member state or alliance, or by a regional organization. For example, the U.S. Army maintains close to 1,000 troops in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai to monitor the peace agreement reached between Israel and Egypt, and countries in western Africa have organized to field a peacekeeping force in Liberia.
The United States has an interest in supporting many U.N. peace operations, but it is far from alone in these efforts. In fact, of the more than 70,000 personnel serving in U.N. blue-helmeted peace operations, under 2 percent were American. The United States pays 30.4 percent of the annual cost of U.N. peace operations; beginning in October, the United States will pay only 25 percent. The cost, in manpower and money, to protect America's interests around the world without the burdensharing the United Nations offers could be much greater.
Members of the U.S. armed forces have been involved in U.N. peacekeeping missions since 1948. In 1994, significant U.S. military participation in U.N. blue-helmeted operations was limited to two of 17 missions: the former Yugoslavia (UNPROFOR) primarily in Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and until March of 1994 in Somalia. At the end of 1994, 963 U.S. military personnel participated in U.N. peace operations.
Recent experiences in multilateral peace operations demonstrate that the United Nations, regional organizations, and member states have much to learn about how to conduct these types of operations effectively. The increasing size and complexity of peace operations, their evolution from traditional peacekeeping to peace enforcement, and the sheer number of operations currently underway severely challenge the current capabilities of the international community to respond effectively. With the certainty that U.S. and allied interests will continue to be challenged by conflict, DoD has taken steps to help establish more capable institutions and procedures to conduct peace operations.
For example, the Department is working with the United Nations to improve its peacekeeping capabilities; however, the United Nations currently lacks the ability to conduct large-scale peace enforcement operations that are likely to involve combat. Therefore, any large-scale participation of U.S. forces in such operations should be conducted under U.S. command and control, through competent regional organizations, such as NATO, or through ad hoc coalitions with acceptable command and control arrangements. Only after the threat of combat has significantly diminished will the United States consider placing its forces under the operational control of a U.N. commander. Even in these cases, command authority from the President to the lowest U.S. unit commander in the field will remain inviolate.
In addition, U.S. forces have made great strides toward enhancing their capabilities for these operations, especially in the areas of doctrine development and training. For example, a Joint Doctrine for Military Operations Other Than War, to include the full range of peace operations, is now being developed by the Joint Staff and expected to be published by the summer of 1995. It will provide guidance to all Services and combatant commands for the conduct of peace operations. In December 1994, the Army published Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations, and the U.S. Army Infantry School is publishing a White Paper that addresses how brigades and battalions should conduct peace enforcement operations.
As peace operations doctrine has emerged, training also has focused more directly on peace operations. The first independent assessment of U.S. military training for peace operations was released by the DoD Inspector General in September 1994. It concluded that well-trained, disciplined combat soldiers and current combat planning, training, staffing, and decisionmaking processes are necessary preparation for peace operations. But it also noted that peace operations confront U.S. armed forces with requirements for specialized knowledge, skills, and attitudes and confirmed the need for certain special training to successfully conduct peace operations missions. Lessons learned from past operations, discussions with other militaries, and information gained from joint exercises and peace operations training have given U.S. military forces a more detailed understanding of how better to tailor training for the requirements of peace operations.
Other Key Missions
U.S. military forces and assets will also be called upon to perform a wide range of other important missions as well. Some of these can be accomplished by conventional forces fielded primarily for theater operations. Often, however, these missions call for specialized units and capabilities.
HUMANITARIAN AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE
U.S. military forces and assets are frequently called upon to provide assistance to victims of floods, storms, droughts, and other disasters. Both at home and abroad, U.S. forces provide emergency food, shelter, medical care, security, and demining assistance to those in need. During FY 1994, 60 countries benefited from DoD humanitarian assistance, which included four major humanitarian operations. These operations included:
As long as terrorist groups continue to target American citizens and interests, the United States will need specialized units available to defeat such groups. From time to time, the United States might also find it necessary to strike terrorists at their bases abroad or to attack assets valued by the governments that support them.
Countering terrorism effectively requires close day-to-day coordination among Executive Branch agencies. The Department of Defense will continue to cooperate closely with the Departments of State and Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency in an ongoing effort against international terrorists. Positive results will come from integration of intelligence, diplomatic and rule-of-law activities, and through close cooperation with other governments and international counterterrorist organizations.
The United States has made concerted efforts to punish and deter terrorists and those who support them. For example, on June 26, 1993, following a determination that Iraq had plotted an assassination attempt against President Bush, President Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against the headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service in order to send a firm response and deter further threats.
NON-COMBATANT EVACUATION OPERATIONS
The United States government is also responsible for protecting the lives and safety of Americans abroad. To carry out this responsibility, selected U.S. military forces are trained and equipped to evacuate Americans from such situations as the outbreak of civil or international conflict and natural or manmade disasters. For example, U.S. forces evacuated Americans from Monrovia, Liberia, in August of l990, and from Mogadishu, Somalia, in December of that year. In l991, U.S. forces evacuated nearly 20,000 Americans from the Philippines over a three-week period following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. During 1994, U.S. forces helped ensure the safe evacuation of U.S. citizens from ethnic fighting in Rwanda.
COUNTERDRUG OPERATIONS
The Department of Defense, in support of the Department of State, U.S. law enforcement agencies (LEAs), and cooperating foreign countries, continues to be an essential player in the nation's efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs from abroad. The Department strives to achieve the objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy through the effective application of available resources consistent with its national values and legal framework.
The Department supports the counterdrug mission in five key areas:
Beyond the five declared nuclear weapons states, at least 20 other nations have acquired or are attempting to acquire WMD -- nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons-- and the means to deliver them. In fact, in most areas where U.S. forces could potentially be engaged on a large scale, many of the most likely adversaries already possess chemical or biological weapons. Moreover, some of these same states appear determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a hostile regional power could threaten not only U.S. lives and U.S. interests but also the viability of its regional power projection strategy.
The United States also continues to face potential nuclear dangers in the former Soviet Union. Notwithstanding the deterioration of its conventional military forces, Russia continues to maintain and to modernize (albeit at a much slower pace than the former Soviet Union) a large arsenal of strategic and theater nuclear weapons. Even after the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) II is ratified and comes into force, Russia will maintain a formidable strategic nuclear arsenal of up to 3,500 strategic warheads. Moreover, thousands of strategic nuclear weapons from the former Soviet arsenal still lie outside of Russia, although the leaders of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus have pledged to remove the strategic nuclear arsenals on their territories. There is also a danger that the materials, equipment, and know-how needed to make nuclear weapons could leak through porous former Soviet Union borders to other nations.
Addressing the threat of WMD proliferation is no small challenge. The United States requires a balanced, multitiered approach to counterproliferation, including:
Finally, the United States will retain strategic nuclear forces sufficient to deter any nuclear state, should it be hostile, and to convince it that seeking any advantage in nuclear weapons would be futile. This demands that the United States continue to maintain a nuclear force of sufficient size and capability to effectively hold at risk a broad range of assets valued by potentially hostile political and military leaders. This requirement is fully consistent with meeting its current arms control obligations.
These American military capabilities, coupled with the nation's unique position as the preferred security partner of important states in many regions, help to ensure that the U.S. government will remain an influential voice in affairs that affect its interests, be they political, economic, or military. America will, however, retain this prestigious position only if it maintains the military wherewithal to credibly underwrite those commitments.
