Secretary Hagel’s Latest Speech Promises Return To The Military Of The 1970s

Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel provided the clearest statement yet by an Obama Administration official regarding the future of the U.S. military. Like Gaul, the Secretary’s speech at the CSIS Global Strategy Forum was divided into three parts. The first was a fairly prosaic assessment of long-term national security challenges facing the United States. Most of these really are trends such as shifting geopolitical centers of gravity, the prominence of the Asia-Pacific region in global politics, commerce and security, demographics, empowered non-state actors, urbanization, technological advancement and a “global political awakening.” Whether they become challenges will depend on many factors, most significantly, how governments and elites deal with them. The list of known challenges is well-recognized: terrorism, proliferation of conventional and mass destruction weapons, cyber warfare, and “non-transparent and heavily armed nation-states like Iran and North Korea.” While no threat over the next several decades will be as large and comprehensive as that posed by the Soviet Union, there will be more of them and they will be better equipped to do us harm.

The second is a rather formulaic assertion of America’s central role in the evolving international system and the importance of the U.S. military among all the instruments of national power. America “remains the world’s only global leader.” While the United States must appreciate the limits of its power, make greater use of non-military instruments and avoid the twin traps of hubris and isolationism, “no other nation has the will, the power, the capacity, the capability, and the network of alliances to lead the international community in addressing the aforementioned global challenges.” The Secretary went on to argue that, “the United States must sustain the kind of hard military power that gives our diplomacy strength, assures our allies around the world, and deters our adversaries. We must continue to have a military of unmatched fighting power. And, we must be prepared to respond to confrontation and crisis in a new and profoundly volatile world, working closely with our allies and our partners.” In other words, the pattern of U.S. engagement in the future will look pretty much as it has in the past and the demands on the military will be much as they were in the two decades before 9/11.

The third part was a list of six focus areas meant to address the imbalance between means and ends caused, largely, by defense budget cuts amounting to $1 trillion over the next decade. Frankly, here the Secretary’s speech was the least compelling or even imaginative. The six focus areas were:

• Undertake institutional reform. But what the Secretary touts as reform – such as a 20 percent cut in headquarters budgets – doesn’t really amount to much;
• Re-evaluation of our military’s force planning construct. Read here abandonment of the two war strategy in favor of one war at a time, regardless of the number and variety of adversaries we may face;
• Preparing for a prolonged military readiness challenge. In other words, a hollow force is better than no force at all;
• Protecting investments in emerging military capabilities – especially space, cyber, special operations forces, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Notice no mention of advanced conventional forces or strategic capabilities;
• Pursue balance across the military services as well as between the Active and Reserve Components. In addition, according to the Secretary, “we will also favor a globally active and engaged force over a garrison force” – hopefully recognizing that this is the more expensive option; and finally,
• Address unsustainable personnel and compensation policies. Ironically, it is in the discussion of this last area, the one that Hagel admits will be the most difficult to tackle, that the future of the U.S. military is most starkly laid out. The Secretary warns that “without serious attempts to achieve significant savings in this area – which consumes roughly half of the DoD budget and is increasing every year – we risk becoming an unbalanced force. One that is well-compensated, but poorly trained and equipped, with limited readiness and capability.” That is the likely future summarized in single sentence.

If anything, the Secretary’s speech understates the challenges to the U.S. military. The nation will seek to maintain its global leadership position, deter aggressors and reassure allies, and project its power globally rather than remaining at home. At the same time, it will face more diversified, complex and well-equipped threats. And it will do so with a military that is under-resourced, poorly organized and sustained and facing long-term readiness and personnel crises. Sounds an awful lot like the 1970s, post-Vietnam.