Military technology has the ability to save some lives
Chris Plumblee
Student Columnist

The U.S. military has now officially revised its strategy to move away from the traditional “win two wars or regional conflicts” to perhaps a more unusual goal, that of winning one conflict decisively and only halting the adversary in the other theater of conflict. This shift in policy has its roots partially in the bombing of Sept. 11, but also in the new realization from the Pentagon that the new conflicts in which the United States may be involved may be bigger in scope than previously considered.

Presumably that the structure of our military also dictates that it is simply impossible to accomplish what the Pentagon calls “decisively winning” a conflict: marching the military directly to a foreign capital, occupying the city and toppling the old regime.
This shift in that particular policy, which has been a central tenant in every Quadrennial Defense Review for decades, signals a change in the military’s structure that probably was not fully anticipated by any outside the Senate Armed Forces Committee or the Pentagon. The change does several things to the military as it exists today: first, it formally renews the commitment of the military to homeland defense, and second, it ensures that the United States will continue to have a strong commitment to overseas defense of American interests.

Obviously this is not entirely an earth-shaking revelation, but it is important to remember that the U.S. military never changes anything without a good reason. Because of this reluctance, the somewhat less than sweeping changes made in the military’s structure stand out to me, and they should also make you wonder about the future role of the military as defined by this document.

First, I wonder about the National Guard and Reserves. While they are not specifically mentioned as the groups in charge, it is to them that homeland defense almost always falls. Their role in an upcoming conflict such as the war against terrorism in which the United States is currently involved is possibly the most important – doing all they can do to prevent attacks on American citizens while the military is overseas and hostile organizations and governments are at war with the United States. I hope that if push comes to shove, the National Guard and Reserves are prepared for their important role in any upcoming conflict.

Second, I wonder about the future of the types of wars that have been popular previously not only with previous presidential administrations, but also with the American public. The Air Force and Navy used to hold the major cards for retaliation for terrorist attacks on a smaller scale than the Sept. 11 bombing. Cruise missiles, stealth bombers, and other forms of attack were and still are popular not simply because they preserve American lives, but because they are perceived as “high tech.”

The American public had, until about Sept. 12, lost the stomach for any far-reaching military action such as the amphibious landings of World War II because they cost American lives and deprive mothers of children and children of fathers and mothers. While this concern for human life is admirable and should not be lost due to the attack, it also weakened American resolve in situations like Somalia, Kosovo and even to an extent the Persian Gulf.

I cannot explain the change that came over America except to say that after World War II, the bad decisions of the following administrations to get involved in wars in Korea and Vietnam sapped American resolve, so even when it would have been better for America to attack with ground forces and possibly suffer some losses, the option was not even considered by most of the public or by presidents in the past.
As for being perceived as “high tech,” a lot of the fascination with that can be traced back to the same desire, that of not losing American lives. Technology in the military is supposed to save lives, not make soldiers on the ground unnecessary. Admittedly, I would be horrified if the Army drafted me or any of my close friends to fight in a World War II-style conflict in Afghanistan, but the fact is that true technological advances have made this unlikely.

The truth of the matter is that soldiers of today can accomplish alone what it would have taken five men to do on Guadalcanal or D-Day. True specialization of both equipment and men has taken the war of the trenches and moved it to the enemy’s backyard. Whereas the United States would have had to march troops into Afghanistan from surrounding countries at a significant cost of time and money, now the necessary troops can be airlifted in and jump from planes, disembark from helicopters, or be moved in by truck. I predict that this war against terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan, will be on the same scale as the war of the United States against Japan. In Vietnam, the American military learned its lessons well, and unconventional tactics will not faze America as they did 30 to 40 years ago.

Thirdly, and lastly, I worry about the future of the military when compared to other industrialized countries, particularly in Europe. For instance, the French military has a strong anti-terrorist branch, but other than that it is mostly peacekeeping, air and naval forces. The fact is that for the French, the need for extensive ground forces to fight in a war against another nation has passed. The expected war with the Soviet Union never actually happened, though everyone in Europe trained for it extensively.
With the dissolution of the last great promise for a land war, most of the military forces in Europe have been allowed to slip below the level of readiness that might be needed if they are to assist the United States in the upcoming ground campaign in Afghanistan.
Like Europe, we have allowed our military to specialize in certain aspects of fighting and winning wars. For instance, the United States has probably the best air force in the world, but our ground forces have suffered an associated drop in funding.

I think that Gen. Henry Hugh Shelton, outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said it best when he said in the Quadrennial Report that the new military strategy “will adequately address the current and emerging challenges (only) if matched with resources over time.” Defense spending has gotten a bad rap previously, with the budget for American military organizations cut right and left.

If intelligent and informed spending is the new rule for supporting the military, then it can meet all challenges to come. If the military is hamstrung by budget cuts and base closings, then we are in grave danger of losing the wars of the future, the first of which is starting as I write these words.