Joint Chiefs Chairman Looks Beyond Current Wars

[JMS]

Joint Chiefs Chairman Looks Beyond Current Wars (Shanker, NYT)

Monday, October 22, 2007

The New York Times

By Thom Shanker

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 - The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff plans to press Congress and the public to sustain the current high levels of military spending - even after the Iraq war - arguing for money to repair and replace worn-out weapons and to restore American ground forces he described as "breakable," though not yet broken.

The new chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, expressed deep concerns that the long counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have so consumed the military that the Army and Marine Corps may be unprepared for a high-intensity war against a major adversary.

He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops.

With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region "has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it." The military option, he said, should be a last resort.

But Admiral Mullen warned any nation, including Iran, not to "mistake restraint for lack of commitment or lack of concern or lack of capability." He described the Air Force and Navy as America's "strategic reserve," ready to carry out a full range of combat operations beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

In his first interview since becoming chairman, Admiral Mullen sat in his Pentagon office on Friday and described his three immediate priorities:

¶Develop a military strategy for the Middle East, beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

¶Accelerate efforts to "reconstitute, reset, revitalize" the armed forces, which he said meant replacing combat equipment and tending to the needs of those in uniform, in particular soldiers and marines and their families.

¶Refocus the military's attention beyond the current wars to prepare for other challenges, especially along the Pacific Rim and in Africa.

Those efforts will require a considerable commitment of money, and Pentagon officials are quietly acknowledging that Congress and the public may have little appetite after Iraq for sustaining the high levels of military spending carried out since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But Admiral Mullen said that an important part of his job would be making the case for maintaining those large military budgets.

"I think as a country we're just going to have to devote more resources to national security in the world that we're living in right now," he said. "And I don't do that lightly."

"I recognize that the budget is higher now than it's ever been," he added, referring to the combined total of the basic annual Defense Department budget and the special supplemental budgets to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Military spending is hovering around 4 percent of gross domestic product, "and I would see that in the future as an absolute floor," Admiral Mullen said.

According to statistics supplied by the Office of Management and Budget, military spending was sustained at 5 percent or more of gross domestic product from the mid-1970s, rising above 6 percent in the final years of the cold war. In 1993, after the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Persian Gulf war, it dropped below 4 percent, declined to 3 percent by the late 1990s, and only climbed above 4 percent again in 2003.

Weighing into a Washington debate assessing the current capability of insurgents in Iraq who align themselves with Al Qaeda, and fighters loyal to the Taliban in Afghanistan, Admiral Mullen described both organizations as severely wounded but still very lethal.

The admiral, who previously was chief of naval operations, visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan immediately after becoming chairman three weeks ago, and said he returned pleased with progress on security.

One of the few Vietnam War veterans remaining in the most senior officer corps, Admiral Mullen expressed worries that the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan had undermined the military's ability to fight big wars - and distracted the armed forces from preparing to face other threats.

"Because we have had such an intense focus on the Middle East and Iraq and Afghanistan, there is risk associated with those other parts of the world," Admiral Mullen said.

Current combat efforts are so heavily focused on counterinsurgency missions that the Army and Marine Corps "haven't been training in or focusing on this wider spectrum of requirements should we need to be called to do something else," Admiral Mullen said.

"And so we've got to make sure that we can train to, equip to and be ready for just a broader spectrum of missions," he added.

He pushed back against those who are calling for military action against Iran's nuclear program, saying that diplomatic and economic pressure must take precedence.

The threat to American and allied troops from high-powered explosives from Iran, he said, should be countered by halting their flow into Iraq or Afghanistan across the borders, and with attacks on those bomb-making and bomb-planting cells inside Iraq or Afghanistan.

"That said, that doesn't get at the source of it," he acknowledged. Asked whether the American military should aim at sites inside Iran if intelligence indicated that such interdiction could halt the flow of those bombs, he said "the risks could be very, very high."

"We're in a conflict in two countries out there right now," he added. "We have to be incredibly thoughtful about the potential of in fact getting into a conflict with a third country in that part of the world."

After meeting with soldiers and marines in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent weeks, Admiral Mullen said: "They're tired. They've been doing unbelievably great work for our country. And we need to make sure we take care of them and their families."

Assessing the impact of long, repeated deployments for the ground forces in Iran and Afghanistan, he said, "The ground forces are not broken, but they are breakable."

[Larry]

In his first interview since becoming chairman, Admiral Mullen sat in his Pentagon office on Friday and described his three immediate priorities:

1. Develop a military strategy for the Middle East, beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.
   
2. Accelerate efforts to "reconstitute, reset, revitalize" the armed forces, which he said meant replacing combat equipment and tending to the needs of those in uniform, in particular soldiers and marines and their families.
   
3. Refocus the military's attention beyond the current wars to prepare for other challenges, especially along the Pacific Rim and in Africa.
   

Uh, General?

1. Finish Iraq and Afghanistan.
   

[headexplode]

Really? The Joint Chiefs Chairman believes we should continue to expand the national security state? How novel. How surprising. Way to think outside the box, there, friend.

It's the American way, though, isn't it? Let's just throw a ****load of money at our problems and they'll all go away. We don't have to actually use the money effectively or rationally, we just have to whip out our charge cards and everything will be fine.

If he knows we're spending more on defense than ever before, why then are our units "breakable?" And what makes him think more money would help?

And I'm sure he feels that continuing to contract out essential military functions is a good idea, too.

[CurseReversed]

Really? The Joint Chiefs Chairman believes we should continue to expand the national security state? How novel. How surprising. Way to think outside the box, there, friend.

It's the American way, though, isn't it? Let's just throw a ****load of money at our problems and they'll all go away. We don't have to actually use the money effectively or rationally, we just have to whip out our charge cards and everything will be fine.

If he knows we're spending more on defense than ever before, why then are our units "breakable?" And what makes him think more money would help?

And I'm sure he feels that continuing to contract out essential military functions is a good idea, too.

I think it was a roman general who once said: Those who wish for peace, prepare for war.

Throwing money into our defense budget is always a worthwhile investment.

Even with that being said serious efforts still need to go into combatting the insane money wasting our govt does, not just on defense, but on all govt programs.

Put money into defense yes, but please spend it wisely.

[JMS]

Uh, General?

• Finish Iraq and Afghanistan.
  

Seriously we are about to loose both wars, and he's already looking past them? I don't get that at all. I would argue that we actually need to think about slowing down future military procuments in favor of increasing the resources of the guys in the fight today.

[Chachie]

I think it was a roman general who once said: Those who wish for peace, prepare for war.

Throwing money into our defense budget is always a worthwhile investment.

Even with that being said serious efforts still need to go into combatting the insane money wasting our govt does, not just on defense, but on all govt programs.

Put money into defense yes, but please spend it wisely.

Strangely enough, I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Revamping our military doesn't necessarily mean using it irresponsibly. We've used ours in stupid ways since 9/11, but that doesn't mean we should weaken it. After all, the only thing that will protect us from the backlash over how we've used our military is, in fact, our military.

[JMS]

duplicate duplicate

[JMS]

I think it was a roman general who once said: Those who wish for peace, prepare for war.

Throwing money into our defense budget is always a worthwhile investment.

Even with that being said serious efforts still need to go into combatting the insane money wasting our govt does, not just on defense, but on all govt programs.

Put money into defense yes, but please spend it wisely.

I believe the latest military budget of 640 billion places the US military budget greater than the next 200 largest militaries in the world combined. Back when Bush took office and we had a military budget of less than half the current size; we outspent the next 18 greatest militaries combined and of those 18 countries al except two were allies and enjoyed Most favored nation trading status with the United States.

It's not true "throwing money into our defense budget is always a worthwhile investment". When you are talking about nearly a trillion dollars; it's never a good idea to throw that type of money around without any rational thought behind your goal. Like, who are we trying to protect ourselves against with a nearly 700 billion dollar military? al Quada who's most effective attack against us cost them the price of 19 coach airline tickets, and who are military wasn't even associated with defending us from?

No I would think we need to be thinkers more than reactionary on national defense budgets.

[Thanos]

Uh, General?

• Finish Iraq and Afghanistan.
  

He's an admiral.:laugh:

[CurseReversed]

It's not true "throwing money into our defense budget is always a worthwhile investment". When you are talking about nearly a trillion dollars; it's never a good idea to throw that type of money around without any rational thought behind your goal. Like, who are we trying to protect ourselves against with a nearly 700 billion dollar military? al Quada who's most effective attack against us cost them the price of 19 coach airline tickets, and who are military wasn't even associated with defending us from?

No I would think we need to be thinkers more than reactionary on national defense budgets.

Here is my rational thought based on thousands of years of human history.

War is inevitable, therefore we must be as well prepared for it as possible. Especially when the current world superpower, while not perfect in its morality or its projection of such power, is by far a better choice then any other would-be upstart contender for this title.

People who criticize our decisions and policies would find themselves and this world in a world of crap if any other of the "prospective" superpowers, now, in the near future, or 100+ years from now were able to defeat us on the battlefield.

So while it might seem to some, that expanding our military budget and increasing our fighting strength is pointless because they fail to see any major threats now or in the near future, must remember that given a timeframe larger then most of the shortsighted citizens of our country can comprehend, we will almost inevitably have to defend ourselves or other allied nations in a major war.

I dont know about you but I think its pretty damn important that we win any war we fight, and this becomes increasingly important every day that passes.

[Zuck]

People who criticize our decisions and policies would find themselves and this world in a world of crap if any other of the "prospective" superpowers, now, in the near future, or 100+ years from now were able to defeat us on the battlefield.

No offense but that's a horrible argument and makes no sense.

It assumes that criticizing decisions and policies means that another country will automatically become the new superpower.

You haven't provided anything to back up that broad general statement.

[Koolblue13]

I'm glad the Redskins didn't look past the Cards, and preprepair for the Pats.

[headexplode]

Put money into defense yes, but please spend it wisely.

Well, that's exactly what I said in my post, so, yeah, I agree.

The idea that we can just throw money at something and all will be right is mistaken, and I feel the current cadre of armed forces "leaders" seem to subscribe to this view.

[PeterMP]

I won't criticize him for looking beyond the current problems. The fact of the matter is if our leaders took a little more time doing so we would be better off because frequently the big issue of the time was completely avoidable w/ a little foresight. There's no reason he can't do things at once.

[CurseReversed]

No offense but that's a horrible argument and makes no sense.

It assumes that criticizing decisions and policies means that another country will automatically become the new superpower.

You haven't provided anything to back up that broad general statement.

No actually what you said makes no sense.

I am merely stating that people advocating against increasing military spending and future war preparations would find themselves singing a different tune if their wishes were to come true and we paid the price for it.

This is a hypothetical scenario, to point out why it is worth it to spend money on the military not a prediction of the future.

I did not say that such criticisms would automatically result in this happening. You do see the difference right?

I would say that if we do not keep our war readiness on high and our military in peak condition that we put ourselves "at risk" of such events happening in the future, and I am definitely against that.

[alexey]

Here is my rational thought based on thousands of years of human history.

War is inevitable, therefore we must be as well prepared for it as possible.

Perhaps rational analysis of thousands of years of human history can can provide us with more insight than "wars happen."

[alexey]

Highly recommended:

The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force, and Society since A.D. 1000 (Paperback)

by William McNeill (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Pursuit-Power-Technology-Society-D/dp/0226561585/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-6595289-5987201?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193081976&sr=8-2

[alexey]

People who criticize our decisions and policies would find themselves and this world in a world of crap if any other of the "prospective" superpowers, now, in the near future, or 100+ years from now were able to defeat us on the battlefield.

They will not need to defeat us on the battlefield. They will defeat us economically. Here's the funny part - US military spending is one of the reasons why this may, and probably will, happen.

[JMS]

Here is my rational thought based on thousands of years of human history.

War is inevitable, therefore we must be as well prepared for it as possible. Especially when the current world superpower, while not perfect in its morality or its projection of such power, is by far a better choice then any other would-be upstart contender for this title.

People who criticize our decisions and policies would find themselves and this world in a world of crap if any other of the "prospective" superpowers, now, in the near future, or 100+ years from now were able to defeat us on the battlefield.

So while it might seem to some, that expanding our military budget and increasing our fighting strength is pointless because they fail to see any major threats now or in the near future, must remember that given a timeframe larger then most of the shortsighted citizens of our country can comprehend, we will almost inevitably have to defend ourselves or other allied nations in a major war.

I dont know about you but I think its pretty damn important that we win any war we fight, and this becomes increasingly important every day that passes.

I'm not saying that we don't need a strong military. I'm not even saying that some semblence of reasonableness is necesary for justifying such a bloated ineffective expendature as what Americans have traditionally supported.

When Bush took office we outspent the next 18 largest countries combined. Those country's by far and away being STRONG American allies. Britain, Canada, Italy, Japan, France, Spain all being on the list. Since that time Bush has more than doubled Military spending brining. Currently we spend more than the next 200 greatest nations combined.

And who are we protecting ourselves from? China who can't project military power sufficiently to take over an Island 90 miles off their coast? A country who we have most favored nation trading status with? Russia who has an economy half the size of California? At some point you must ask yourself, how much is enough....

Should American be the strongest nation individually. Certainly. But exactly how many times stronger than the next potential enemy do you think is justifiable? 2 times? 3 times? 10 times?

Having a military which outspends the next 200 militaries in the world is more of a testiment to the gulibility of the American people and the vast American Militry complex than it is to any American defense need.

[JMS]

They will not need to defeat us on the battlefield. They will defeat us economically. Here's the funny part - US military spending is one of the reasons why this may, and probably will, happen.

Clearly this is accurate. Since Bush has increased domestic spending and military spending at the same time, our military budgets actually are funded by Chineese purchasing government bonds. Our sole perspective military advisary is literally funding our "defense" effort. It's almost comical.

[alexey]

I'm not saying that we don't need a strong military. I'm not even saying that some semblence of reasonableness is necesary for justifying such a bloated ineffective expendature as what Americans have traditionally supported.

When Bush took office we outspent the next 18 largest countries combined. Those country's by far and away being STRONG American allies. Britain, Canada, Italy, Japan, France, Spain all being on the list. Since that time Bush has more than doubled Military spending brining. Currently we spend more than the next 200 greatest nations combined.

And who are we protecting ourselves from? China who can't project military power sufficiently to take over an Island 90 miles off their coast? A country who we have most favored nation trading status with? Russia who has an economy half the size of California? At some point you must ask yourself, how much is enough....

Should American be the strongest nation individually. Certainly. But exactly how many times stronger than the next potential enemy do you think is justifiable? 2 times? 3 times? 10 times?

Having a military which outspends the next 200 militaries in the world is more of a testiment to the gulibility of the American people and the vast American Militry complex than it is to any American defense need.

True, but there is also the economic side of things where military spending generates jobs and calaries. Yes we do not need that kind of military spending... but what are we going to do with hundreds of thousands of Americans who make their living creating things that kill other people? It seems very smart economic and political moves are necessary for getting away from this kind of military spending.

[Thanos]

Clearly this is accurate. Since Bush has increased domestic spending and military spending at the same time, our military budgets actually are funded by Chineese purchasing government bonds. Our sole perspective military advisary is literally funding our "defense" effort. It's almost comical.

Sad but true.:notworthy

[JMS]

True, but there is also the economic side of things where military spending generates jobs and calaries. Yes we do not need that kind of military spending... but what are we going to do with hundreds of thousands of Americans who make their living creating things that kill other people? It seems very smart economic and political moves are necessary for getting away from this kind of military spending.

No all government spending has a parisitic effect on the economy. Especially Military spending. If the Government wasn't borrowing a trillion dollars a year to fund their deficite, capital would be that much cheaper for industry to use to modernize and expand.

It's a testiment to our economy that it's has sustained such a warped military expendatures for this long. With the near colapse of the US dollar internationally; clearly it's just about run it's coarse. As for absorbing out of work defense workers that's not much of a concern. We currently have around 4.3% unemployment and have to have record immigration legal and illegal to keep the lack of employable people having an inflationary effect on the economy. Besides it's very likely we could peal off 200 billion of the current defense budget and still have a net positive employment shadow. What with the fact the Miltary is going to increase by 90,000 folks over the next few years.

[Redskins Diehard]

I wonder if any of you that are concerned about him looking past the current wars actually know where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs falls in the Chain of Command

[Sarge]

Seriously we are about to loose both wars, and he's already looking past them? I don't get that at all. I would argue that we actually need to think about slowing down future military procuments in favor of increasing the resources of the guys in the fight today.

You must have worked for the Klinton adminstration :doh:

That's part of the man's job, to not only prosecute the current wars, but to look ahead at what's possibly on the horizon