Lynn: U.S. Must Prepare for Future Warfare Trends

WASHINGTON, June 8, 2011 — The Pen­ta­gon must fac­tor in major trends like­ly to shape the nation­al secu­ri­ty envi­ron­ment, includ­ing many that defy tra­di­tion­al mil­i­tary plan­ning, Deputy Defense Sec­re­tary William J. Lynn III said here today.
The Defense Depart­ment must play a part in fed­er­al deficit-reduc­tion efforts, Lynn told the Cen­ter for Strate­gic and Inter­na­tion­al Stud­ies’ 2011 Glob­al Secu­ri­ty Forum.

“Since 9/11, we have had the abil­i­ty to address new defense chal­lenges with increased resources,” he said. “We will not have that lux­u­ry for the fore­see­able future.”

The chal­lenge, he added, is to man­age the com­ing bud­get reduc­tions wise­ly and respon­si­bly, and apply resources so they can best meet future war­fare trends.

Lynn cit­ed the rev­o­lu­tion­ary changes that occurred dur­ing the last half-cen­tu­ry alone, exem­pli­fied through the life of Frank Buck­les, the last sur­viv­ing U.S. World War I vet­er­an, who died in Feb­ru­ary. Buck­les saw the hor­rors of trench war­fare dur­ing World War I, was res­cued as a World War II pris­on­er of war just as the design for an atom­ic bomb was final­ized, and lived to have his own Face­book page before he died at age 110.

The three rev­o­lu­tions that Buck­les’ life encom­passed — indus­tri­al, atom­ic and infor­ma­tion — “brought an avalanche of mil­i­tary tech­nolo­gies and intro­duced whole new dimen­sions to war,” Lynn said. “The issue for us as we con­sid­er what capa­bil­i­ties and pro­grams to pro­tect in a defense draw­down is what course future tech­nolo­gies will take.”

Lynn iden­ti­fied three strate­gic trends he said are like­ly to shape the future U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty envi­ron­ment: increas­ing access to lethal­i­ty across the threat spec­trum, longer-dura­tion war­fare, and the grow­ing preva­lence of asym­met­ric threats.

“They are each, in dif­fer­ent ways, the result of our entry into a new era of war, one dri­ven pri­mar­i­ly by the over­lay of the infor­ma­tion age atop the indus­tri­al and atom­ic rev­o­lu­tions,” he said. “They can and they must inform our defense plan­ning. What we need to do at this junc­ture, in this fis­cal envi­ron­ment, is to take the long view about what strate­gic trends are impor­tant.”

Gone, Lynn said, are the days when the most eco­nom­i­cal­ly devel­oped coun­ties pos­sessed the most-lethal mil­i­tary pow­er, and oth­ers had sec­ond-rate capa­bil­i­ties or lit­tle or no access to high­ly lethal tech­nolo­gies.

“Today, this lin­ear rela­tion­ship between eco­nom­ic and mil­i­tary pow­er no longer holds,” he said. “Ter­ror­ist groups with few resources can mount dev­as­tat­ing attacks. Insur­gents can defeat our most advanced armor with fer­til­iz­er bombs. Rogue states seek nuclear weapons. Some crim­i­nal orga­ni­za­tions even pos­sess world-class cyber capa­bil­i­ties.”

This change has increased the risks the Unit­ed States faces and broad­ens the range of threats it must be pre­pared to con­front, he said.

“Defense plan­ning must reflect this devel­op­ment,” Lynn said, ensur­ing the mil­i­tary has the capa­bil­i­ties to con­front both high- and low-end threats.

“We have deci­sions about how to size our forces for these dis­parate con­tin­gen­cies, but we must equip for both,” he said. “In oth­er words, we will need both fifth-gen­er­a­tion fight­ers and counter-[improvised explo­sive device] tech­nol­o­gy.”

Cur­rent real­i­ty also chal­lenges the long-held assump­tion that kinet­ic engage­ments would be rel­a­tive­ly short, Lynn said. Not­ing that oper­a­tions in Iraq and Afghanistan have last­ed longer than the U.S. par­tic­i­pa­tion in World War I and World War II com­bined, he said mil­i­tary plan­ners must be pre­pared to sus­tain long-term com­mit­ments for a range of plau­si­ble con­flicts. Their plan­ning, he added, must account for enough force struc­ture to pro­vide ade­quate troop dwell time between deploy­ments.

“This is like­ly to have impor­tant impli­ca­tions for how we size, struc­ture and uti­lize our reserve force com­po­nents,” he said. “We need the abil­i­ty to scale-up force struc­ture for longer con­flicts. The long-term costs of extend­ed con­flicts must be con­sid­ered in our strate­gic cal­cu­lus.”

Anoth­er trend Lynn said must be tak­en into account in pos­tur­ing the mil­i­tary for the future is the increas­ing preva­lence of asym­met­ric threats.

Rec­og­niz­ing that they can’t go up against the Unit­ed States mil­i­tar­i­ly, adver­saries use asym­met­ric approach­es that Lynn said “tar­get our weak­ness­es and under­cut our advan­tages.”

As a result, “insur­gents such as the Tal­iban and al-Qai­da in Iraq avoid engag­ing our mil­i­tary in direct force-on-force engage­ments,” he said. “Instead, they use IEDs and assas­si­na­tion as their weapons, and they hope to use the longer dura­tion of war to wait us out.”

Tra­di­tion­al pow­ers also seek asym­met­ric capa­bil­i­ties, increas­ing­ly turn­ing to area-denial and anti-access tac­tics through the pro­lif­er­a­tion of pre­ci­sion-strike weapons, he said.

Sophis­ti­cat­ed pre­ci­sion-strike tech­nolo­gies, once exclu­sive to the Unit­ed States and its allies, will be avail­able to more nations in the next 10 to 20 years, Lynn said. This will have a cumu­la­tive effect he said will chal­lenge U.S. pow­er-pro­jec­tion to dis­tant parts of the globe.

“To address these anti-access tac­tics and defeat area-denial strate­gies, we need to devel­op a range of capa­bil­i­ties, par­tic­u­lar­ly mis­sile defense and long-range strike,” Lynn said. He cit­ed major invest­ments being made in a long-range strike sys­tem that will enable the Unit­ed States to pen­e­trate defens­es and deliv­er muni­tions world­wide.

Lynn also cit­ed the poten­tial use of asym­met­ric tac­tics in cyber­space — a devel­op­ment he said that would threat­en the Inter­net tech­nol­o­gy that increas­ing­ly under­pins U.S. mil­i­tary and eco­nom­ic strength.

The cyber threat is matur­ing, Lynn said. Not only are its effects esca­lat­ing, but more capa­bil­i­ties are being devel­oped with­in ter­ror­ist groups which are hard to deter because they typ­i­cal­ly have few assets to strike back against.

“If a ter­ror­ist group gains a dis­rup­tive and destruc­tive capa­bil­i­ty, we have to assume they will strike with lit­tle hes­i­ta­tion,” he warned. “So in cyber, we have a win­dow of oppor­tu­ni­ty to act before the most mali­cious actors acquire the most destruc­tive tech­nolo­gies. We need to con­tin­ue mov­ing aggres­sive­ly to pro­tect our mil­i­tary, gov­ern­ment and crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture net­works.”

Look­ing to the future, Lynn said the chal­lenge is to nav­i­gate cur­rent fis­cal cir­cum­stances with­out dis­rupt­ing the capa­bil­i­ties of the world’s most effec­tive mil­i­tary force.

“We need to make the right judg­ments about the nature of our future secu­ri­ty envi­ron­ment,” he said.

“We need to invest in the right capa­bil­i­ties and force struc­ture that address the trends in war­fare, … and we need to relent­less­ly adapt our tech­nol­o­gy and our doc­trine as threats evolve and mature,” Lynn said. “If we do these things, we will ensure our forces are ready for the future of war.”

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →