via: The Daily Caller
Joseph Miller is
the pen name for a ranking Department of Defense official with a
background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and
Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.
The report is in, and the review of the president’s foreign policy is
clear: If there is not an immediate course-reversal, the United States
is in serious danger.In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.
On July 31, the National Defense
Panel released its long-awaited report on the effects of the QDR and
delivered its findings to Congress. The panel pulled no punches — its
findings were a scathing indictment of Obama’s foreign policy, national
security policy, and defense policy. The panel found that president
Barack Obama’s QDR, military force reductions, and trillion-dollar
defense budget cuts are dangerous — and will leave the country in a
position where it is unable to respond to threats to our nation’s
security. This, the panel concluded, must be reversed as soon as
possible.
In particular, the report
addresses the need for the administration to return to the flexible
response doctrine — a policy where the military was tasked with being
capable of fighting two wars at the same time. Given the current state
of affairs and the threats posed to our nation, the panel felt that the
two-war doctrine was still required to meet our nation’s national
security challenges. The man-power reductions and budget cuts are both
reflections of this change in policy, so it must be altered before that
is possible.
So what is the flexible response doctrine, and why is it so important?
In 1961, the Kennedy
administration sought to remake U.S. defense doctrine after concluding
that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “New Look” doctrine, which
focused on mutually-assured destruction, was inappropriate for the Cold
War. Kennedy decided that the United States would adopt a “Flexible
Response Doctrine,” in which we would hold adversaries at bay through
strategic deterrence and the ability to fight two wars — plus a smaller
conflict — at the same time. That doctrine carried the United States
through the Cold War and all of the other so-called shooting wars that
followed, despite numerous challenges from nation states and non-state
actors alike.
In 2012, the Obama administration
decided to change the two-and-a-half war policy of the Flexible
Response doctrine, in part due to the nation’s war fatigue, after having
been at war for over a decade, and also in response to budgetary
constraints exacerbated by a sluggish economy. The administration
announced its intentions to significantly reduce the defense budget and
re-examine the acquisition of major defense systems and hardware,
shaping the future size and scope of the U.S. military. Given that Obama
was first elected on an antiwar platform, this decision seems
reasonable.
Here’s the problem: At the time
the Obama administration announced the change in our defense doctrine,
the president was also in front of the cameras threatening to use
military force in Iran and Syria, announcing a “strategic pivot” toward
Asia to counter a rising China, and swearing to uphold our defense
treaties with Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, NATO, etc, all while we were
still at war in Afghanistan. How can you threaten to take military
action that could start a war when you are already fighting one in
Afghanistan if you have changed your military doctrine to only fight one
war at a time?
Some detractors may argue that
this is a good thing, because it will prevent the president from
starting another war. It’s worth pointing out that not all wars are of
our choosing. The U.S. went to war twice in the last 50 years because
our homeland was attacked by enemy forces. And unlike World War II, the
enemy has not been defeated — even though the president plans to
withdraw our forces from Afghanistan and has chosen to not take decisive
action against these enemies in Iraq, Syria, Africa, etc. — an enemy
that still seeks to do us harm. The next war may not be of our choosing.
And the enemy has pledged to do just that.
What is even more distressing is
that this doctrine will trickle down into military acquisition strategy.
The U.S. Navy purchases ships that will be in service for 50 years.
That means that the ships we buy today will make up the Navy’s fleet in
2065. The change in military doctrine that Obama directed will have a
negative effect on the size and shape of our armed forces for decades to
come. With a rising China, a re-emerging Russia, and a continued threat
of global terrorism, who knows if at that time, the U.S. will be able
to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
Former Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the
army you want.” He was criticized for that remark, but it reflected the
reality that he had to go to war with — an Army that had been hollowed
out after the Gulf War by the Clinton administration. War is not a video
game. You cannot hit the pause button on a crisis and ask the defense
industrial base and the armed services to give you what you need to
fight a war. That only comes from long-term acquisition strategy driven
by doctrine that accurately reflects future threats.
If the administration does not
reverse course on its defense strategy and ask congressional Democrats
to reverse defense spending cuts, then our nation will find itself in a
position where it is unable to defend itself and could become the victim
of terrorism on U.S. soil once again.
Join the conversation on The Daily Caller
Join the conversation on The Daily Caller
Read more stories from The Daily Caller
