One, the defense strategy to "pre-emptive" change
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has become the world's only superpower. Since it had no military rivals, its defense strategy was mainly based on "deterrence". However, shortly after the start of the first term of the Bush administration, the sudden encounter with the "9.11" incident changed many of the inherent concepts of the Americans, but also caused a change in their military strategic thinking. The "9.11" incident made Americans realize that terrorism has become the main form of threat in the new century, and "asymmetric warfare", which is based on the war on terrorism, has also become a new form of warfare. Due to the hidden nature of terrorism and the suddenness of the future threat of uncertainty, that is, do not know the future risk will be when, where, in what way, therefore, the United States will need to adjust its national defense strategy, which is the "pre-emptive" national defense strategy introduced in the background.
"Pre-emptive" national defense strategy, and the United States has long insisted on the "deterrence" strategy corresponds to the United States as a new defense strategy. Its main purpose is to prevent problems before they occur, and to defeat adversaries before they act when they perceive a threat to the United States. That is, in the past, the United States was mainly through the deterrence of the enemy to achieve their own security, and now attempts to pre-emptive strategy, rapid defeat of the enemy, from the strategic defense of the United States and its allies security. As U.S. Undersecretary of State Armitage said, "We don't give our enemies the opportunity to strike first against us or against our friends and allies, whether those friends and allies are Arab states or Israel." Under this doctrine, the U.S. has the right to determine who poses a threat to U.S. security and to take military action, even if that threat does not actually exist. The central thrust of the program is that the U.S. wants to exclude any rivals beforehand, establish world peace under U.S. might, and maintain U.S. global hegemony.
At the same time, in order to adapt to the changes in the "pre-emptive" national defense strategy, to better respond to present and future threats and to protect the security of the United States, the United States in 2004 established effective strategic objectives and risk management mechanism, this new balance of risk mechanism, including not only the direct war planning risk, but also the risk of force personnel management and military transformation risks, i.e., reducing force management risks, reducing operational risks, reducing institutional risks, and reducing risks of future challenges. This will help us achieve the strategic goal of strengthening the force, effectively preventing the occurrence of traditional threats such as large-scale wars, and preventing new types of threats such as terrorist attacks, computer network warfare, and nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons attacks, so as to protect U.S. security and safeguard U.S. national interests. The Iraq war is the first practice of the "pre-emptive" national defense strategy, marking the post-Cold War U.S. strategic thinking after more than a decade of exploration and practice, there has been a major change.
Second, the military model to the "ability-based" transformation
In order to match the transformation of the national defense strategy, the U.S. military model requires that the focus on building the ability to respond to the new threats of the 21st century, rather than just responding to the threats and needs of a particular region. "Defense plans are developed not only to defend against those threats that are known, but also to address those that are unknown; to focus not only on who? will threaten the United States when and where, but more importantly, in what ways, and what capabilities are needed to counter unknown threats." [1] Therefore, a paradigm shift to "capability-based" military building is needed to ultimately give the U.S. military absolute superiority at all times, to stay ahead of all hostile nations in order to "pre-empt" and defend the U.S. and its allies from military capabilities, and to minimize security threats to the U.S. at all times. The threat to U.S. security at all times is minimized.
After nearly three years of exploration of "capability-based" military building, and after the test of the "war on terror", it should be seen that the U.S. military "capability-based" (rather than the traditional). The "capability-based" (rather than the traditional "threat-based") model of the U.S. military has basically been finalized. In the second term of the Bush administration, this model will be continuously enriched and improved. The U.S. has defined the "capability-based" model as a "1-4-2-1" model. The "1" is to protect the U.S. homeland, the "4" is to deter hostilities in four overseas regions (Europe, Northeast Asia, Southeast Asian coastal zone, and the Middle East8 Southwest Asia), and the "2" is to rapidly defeat the United States in two simultaneous wars. 2" is the rapid defeat of the enemy in 2 simultaneous wars, and "1" is a decisive victory in at least 1 of those wars. The so-called "1-4-2-1" model means that the structure and size of the force are determined according to the above indicators. In order to achieve this goal, the U.S. military is not to enhance its strength through the expansion of the army, but through military transformation to achieve a substantial increase in the combat effectiveness of the force.
In support of the "capability-based" model, the Bush administration has continued to increase defense spending and has shifted the focus of the defense budget to building the U.S. military's ability to respond to the threats of the 21st Century.
The 2005 defense budget, which totaled $425 billion, was a record high, and the theme of which was The theme of the 2005 defense budget, which totaled a record $425 billion, was "Responding to Current Threats, Preparing for Future Challenges," with an emphasis on "Winning the Global War on Terrorism" and "Continuing to Transform the Force to Meet the Threats We Face in 2010 and Beyond". ". It fully supports the "transformation of military forces", the elimination of equipment that does not fit strategic needs, and the development of "new types of weaponry and military technology for the 21st century". In addition, in order to build a new capability-based military force, the FY2005 defense budget strengthens investments in new equipment technology development, missile defense, information and intelligence, space, and force protection.
Third, the military transformation to the "comprehensive advance" change
In order to realize the pre-emptive defense strategy, to build a capable force to meet the new challenges of the 21st century, to win the global war on terrorism, the maximum possible to defend the U.S. security, the U.S. military must be transformed. In the 2003 Defense Report, the U.S. Army defined transformation as a dynamic process of continuous change with dynamic metrics, and the 2004 Defense Report continues to develop this concept. The U.S. Department of Defense believes that the most reliable way to measure transformation is to observe how the culture is changing? As U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld put it, "We are doing our best to foster the development of a culture of unconventional thinking-a climate of freedom and flexibility in which people can be willing to try new things. ...... This culture is not waiting for threats to emerge and confirm them, but anticipating them before they do - and rapidly developing and utilizing innovative capabilities to dissuade and deter those threats." [2] Thus, the use of innovative ideas and methods to deter the emergence of new threats is the essence of transformation, and in 2004, the overarching goal of transformation was identified as achieving "full-spectrum dominance" of the military, and the strategic attempt to transform the U.S. military was identified as a top-down attempt to build a culture of innovation that would continuously drive the U.S. military to continue to transform, to widen the gap with other nations (including the United States), and to increase the gap between the U.S. military and the rest of the world. To widen the gap between the military capabilities of the United States and those of other countries (including both potential rivals and allies), to maintain the United States' global leadership, to seize the opportunities of international strategic competition in the 21st century, to reduce the risks of future challenges, to realize the national strategic goal of the United States of America to dominate the new international order, and to safeguard the global interests of the United States.
The year of 2004 is the year that the U.S. military comprehensively pushes forward the military transformation, due to the characteristics of the transformation requirements, time ahead of the opponent, the rapid mobility of the troops, the accuracy of the intelligence, the precision of the weapons, and the joint operation, therefore, the construction of the transformation aspect in the year of 2004 mainly includes: increasing the expenditure on the transformation, putting forward the U.S. military transformation concept, restructuring the deployment of the military forces overseas, developing the modularized force, and experimenting with the joint operation, the acquisition of new equipment, and the reform of the Defense Department. acquisition of new equipment, and reform of Department of Defense operations.
Proposing the "10-30-30" U.S. military transformation concept. That is, once the decision is made to use force, the U.S. military should complete combat readiness within 10 days and move to a predetermined area, take 30 days to defeat the enemy and make it incapable of resuming organized counter-attacks in the foreseeable future; and then take another 30 days to adjust the deployment and prepare for a new round of combat missions in any part of the globe. Under this Rumsfeld model of transformation, which takes 70 days to fight a war, the U.S. military could fight five wars in one year.
Adjusting Overseas Military Deployments. To realize the transformation concept, the United States began the largest redeployment of military forces overseas since the end of World War II. In Europe, the U.S. has reduced the number of troops in Western Europe, sought to establish new "forward operating bases" in Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, and expanded the deployment of troops to Eastern Europe. In the Western Pacific region, strengthening the command and control capabilities of U.S. forces in Japan, the formation of the Northeast Asia Command Center, and strengthening the air and sea forces on Guam; the U.S. military in South Korea will be relocated to the south in phases, a relocation plan that means that U.S. forces can avoid being directly threatened by North Korea while at the same time warning North Korea that U.S. forces may take some kind of military action against it after it is freed from the threat. In Central Asia, the U.S. military has set up a number of military bases and strengthened consultations with Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and other countries, seeking to increase the number of military bases and strengthen the military presence.
Increase Transformation Spending.FY 2005 continues to increase investment in military transformation, in terms of investment areas, manifested in the military technology, weaponry, military training and many other aspects of the investment of large amounts of money. At the same time, continue to support the six transformation warfighting goals: First, to defend the U.S. homeland and overseas operating bases; second, to the long-distance theater of operations to deliver and maintain military power; third, to be able to strike at any corner of the earth on the enemy to destroy the enemy's sanctuary; fourth, to improve the ability to fight in space to maintain the United States unimpeded access to space; fifth, to utilize information technology to connect the various branches of the military forces, the implementation of the joint war; sixth, to protect U.S. information networks from the United States, and to protect the information network from the United States. ; and six is to protect U.S. information networks from attack while paralyzing enemy information networks. [3] The FY 2005 defense budget invests $30 billion in support of these six goals, a 23.5 percent increase from the FY 2004 level of $24.3 billion.
Fourth, force building to "adapt to the needs of the mission"
Under the guidance of the National Defense Transformation Strategy, the primary military mission of the U.S. military forces is to: Defend the security of the United States and its allies; Deter aggression and threats ahead of time in key areas; and Defeat aggression quickly in two overlapping large-scale conflicts while preserving for the President the option of a decisive victory in the conflict, including the possibility of regime change or the imposition of occupation; and to conduct a limited number of small-scale contingency operations. [4] U.S. force building should ultimately aim to satisfy the above military missions, and therefore, the goal of army building is to build a light, fast-moving, flexible, efficient, modular, networked joint force that meets the needs of 21st Century warfighting missions, using the least amount of money possible.
1. Building the "joint force"
The joint force is able to combine the forces of the military services, combatant commands, other government agencies, and multinational partners to achieve holistic effectiveness. The Joint Force has a higher level of interoperability and "joint-specific" systems, i.e., systems that are planned and designed using joint architectures and acquisition strategies. This interoperability will ensure that technology, doctrine, and culture do not limit the Joint Command's ability to achieve objectives so that joint force capabilities can be increased to reduce operational risk.
The characteristics of the joint force are: fully integrated, expeditionary, networked, distributed joint warfighting capability, adaptable, decision advantage, and lethal. "Full integration" is the main goal of the future construction of the joint force, aimed at fundamentally solving the problem of the military and military forces are difficult to form an organic whole, unable to maximize combat effectiveness. First, starting with a change in mindset, every possible means should be taken to eliminate the institutional obstacles and constraints of the forces of the various military services; second, the three armies should form new modular units and combine them during wartime, so as to fully dissolve the different operational functions and form an organic whole, and ultimately realize the full integration of the various forces and generate highly centralized and unified combat power; and, third, the joint capabilities of the various military services, theater-level commands, and operational support departments should be strengthened, and ultimately fully integrated. Again, the joint capabilities of the services, theater-level commands, and combat support elements will be strengthened and eventually fully integrated. Ultimately, the joint force commander will have a combat force that is inherently interoperable and synergistic with joint warfighting capabilities.
Expeditionary warfare capability is the ability of units of the joint force to rapidly deploy, rapidly deploy, and sustain operations in the global battlespace in any location, in any environment, even if they cannot be supported by existing U.S. military bases of all types. This requires the U.S. military's future joint forces must significantly improve the independent combat capability, the air force to focus on the development of long-distance delivery capabilities. To this end, the U.S. military requires the relevant forces stationed at home, abroad or the implementation of forward deployment must be properly organized, so that in the case of not being able to get support security can also give full play to the U.S. military in the intelligence and mobility and other aspects of the advantage, quickly into combat and victory.
In order to realize the joint force, in 2004, the U.S. Army focused on building a light, modular, networked, rapid response, combat effectiveness of the "target force", and ultimately to achieve: in the right place at the right time, the right deployment of the right forces. In the next 10 years, the Pentagon intends to the Army's 10 major combat divisions, divided into "three steps", that is, from the "traditional forces" through the "transition force", to the "target force". "target force" model, converted into a smaller, easy to rapidly deploy "target force". The U.S. Army is now each division of the establishment of 15,000 to 20,000 people, after the transformation of the combat brigade establishment of only 3,000 to 5,000 people. The mobility of this new formation is greatly enhanced, and it can be deployed to hot spots around the world as quickly as possible, making it easier to temporarily coordinate operations with other military services. The future U.S. Army will be a force that integrates airborne and infantry units with tanks, armored vehicles and other firepower. Such a U.S. Army will truly establish total dominance in war, with the ability to fully execute U.S. military strategic missions.
In fiscal year 2005, the Army increased investment in "target force" construction, of which, $3 billion for the development of "future combat systems", an increase of 76% over last year. The "target force" is characterized by a combination of the advantages of heavy and light troops. Currently, the U.S. Army is replacing its current armored vehicles with lightweight "Shrike" armored vehicles, and the units are equipped with lightweight towed artillery. The recent formation of the STRIKER armored brigade is an indication that the U.S. Army's transformation program is on schedule. It is foreseeable that a "lean and efficient" new army combat force will become the master of the land battlefield.
2. Military personnel more favorable treatment
The U.S. Army believes that high-quality military personnel is the embodiment of the U.S. Army's level of readiness, is the key to victory or defeat in the war, is to meet the needs of the military mission of the foundation is a guarantee of the country's security. To build a joint force, it is necessary to use generous treatment, build a reasonable size of high-quality military personnel to serve the force. 2005 U.S. Army has taken the following measures to attract and retain military personnel: First, increase the level of pay, the cost of fiscal year 2004 for the military personnel side of $98.9 billion, an increase of $ 5.5 billion over the previous year, an average of military personnel to raise wages by 4.15 percent. In 2005, military personnel received a general pay increase of 3.5%; second, improving the quality of military benefits and their family life, improving work and living facilities, increasing the level of medical care for all three branches of the military, increasing the basic housing allowance for military personnel, reducing the military personnel's own share of housing expenses to zero in FY2005, permanently increasing the hazardous area allowance by $225 per month, and permanently increasing the monthly military family separation allowance by 250 dollars. Third, to provide military personnel with a full range of battlefield protection, and, at the same time, to provide combatants with a better joint professional military education in order to provide more joint experience, education, and training so that they can integrate with high-tech equipment as quickly as possible, and the fastest way to combat effectiveness. This reflects the U.S. military in order to meet the new operational mission needs of the information age, pay great attention to the provision of generous treatment for high-quality military personnel in order to prompt them to work for the army.
3. combat mode to "joint operations" change
Joint operations is the military branches under the control of a single commander *** with the implementation of the combat mode, give full play to the military branches of the overall power of the forces involved in the war is the implementation of the effectiveness of the pursuit of the goal of joint operations. The U.S. military's idea of joint and integrated warfare based on communication and coordination has been more fully realized on the Iraqi battlefield. In addition to more advanced means of combating, the command and control system enables effective integration of military forces and command centers, and the actions of the military services are highly joint, reducing the risk of future challenges.
Full networking is a prerequisite for future joint operations, so the network interconnection of the military services, real-time information **** enjoyment has become the basis for joint operations. In the Iraq war, the U.S. military can successfully implement joint operations, mainly relying on the joint operations network center to achieve the joint information, able to unify the command of all participating forces in combat. The network system links thousands of command organizations and stores a large amount of data and information, so that the U.S. military commanders can understand the battle situation in a timely and rapid manner. Network-centered warfare follows the network principle of "Mantecarfe's Law" of unlimited potential, and therefore, network capability is a force multiplier. Network-centric warfare theoretically has unlimited operational potential and development prospects. the defense budget invested in 12 network-centric warfare development projects in fiscal year 2003, increasing to 33 in fiscal year 2004, and the Department of Defense hopes to conduct about 50 network-centric warfare development projects in fiscal year 2005.
The focus of the warfighting transformation is on the development of future joint warfighting doctrine. The U.S. Army believes that Future Joint Warfare Doctrine is key to the Department of Defense's transformation strategy and encompasses all areas that underpin U.S. military capabilities. The U.S. military will continue to develop joint warfighting transformation in three phases: near-term (2-3 years) Joint Warfighting Operations, which revises the combatant commands' war plans, lessons learned from operations and training, and joint orders; mid-term (5 years) Joint Programs, which develops an overarching framework for joint warfighting doctrine and guides the development of the four next levels of joint warfighting doctrine, namely, homeland security, stability preserving operations, strategic deterrence, and large-scale warfare operations; and the long-range (15-20 years) Joint Concept, which is to revise the current Joint Concept to make it an overview document for long-term joint warfare. It is foreseeable that the U.S. Army's joint warfighting doctrine will have a major breakthrough in the medium and long term.
Build more effective institutions for joint warfare training and enhanced joint operations. Establish permanent joint commands in combatant commands around the world that will be equipped with state-of-the-art command, control, computer, communications, intelligence, and surveillance equipment, and whose personnel will be trained in joint warfare. complete conceptual testing of the Standing Joint Forces Command (SJFHQ) model in FY2004, and roll it out to regional commands worldwide in FY2005. permanent Joint Command facilitates the rapid use of cross-Service capability industries to respond to contingencies and crises that occur around the world. Training servicemembers with joint warfighting knowledge and techniques and establishing a Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) facilitates joint forces to train and gain comparable experience at the operational and tactical levels. "Once realized, the JNTC will be able to provide realistic training to the Joint Force and support battlefield situational awareness, a new training capability that will better prepare the Joint Force for asymmetric challenges and threats.
Fifth, the equipment acquisition to the future operational needs of the transformation
In order to match the construction of the force, the need to develop a new type of weaponry adapted to future operations. Several recent wars, so that the Americans y realize that high-tech weapons have immense power and irreplaceable role. Therefore, the United States has been accelerating the pace of development of new weapons, and cancel the equipment does not adapt to the needs of future operations. 2005 fiscal year to pay more attention to the acquisition of new weapons and equipment to adapt to the needs of future operations and technology, for military scientific research, development, testing and evaluation of the cost of 68.9 billion U.S. dollars, $ 47.4 billion in 2002, an increase of 45%; for the purchase of new equipment cost 74.9 billion U.S. dollars, compared with the previous year's 74.2 billion U.S. dollars growth in the cost of the new equipment. the previous year's $74.2 billion, a modest increase, but the structure has been adjusted.
The U.S. Army's military research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) budget is mainly invested in operational research and development, systems research and demonstration, basic research, applied research, advanced technology development, advanced component development and prototyping. In the FY 2005 military budget, the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) fee focuses on supporting research and development of key technologies and equipment needed for future operations. Also, funds for military transformation are primarily listed in the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) program. These funds will be used primarily for the development and improvement of software and hardware technologies for the U.S. military transformation efforts, particularly in the areas of readiness training, force protection, operational speed, synergy, intelligence information, precision weapons, unmanned platforms, and command and control capabilities in order to take full advantage of the new operational advantages and capabilities provided by advanced unmanned combat platforms in the global war on terrorism.
The U.S. military cuts conventional equipment and spends the money it saves on the development of high-tech equipment such as missile defense systems (NMD), long-range stealth bombers and unmanned aircraft. In this atmosphere, the Pentagon in May 2002 cut the Army "Crusader" self-propelled artillery contract worth up to 11 billion U.S. dollars, and in 2004 canceled the RAH-66 "Comanche" helicopter program, turning to the development of unmanned aircraft. The reason is that when the "Comanche" was designed to fight against the former Soviet army large-scale tank group combat, obviously does not meet the requirements of modern warfare, with the booming development of drone technology, "Comanche" this lethal weapon has fallen far behind the times. With the ability to strike the UAV precisely has a "low-cost, high efficiency" characteristics, although still in continuous improvement, but in order to improve the battlefield real-time reconnaissance capabilities, the U.S. Army has clearly put forward a new generation of UAV development direction: long endurance, stealth, airborne early warning, marking the UAV to become the main force of the battlefield strikes has been not far away.
In addition, the defense budget for fiscal year 2005 will also invest $10 billion to safeguard the missile defense system, an increase of 20% over last year, the increase in the top of all weapons systems. Among other things, it provides $9.1 billion for the Missile Defense Agency for the development and deployment of missile defense systems, at the top of all weapons systems. The Bush administration has decided to deploy a defense system with a limited ability to intercept ballistic missiles within two years, and its specific plans are: in fiscal year 2004, the deployment of 10 ground-based interceptors; in 2005, the plan to establish a 20 land-based missile interception system (ground-based interceptor) and 10 sea-based missile interception system (sea-based interceptor), while hardware and software equipment for early missile warning radars and command and control systems will be upgraded. In fiscal year 2005 also invested $487 million to purchase 108 sets of "Patriot - 3" type missiles, $9.8 billion for missile research, development, test and evaluation (RDT& E). In addition, according to the budget, the Missile Defense Agency will also invest $239 million in 2005, specifically for the development and improvement of the Joint Ground-based Cruise Missile Defense System, and ground-based intermediate-range air defense missiles into the architecture of the cruise missile defense system, to accelerate the development of an integrated fire control system and networked sensor systems, and strive to build the first integrated fire control capabilities of the first missile defense force by 2010. force.
Sixth, the Department of Defense management to "efficient operation" change
In the investment in force building and weapons and equipment development at the same time, reorganization of the Department of Defense management, reduce waste, reduce institutional risk, and efficient use of military resources has become one of the main elements of the defense policy in fiscal year 2004. While increasing defense investment, improving the efficiency of the use of military resources can also enhance the military strength of the U.S. military. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) believes that the current DoD official processing procedures are too numerous and inefficient to respond to uncertain threats in a timely and effective manner. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that in 1962, the U.S. defense issues related to the approval process of only one page of paper, but in 2001, it was 534 pages. The U.S. Department of Defense submits 26,000 pages of justification to Congress every year. As a result, office procedures are being transformed to "produce timely results that are responsive to the security challenges of the 21st century." In addition, the U.S. Department of Defense in the development of plans, weapons and equipment development "spiral development", procurement cycle, resource allocation plan development, etc. are aimed at future needs, efficient operation, from the enhancement of U.S. military capabilities to improve the effectiveness of the office.
The reform of the Department of Defense focuses on streamlining the decision-making process, improving financial management, and optimizing the procurement process. The U.S. military learned from the Iraq War that the acquisition system could not respond in a timely manner to the urgent equipment needs of the combatant commanders, so the wartime rapid acquisition reform was implemented in 2004, with the goal that contracts should be signed within 15 days from the receipt of the combatant commander's requirements. Improve business processes to standardize and integrate DoD business processes and financial management systems, and improved financial operations will ensure that DoD decision makers have access to timely and reliable financial data to effectively manage defense spending. Streamline and reduce duplication by distinguishing between core and non-core DOD functions, rationalizing the outsourcing of non-core functions, and staffing core functions with appropriate human resources to improve operational capabilities. Assess some defense assets, reduce unnecessary equipment, and improve the operational readiness and quality of important facilities. Strengthen the electronic construction of the Ministry of Defense to reduce transaction costs and improve resource efficiency. Optimizing the procurement process and shortening the defense procurement cycle can easily control the overall program spending.
VII. Conclusion
The national defense strategy has been transformed to "pre-emptive", the army building model to "capability-based", the military transformation to "comprehensive advancement", and the force building to adapt to the needs of the mission. The transformation of the U.S. defense strategy to "pre-emptive", the military model to "capability-based", the military transformation to "comprehensive advancement", the transformation of the force construction to adapt to the needs of the mission, the transformation of the mode of operation to joint operation, the transformation of weapons and equipment to adapt to the needs of the future operation, and the transformation of the Department of Defense (DOD) management to efficient operation are all the main elements of the U.S. military transformation, and the focus of the U.S. defense policy and military construction in 2004. These changes are made by the United States to better respond to the changes in the international security environment, and their ultimate purpose is to maximize the possibility of safeguarding the national interests of the United States. At the same time, these adjustments also follow a basic law of economics: under different conditions, the use of the least amount of military spending inputs, to get the maximum military benefits.