Berkley Bedell Blog

Step Three: Active Duty Forces

 

If current U.S. armed forces are too large yet ill-prepared to face the real threats of today’s world, and if this can be changed, what should replace them?  And how can it be accomplished?

 

U.S. Marines—as of Feb. 5, 2007, there were 179,695 U.S. Marines.  If we drop our imperialistic pretensions, stop maintaining outdated policies and the means to execute them, recognize that we are not going to fight Russia or anyone else in a conventional war, discontiune a foreign policy that sanctions invading sovereign countries, and cease trying to dominate the world through a worldwide network of military installations this is more than enough conventional fighting force to defend us.

 

U.S. Navy—our present Navy has 332,000 personnel, 280 ships and 3,700 aircraft; this is ridiculous.  Like so much of our military, it is several times overkill and under no believable scenario will it ever be utilized in  the conflicts of the future.  Huge naval battles are no more concievable than another land war in Europe.  And because of staellite reconnissance and anti-ship missiles surface ships today are sitting ducks.

Navy units are necessary to suppport the Marines.  We need a  number of what are called expeditionary strike groups.  Each consists of an amphibious assault ship (looks like a small aircraft carrier), a dock landing ship, an amphibious transport dock, a Marine expeditionary unit, airplanes, three kinds of heliocopters—heavy-lift, medium-lift and combat—and often cruisers, destroyers and attack submarines.  We do not, however, need the current 12; six groups would still leave us with more of this type of moveable and self-sustaining force than all our potential enemies combined. 

As progress is made on nuclear bomb elimination, the Navy of the future would begin to completely phase out ballistic submarines; of those remaining, some would be mothballed and some, now called attack submarines, would be shifted to a mission that is strictly defense.

 

As further support for the Marines, several aircraft carrier strike groups would be retained.  They consist of a super carrier, air wing, three destroyers, one or two guided missile cruisers, two or three guided missile destroyers, two attack submarines and a supply ship.  These floating bases, each with 10,000 people, now exist primarily to demonstrate our power anywhere in the world, an existence that is necessary only to sustain imperialism, it has nothing to do with protection of Americans.  Again, reducing the present 12 to six—two at sea, two in port ready for sea, two training and refitting—would be sufficient.

 

Navy Special Warfare (NSW) units include sea, air and land forces—SEALs—as well as special warfare combatant-craft crewmen, who maintain and operate an inventory of high-performance boats and ships used for special operations missions and to support the SEALs.  NSW has 5,400 active duty personnel including 2,450 SEALs and 600 combatant-craft crewmen plus support persons and would be retained as an asset in future small unit and anti-guerilla conflicts. 

 

All other Navy operations would be subject to an eight-year program called Shutdown, Trim, Eliminate and Mothball (STEM).  All operations should be examined with the objects of shutting down unneeded foreign and domestic ports and bases; trimming manpower; eliminating unnecessary weapons systems and other equipment; and mothballing ships and planes.  Normal separation and retirement would take care of most of the manpower reduction with positions in the reserves offered as an alternative.

 

Even if only the modest goal of a 50 percent cut for the Navy is achieved, its budget would be reduced from the 2009 level of $150 billion to $75 billion.

  

U.S. Army—a standing Army the size of which we now have is justified by neither national defense nor cost; it mostly serves to further our imperialistic pretensions.  A plan to eliminate the Army as it now exists should be undertaken through STEM.  The first step would be to analyze all operational aspects in order to begin a phased shutting down of unneeded foreign and domestic bases, forts, camps and centers; trimming manpower; eliminating unnecessary weapons systems and other equipment; and mothballing what might be needed in the future.  Soldiers would be given retirement packages, retrained for civilian occupations and offered positions in the reserves.

 

The Army now has seven Special Forces units each responsible for eight missions: unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, special reconnaissance, direct action, counter-terrorism, counter proliferation, psychological operations and information operations.  The units consists of three battalions and up to 3,600 soldiers; total strength is 25,000 well-trained individuals.

 

Although generally stationed in the U.S., each Special Forces unit is responsible for one of the seven geograhic areas into which the world has been divided for purposes of their missions.  For example, the 5^th Special Forces Group, headquartered at Fort Campbell, Ky., has responsibility for the Middle East, Persian Gulf, central Asia and northeast Africa.  These units would continue to have primary responsibility for dealing with terrorists and other non-conventional threats, including developing the systems to counter novel weaponry.

 

U.S. Air Force—the entire Air Force would be subject to STEM.  For this branch in particular the key point would be defense of the United States.  Our redundant nuclear capability, thousands of U.S. based planes, and the need for bombing missions to support invasions must be critically scrutinized.  Most offensive weapons should be eliminated.  A defensive force of 1,200 fighter planes and 43,500 personnel could be permanently retained in addition to what the Air Force needs temporarily to accomlpish its role in nuclear deterrence as discussed earlier.

 

The 10 existing special Air Force units should also be retained.  Their mission would continue to be providing forward presence and engagement, information operations, precision employment and strike, and special operations forces mobility.  Total manpower is approximately 12,000.

 

The bottom line—at the end of the eight-year STEM plan, a mobile, equipped and ready active force of just under 450,000 persons at an annual cost of $275 billion would be in place as the our first line of defense and to deal with any crisis.  

 

Here’s a summary of personnel required and the cost in millions of dollars:

 

Defense Need	Personnel	Cost
Nuclear deterrence	10,000	$ 20,000
Enforce nuclear non-possession	500	31,500
U.S. Marines	180,000	81,000
Navy conventional force	166,000	80,000
Navy Special Warfare	5,400	2,430
Army Special Forces	25,000	11,250
Air Force conventional force	50,000	43,500
Air Force special force	12,000	5,400
TOTALS	448,900	$275,080

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compare these totals to what is current: 1,377,474 active duty service persons at a projected 2009 cost of $515.4 billion, not including special war appropriations—Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step Two: Nuclear Ban Enforcement

In 1968, 138 countries agreed to nuclear non-proliferation.  If a United Nations mandate is in place, it would require a commitment of only 500 troops by each of these countries to create a truly multinational U.N. force of nearly 70,000 troops to be made responsible for enforcing non-posssession.  Logistics would be challenging but not impossible if the urgency of their mission was apparent and well defined.  If trained as both soldiers and inspectors and backed by the regular forces of powers such as the United States, Russia, China and Great Britain, no country could stand in the way of their mission.

 

Cost of the force would be $31.5 billion, based on the current expense of $450,000 for each fully-equipped service person in Iraq.  Even if the United States paid all costs the total is well below what we spend now on our nuclear arsenal.

 

When the day dawns on a nuclear-free world, this force would either be disbanded or what had been learned from the cooperative effort could be applied to other international issues such as enforcement of the cluster bomb ban enacted by more than 100 nations (not including China, Russia or the United States) in December of 2008—Jim Frost.

 

Step One: Nuclear Deterrence

Until nuclear weapons are eliminated from earth, the threat of attack, howevere remote, must be considered.  The two possible scenarios are massive attack from a nuclear power or limited attack by a terrorist or rogue government.

 

Prevention of a massive attack will continue to be based on the policy of mutually assured destruction; its threat is a decreasing possibility.  Indeed, since the dawn of the nuclear age in 1945, the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 is the one time we came close to unlimited war.  Of course, it only takes one time but for the good of mankind our emphasis must be on elimination of nuclear weapons as opposed to continuing to rely on fear of them as the means to avoid earth’s annihilationn.  However, until elimination is accomplished, the threat must be accepted.

 

But let’s be real.  Given that the U.S. no longer has a superpower adversary, do we really need to spend $40 billion annually on a nuclear force?  Do we really need 500 Minuteman missiles, 336 submarine-deployed Trident missiles and a fleet of bombers (already planned to be replaced in 2018 by a new fleet)?  Because SALT II failed, some of this weasponry is fitted with mutiple warheards so even after recent cutbacks our total active firepower is still 1,430 megatons.  Hiroshima’s Little Boy was .013 megaton.  

 

For political and diplomatic as well as financial and humanatarian purposes, an immdiate pledge by the United States to eliminate 50 percent of this arsenal and drop plans for new bombers would not reduce our ability to defend ourselves one bit.  It would show the world we are serious about eliminating the possibility of nuclear holocaust and save us billions in the process.  And even with half the ballistic missiles, we would have 55,000 times what we used at Hiroshima plus vastly superior systems for delivery.

 

When the ability to acquire these weapons is gone, and when the materials and information necessary for their production are controlled, the chance that they will be used by terrorists or rogue states will also be virtually gone.  Enforcement of the United Nations mandated ban, upgraded intelligence and astute diplomacy would emiminate it completely—Berkley Bedell.

Defense: What Must Be Done

Here is a summary of  what must be done.  Over the next few weeks we will deal with how to accomplish each point.

 

· We must eliminate the expenses of unneeded systems and we must be sure we have the best possible of what we do need. 

 

· Today our military must be prepared to deter a nuclear attack; when possession and proliferation are outlawed we must take the lead with enforcement. 

 

· We need a mobile, well trained and well equipped active armed force to deal with violent transnational ideological groups such as al-Qaida as well as guerillas, insurgents or rogue states. 

 

· We should have a ready reserve force, also well-trained and equipped, to supplement regular forces if necessary.  

 

· We need plans and counter measures to offset our enemies’ possession of Stinger-type missiles and IEDs. 

 

· We need to know who potential enemies are and their intentions. 

 

· We must secure our use of the Internet. 

 

· We must ensure that our citizens can live in their homes and travel without fear of attack.

 

These are our needs.  Our military spending should be capped when they are met—Berkley Bedell and Jim Frost.

Wrapping Up the Threats

Air travel, seaport and border threats are also real and should be added to the list.  The answer to these threats might be military but just as important is their not-at-all-subtle connection to military spending—we have squandered so many of our resources in unnecessary wars that not enough money is available to properly deal with them. 

 

For example, CNN reported in March of 2008 that air marshals were missing from almost all flights.  One pilot was quoted in the article, “I would guess (they are on) less than one percent of all my flights.”  CNN followed up with an April story that said their training is a disgrace and that managers assigned some of the available marshals to short, no-risk flights to inflate reports on the number of protected flights.

 

Circumstances will cause additional problems in the future, including global warming, the increasing number of people living in huge cities, the widening gap between the haves and the have nots of the world, trade imbalances, and dwindling water and food supplies.   

The way affected people, groups of people and nations react to them might create threats to America.  But most can and should be addressed through non-military solutions plus the resources of wealthy countries—planning, because we have anticipated the problems, and aid, made possible by what should be be a tremendous savings in military costs. 

Next, the solutiuon—Berkley Bedell.

A Couple More Real Threats and One That's Not

In addition to military weapons and equipment increasingly being placed out of sight and protected under ground, new tactical threats identified by the Defense Intelligence Agency and other reports include acquisition and use by our potential enemies of advanced weapons like shoulder-fired, surface-to-air Stinger missiles.  Also non-conventional weapons such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs), car bombs and roadside bombs.  Along with kidnappings and suicide attacks these are real threats and require military action if used against us.

 

The category of new DIA threats also includes the Internet.  As a means of government and military communication it is vulnerable to enemy hacker geeks who can easily be as savvy and bright as the good-guy geeks who design and operate our systems.  The Internet also aids activities such as the trade in counterfeit drugs or weapons.  And access to the Internet also gives anyone with a message the ability to provide what the DIA report calls real-time and unfiltered information to a worldwide audience. 

 

While interference with our communication and aiding illegal activities are threats, disseminating information, even if adversarial to our positions on issues, is not.  Among the things that have traditionally made our democracy strong is its survival amidst a boisterous and contrary marketplace of ideas—Berkley Bedell.