Melvin_Laird's_Strategy_for_Peace_Analysis

Melvin Laird’s Strategy for Peace: Argumentative Analysis The purpose of this paper is to examine whether or not former Secretary of Defense, Melvin R. Laird’s insights in A Strategy for Peace are directly applicable today. In 1970 Laird proposed a change in defense strategy focus from wartime thinking to peacetime thinking. The strategy called for a restructure of forces that could appropriately deter threats while adhering to the confines of fiscal constraints. During the time of this proposal the United States was engaged in a lengthy and costly war in Vietnam. As a result, the question was posed of how the Army should be used and resource. Similar to the Vietnam era the United States continues to be engaged in over a decade of costly war. In addition, the Army is seeking to overhaul doctrine, training and force composition to become a more flexible force capable of conducting full-spectrum operations. Therefore, Lairds insights on force restructuring, security through international partnerships and fiscal constraints on defense spending are applicable in defense planning today. Laird discusses force restructuring in his proposal. Specifically he questions how the Army should be used and resourced. Laird points out that the United States must maintain a position of military strength while at the same time placing emphasis on force restructuring. He calls for a more flexible, mobile force comprised of a combination of Active, Guard and Reserve augmentation packages with increased guard and reserve mobilization. In 2003 the Army began restructuring its division-based force into smaller brigade combat teams (BCTs) made up of a combination of Active, Reserve and National Guard teams. The goal is to create 76 active and reserve BCTs, 48 active and 28 Army National Guard BCTs and 225 active and reserve support brigades. This force structure allows for a more defined continuous rotational deployment cycle with flexibility of force use for multiple types of operations simultaneously. In addition, it allows for the continuation of the all volunteer force that Laird advocates for in his proposal. The idea of flexibility of force is discussed in recent strategy reviews. The 2011 National Military Strategy identifies that, “Our strategy, forged in war, is focused on fielding modular, adaptive, general purpose forces that can be employed in the full range of military operations. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review discusses the importance of maintaining flexibility of the force, preventing and deterring conflict and rebalancing the Armed Forces. The Army continues to focus on manning, equipping and training its combat and support forces for full-spectrum operations to include counterinsurgency, stabilization and peace-keeping operations. Laird calls for increased use of deterrence in conventional warfare: He recommends tailoring conventional forces to two specific roles: support NATO and preserving peace or resisting aggression in other parts of the world. The current joint operations concept on deterrence operations includes maintaining active and passive defenses with a forward presence of Armed forces. . This includes working with NATO and Allies during peacetime as well as during times of war, nuclear deterrence, and maintaining a force presence is fragile states. The second insight Laird discusses is security through international partnerships. He calls for a clear definition of allies and the ability to shift responsibility of fighting to allies with the United States providing backup intervention by “presence” and “quick response” actions. He contends that the United States tends to bear a greater burden of security than most other countries and that the United States cannot solely sustain enforcing security internationally. Laird contends that, “a larger share of free world security burden be taken by those free world nations which have enjoyed major U.S. support”. This is applicable today. President Obama’s 2010 National Security Strategy highlights the need to restore and strengthen the international border. “Our engagement will underpin a just and sustainable international order-just, because it advances mutual interests, protects the rights of all, and holds accountable those who refuse to meet their responsibilities; sustainable because it is based on broadly shared norms and fosters collective action to address common challenges. The conflict is Afghanistan against the Taliban is a prime example of the use of allies to maintain security internationally. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is a NATO led security mission that was established in 2001 by the United Nations Security Council. The main purpose of ISAF is to train the Afghan National Security Forces and assist Afghanistan in the rebuilding of key government institutions Much like Vietnam, the United States is suffering the effects both physically and financially from engaging in lengthy and costly wars. Due to concurrent Iraq, Afghanistan and other military commitments, overall costs since 2001 are estimated at more than a trillion dollars. Although the GNP rate of defense spending is much less today than in 1970, similarities exist in the need for defense budget cuts. Laird’s recommendations in light of fiscal constraints and budget deficits included a phasing down to a peacetime force with flexible options while maintaining strength”. The US military is currently in the midst of downsizing as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan come to a close. Current recommendations of downsizing the Army and Marine Corps will save the government an estimated 394 billion over the next 10 years. However, like Laird, the 2011 National Military Strategy (NMS) reinforces the need to maintain a strong military. The NMS states, “we must not become a hollow force with a large force structure lacking readiness, training and modern equipment needs. The goal is a leaner joint force with agile, flexible, ready, innovative and technologically advanced characteristics. Laird points out that attention must be brought to “providing capabilities and options directed at opponent’s weakness, rather than trying to meet expected potential threats head on, regardless of cost”. His recommendations include aid and assistance programs to foreign governments which will allow allies to provide better quality forces that can and should work closely with our own. Currently the Obama Administration’s National Security Staff is reviewing structure and funding for security assistance. The proposal includes funding for three departments; security assistance, post-conflict reconstruction support and conflict prevention/resolution. The belief is that diplomatic and economic stability combined with military training of allies will allow allies to defend themselves with less US military involvement. Reflection on Laird’s insights provides useful guidance in defense challenges of today and in the future. The United States continues to recover fiscally from engaging in over a decade of war and the September 11, 2001 attacks on the homeland. In addition, US troops are experiencing exhaustion from multiple deployments. Due to this, a careful analysis of how and when U.S. forces should be called upon to engage in foreign wars is necessary. Current instability in the domestic and foreign political and economic landscape is similar to the insights Laird discusses in A Strategy for Peace. Therefore Laird’s insights provide useful instruction on force restructuring, security through international partnerships and fiscal constraints on defense spending in today’s defense strategy. Bibliography Adams, Gordon & Williams, Rebecca. “A New Way Forward: Rebalancing Security Assistance Programs and Authorities.” www.stimson.org. March 2011: 1-48. (accessed November 26, 2012). Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “The National Military Strategy of the United States of America.” Washington D.C.: Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2011. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf. (accessed November 28, 2012). Dagett, Stephen. Congressional Research Service. “Costs of Major Wars.”, June 29, 2010. 1-8. Department of Defense. “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices”, January 2012. Department of Defense. “Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept”, December 2006, 1-80. Department of Defense. 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Fact Sheet. February 1, 2010. http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR_FACT_SHEET_Feb_2010.pdf, 1. Accessed November 28, 2012. Feickert, Andrew. Does the Army Need a Full-Spectrum Forde or Specialized Units.' Background and issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, 18 January 2008. P.19.. Friedman, B.H, & Preble, C. Downsizing the Federal Government. A plan to Cut Military Spending. CATO Institute, November 2010.CATO institute. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/defense/cut_military_spending International Security Assistance Force. www.wikipedia.org /wiki/international _Security _Assistance _Force. (accessed 28 November 2012. Laird, Melvin R. “Strategy for Peace: A National Security Strategy of Realistic Deterrence.” Memorandum for the President from the Secretary of Defense. Washington D.C.: Office of the Secretary of Defense, November 6, 1970. President of the United States. “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” Washington D.C.: The White House, 2010.