当前位置:首页 > 专题范文 > 公文范文 >

建立现代军队:部队符合地缘政,治现实

时间:2022-07-17 11:30:03 来源:网友投稿

下面是小编为大家整理的建立现代军队:部队符合地缘政,治现实,供大家参考。

建立现代军队:部队符合地缘政,治现实

 

 Contents

 Preface

 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

  1 Ex ecutive

 Summary

 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

 2 Introduction

 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

 3

 Threat

 Inflation

 and

 Its

 Consequences

 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������

  5

 A

 R estraint-Focused

 S trategy �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

 6 Budget

 Pathologies

 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

 9

 Overseas

 Contingency

 Operations �������������������������������������������������������������������������������

 10 R eprogramming

 Funds

 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �

 11

 Building

 a Modern

 Military

 for

 R estraint ��������������������������������������������������������������������������

 12 Modernizing

 the

 Joint

 Force

 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

 12 Making

 Innovation

 a

 Priority

 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

 14 The

 Air

 Force

 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �

 15 The

 Army ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �

 16 The

 Navy

 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

 18 The

 Marine

 Corps �

 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �

 21 The

 Future

 of

 S trategic

 Deterrence

 �����������������������������������������������������������������������������

 22

 Conclusion:

 Building

 for

 the Future

 �����������������������������������������������������������������������������

  25 Appendix

 I:

 Glossary

 of

 T erms

 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

  26 Appendix

 II:

 Summary

 of

 K ey

 Assumptions

 and

 R ecommendations

 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

 27 Notes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

  28

 Preface

 W

 hen

 we

 began

 draf ting

 this

 study of

 U .S.

 milit ar y

 spending

 and

 force posture,

 we

 had

 no

 way

 of

 kno w - ing

 the

 tremendous

 challenge that

 CO VID-19

 w ould

 pose.

 It has

 clearest

 threats

 to

 public

 safety

 and

 political

 st ability

 in

 the U nited

 St ates

 are

 v er y

 much

 evident

 and

 all

 around

 us.

 Just ho w

 demonstrations

 of

 force

 or

 foreign

 st ability

 operations contribute

 to

 U .S.

 national

 security

 is

 par ticularly

 question - able

 at

 a

 time

 when

 a

 microscopic

 enem y

 has

 brought

 the

 wreak ed

 hav oc

 on

 the

 econom y .

 It has

 disrupted

 ever y

 facet of

 American

 life.

 The

 im pact

 will

 reverberate

 for generations. The

 global

 pandemic—and

 the

 U .S.

 go vernment’s

 response to

 it—has

 threatened

 the

 liv es

 and

 liber ties

 of

 Americans

 as well

 as

 the

 U nited

 States’

 st anding

 in

 the

 w orld.

 This

 disaster

 is

 a

 call

 to

 action.

 The

 threat

 posed

 by nontraditional

 security

 challenges,

 including

 pandemics, climate

  change,

  and

  malicious

  disinformation,

  should prompt

 a

 thoroughgoing

 reex amination

 of

 the

 strategies, t actics,

 and

 tools

 needed

 to

 k eep

 the

 U nited

 St ates

 safe and

 prosperous.

 As

 of

 this

 writing

 in

 late

 April

 2020,

 and

 well

 before

 the full

 im pact

 of

 CO VID-19

 is

 kno wn,

 it

 seems

 obvious

 to

 us that

 the

 U nited

 St ates

 can

 no

 longer

 justify

 spending

 mas - siv e

 amounts

 of

 mone y

 on

 quickly

 outdated

 and

 vulnerable weapons

 sy stems,

 equipment

 that

 is

 mostly

 geared

 to

 ftght an

  enem y

  that

  might

  nev er

  materialize.

  Mean while,

  the

 entire

 w orld

 to

 a

 st andstill.

 This

 analy sis

 mostly

 ex amines

 where

 the

 U .S.

 milit ar y was

 as

 of

 December

 31 ,

 2019,

 with

 a

 few

 obser vations from

 early

 2020.

 Where

 it

 will

 be

 on

 December

 31 ,

 2020, will

 be

 guided

 by

 a

 critical

 set

 of

 questions.

 The

 author s, and

 the

 entire

 team

 of

 scholar s

 in

 the

 Cato

 Institute’s Defense

 and

 F oreign

 Policy

 Studies

 Depar tment,

 intend to

 help

 frame

 those

 questions—and

 to

 answer

 as

 man y

 as possible—o v er

 the

 coming

 year .

 Security

 politics

 will

 be

 dif ferent

 in

 the

 future,

 but

 the goal

 of

 security

 policy

 hasn’t

 changed

 and

 is

 clearly

 outlined in

 this

 repor t :

 to

 identify

 the

 most

 ef fectiv e

 and

 ef ftcient means

 for advancing

 Americans’

 safety

 and

 prosperity .

 That ent ails

 ending

 the

 forev er

 war s,

 terminating

 needless

 mili - t ar y

 spending,

 rethinking

 the

 fundament als

 of

 strategic

 de - terrence,

 and

 focusing

 the

 entire

 defense

 est ablishment

 on inno vation

 and

 adapt ation.

 B

 Ex ecutive

 Summary

 udget ar y

 and

 strategic

 inertia

 has

 im peded the

 dev elopment

 of

 a

 U .S.

 milit ar y

 best

 suit - ed

 to

 deal

 with

 future

 challenges.

 Ov er

 the past

 sev eral

 decades,

 the

 milit ar y

 has

 repeat - edly

 answered

 the

 call

 to

 arms

 as

 American

 foreign

 policy

 privileges

 the

 use

 of

 force

 o v er

 other

 instru - ments

 of

 po wer

 and

 influence.

 The

 era

 of

 near

 endless

 war has

 no w

 stretched

 into

 its

 third

 decade.

 Going

 for ward, W ashington

  should

  realign

  national

  security

  objec tiv es and

 motivate

 allies

 and

 par tner s

 to

 become

 more

 capable as

 America’s

 relativ e

 milit ar y

 advantage

 wanes

 and

 the

 fo - cus

 inevit ably

 turns

 to

 domestic

 priorities,

 including

 pub - lic

 health.

 As

 policymak er s

 transition

 from

 primacy

 and

 unilat - eral

 milit ar y

 dominance,

 and

 be yond

 the

 post-9/11

 war s in

 the

 greater

 Middle

 East,

 the

 force

 must

 also

 be

 reori - ented.

 The

 defense

 est ablishment’s

 most

 urgent

 require - ment

 is

 prioritization.

 The

 nation’s

 resource

 constraints are

 real,

 and

 hard

 choices

 cannot

 be

 postponed.

 In

 par tic - ular ,

 all

 milit ar y

 branches

 should

 em phasize

 inno vation o v er

  the

  preser vation

  of

  legacy

  sy stems

  and

  practices. This

 will

 require

 cooperation

 from

 Congress,

 which

 must

 address

 the

 budget

 pathologies

 that

 stifle

 new

 thinking and

 k eep

 the

 P ent agon

 lock ed

 into

 old

 way s

 of

 doing business.

 Senior

 defense

 of ftcials

 must

 orient

 the

 future force

 around

 a

 dif ferent

 approach

 to

 po wer

 projection, one

 less

 dependent

 on

 permanent

 for ward

 bases,

 and

 to - ward

 a

 renewed

 focus

 on

 the

 requirements

 for strategic deterrence.

 The

 ser vices

 must

 also

 think

 anew

 about

 ho w to

 best

 capture

 and

 use

 information.

 Despite

 recent

 challenges

 and

 setbacks,

 most

 impor - t antly

 the

 CO VID-19

 outbreak

 and

 response,

 the

 U nited St ates

 still

 enjo y s

 man y

 advant ages,

 including

 a

 dynamic econom y ,

  political

  st ability ,

  and

  fav orable

  geograph y . Securing

 the

 U nited

 St ates

 from

 future

 threats

 should sust ain

 and

 build

 on

 those

 advant ages.

 R estraining

 the im pulse

 to

 use

 force,

 im posing

 limits

 on

 milit ar y

 spend - ing,

 and

 relying

 more

 heavily

 on

 diplomacy ,

 trade,

 and cultural

  ex change

  w ould

  reliev e

  the

  burdens

  on

  our o v er stressed

  milit ar y .

  The

  ultimate

  objectiv e

  should be

 to

 build

 an

 agile

 and

 adaptable

 milit ar y

 that

 can

 ad - dress

 a

 range

 of

 future

 challenges

 but

 is

 used

 more

 judi - ciously

 in

 the

 ser vice

 of

 vit al

 U .S.

 interests

 and

 to

 deter att acks

 against

 the

 homeland.

  Eric

 Gomez

 is

 director

 of

 defense

 policy

 studies;

 Christopher

 Preble

 is

 vice

 president

 for defense

 and

 foreign

 policy

 studies;

 L auren Sander

 is

 external

 relations

 manager

 for defense

 and

 foreign

 polic y

 studies;

 and

 Brandon

 V aleriano

 is

 a

 senior

 fellow

 at the

 Cato

 Institute .

 B

 “

 ”

 Introduction

 uilding

 a

 modern

 milit ar y

 requires

 a

 clear conceptualization

 of

 the

 realities

 of

 inter - national

 conflict

 and

 tight

 alignment with

 a

 countr y’s

 foreign

 policy .

 Strategic planner s

 must

 hav e

 a

 clear-e yed

 view

 of

 both

 the

 threats

 facing

 the

 countr y

 and

 the

 tools

 neces - sary

 to

 defend

 its

 vit al

 interests.

 Planner s

 in

 the

 U nited St ates

 should

 t ak e

 account

 of

 the

 countr y’s

 for tunate

 cir - cumst ances,

 including

 its

 geograph y ,

 dynamic

 econom y , and

 political

 st ability ,

 and

 recognize

 that

 maint aining these

 advant ages

 does

 not

 require

 a

 massiv e

 milit ar y

 ap - paratus

 that

 is

 const antly

 activ e

 in

 nearly

 ever y

 par t

 of the

 w orld.

 F or

  decades,

  ho wev er ,

  U .S.

  national

  security

  policy has

 been

 oriented

 around

 a

 milit ar y -centric

 approach, variously

 called

 primacy ,

 liberal

 hegemon y ,

 or

 deep

 en - gagement.

 Primacy

 is

 based

 on

 the

 idea

 that

 U .S.

 milit ar y po wer

 explains

 the

 absence

 of

 a

 major-po wer

 war

 since the

 end

 of

 W orld

 W ar

 II

 and

 the

 attendant

 rise

 in

 pro - ductivity

 and

 living

 st andards.

 Har vard

 political

 scientist Samuel

 Huntington

 predicted

 in

 1993,

 for ex am ple,

 that “a

 w orld

 without

 U .S.

 primacy

 will

 be

 a

 w orld

 with

 more violence

 and

 disorder

 and

 less

 democracy

 and

 economic gro wth.” 1

  F ormer

 secretar y

 of

 st ate

 George

 Shultz

 put

 it ev en

 more

 succinctly

 in

 the

 2016

 document ar y

 American U m pire :

 “If

 the

 U nited

 St ates

 steps

 back

 from

 the

 histor - ic

 role

 [it

 has]

 played

 since

 W orld

 W ar

 II,

 the

 w orld

 will come

 apar t

 at

 the

 seams.” 2

 Such

 sentiments

 reflect

 wh y ,

 despite

 the

 fact

 that

 the

 U nited

 St ates

 enjo y s

 relativ e

 safety ,

 U .S.

 of ftcials

 see

 only grav e

 and

 urgent

 danger s.

 The y

 see

 an y

 challenge

 to

 U .S. milit ar y

 dominance

 as

 a

 threat

 to

 global

 liber ty

 and

 peace. The

 2018

 N ational Defense

 S tr ategy

 (NDS),

 for ex am ple,

 notes that

 the

 “central

 challenge

 to

 U .S.

 prosperity

 and

 security is

 the

 reemergence

 of

 long-term,

 str ategic

 com petition

 by

 .

 .

 .

 revi - sionist

 po wers.”

 The

 goal

 then,

 according

 to

 the

 NDS,

 is to

 “remain

 the

 preeminent

 milit ar y

 po wer

 in

 the

 w orld.” 3 The

 2017

 N ational Security

 S tr ategy

 (NSS)

 goes

 fur ther ,

 not - ing

 that

 the

 “U nited

 St ates

 must

 ret ain

 o v ermatch—the

 combination

 of

 capabilities

 in

 suf ftcient

 scale

 to

 prevent enem y

 success

 and

 to

 ensure

 America’s

 sons

 and

 daughter s will

 nev er

 be

 in

 a

 fair

 ftght.” 4

 And

  while

  the

  U nited

  St ates

  is

  pur por tedly

  orient - ing

 around

 great

 po wer

 competition

 against

 China

 and Russia,

 the

 post-9/11

 conflicts

 grind

 on.

 The

 N ational Defense

 A uthorization

 Act

 (ND AA)

 for Fiscal

 Y ear

 2020 mak es

 clear

 that

 the

 P ent agon

 en visions

 those

 conflicts continuing

  indeftnitely . 5

 T oday’s

  U .S.

  milit ar y

  budget, af ter

 adjusti...

推荐访问:建立现代军队:部队符合地缘政 治现实 地缘 军队 部队