WASHINGTON -- In its first detailed military planning for the post-Cold War era, the Pentagon envisions seven scenarios for potential foreign conflicts that could draw U.S. forces into combat over the next 10 years, according to internal Pentagon documents.
Maintaining forces capable of fighting and winning one or more of the seven scenarios outlined in the documents would require a robust level of defense spending into the next century.
The classified documents indicate that the leadership of the Defense Department has instructed the military chiefs to request forces and weapons sufficient to fight large regional wars -- in two scenarios, against Iraq and North Korea, and in a third scenario, against both countries at the same time.
A fourth scenario envisions a major military campaign in Europe to prevent a resurgent Russia from pursuing expansionist aims.
In the fifth and sixth scenarios, the document also says the United States should be prepared to respond to contingencies like a military coup in the Philippines or a "narco-terrorist" plot against the government of Panama that would threaten access to the Panama Canal.
In a seventh scenario, the documents call for a strategy to deter the re-emergence of a global "adversarial rival." To do this, the United States would have to maintain a "technological" and "doctrinal" edge "and a credible capability to expand military forces."
The planning described in the documents does not mean that any of the conflicts described are inevitable or imminent, and the Pentagon itself calls the scenarios "illustrative" and "not predictive."
Given current circumstances, many seem improbable.
Iraq, for example, seems years away from rebuilding its military forces to the point where it could seriously threaten its neighbors with an invasion, although its remaining nuclear ability remains a source of concern.
But unlike the dozens of contingency plans the Pentagon develops for the use of U.S. military forces abroad, the seven scenarios will serve as the foundation for long-ange budget planning and determining the number and kind of troops and weapons the country should maintain.
In recent history, such fundamental force and budget planning has usually occurred with each successive administration.
Congress, which ultimately sets the Pentagon budget, can challenge the Pentagon's planning assumptions and force changes by modifying military spending plans. Both could happen soon, since the scenarios are immediately relevant to the budget for next fiscal year that Defense Secretary Dick Cheney sent to Congress in January.
The 70 pages of planning documents were made available to The New York Times by an official who wished to call attention to what he considered vigorous attempts within the military establishment to invent a menu of alarming war scenarios that can be used by the Pentagon to prevent further reductions in forces or cancellations of new weapon systems from defense contractors.
For decades, U.S. defense planning, centered on the Soviet threat, called for military forces capable of simultaneously fighting a major land war in Europe and a second, smaller war elsewhere, most likely in the Middle East or Asia.
That plan was the driving force behind the continual growth in the Pentagon budget and the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars on new weapons.
As that plan has grown obsolete, the United States has moved to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Europe from 325,000 to 150,000, and the Pentagon plans to cut the overall size of the active-duty military by establishing a "base force" of 1.6 million men and women by 1995, down from the Cold War level of 2.1 million.
Some cutbacks are also planned in the most expensive new weapons systems.
In budget terms, the Pentagon last month proposed cuts of $50 billion over the next five years.
The new documents, which could well shape military forces for years to come, suggest levels of manpower and weapons that would appear to stall, if not reverse, the downward trend in defense spending by mid-decade.
They indicate that while the Pentagon has abandoned planning for a superpower military confrontation after the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, it is not prepared to consider drastically reduced force levels.
Under the conflict scenarios, for example, the United States would need to keep aircraft carriers and their escort warships dispersed around the world to deal with potential trouble from the Baltic Sea to the South China Sea, a requirement that would support the Navy's assertion that it needs 12 carrier battle groups.
The scenarios were drafted over the last six months by a special group of military officers working under Adm. David E. Jeremiah, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
While the scenarios are described as "illustrative" in the classified documents, they reflect the thinking of the military chiefs on what kind of regional wars are likely, or at least prudent to plan for, to keep the U.S. military ready and capable to respond.
Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, referred to the scenario study in remarks to reporters on Feb. 4, but provided few details about them. He said the scenarios did not refer to specific countries as potential adversaries for planning purposes, but the documents indicate otherwise.
A Feb. 4 memorandum accompanying the scenarios instructed the secretaries of the military departments in the Pentagon that "these draft scenarios should be used" in the preparation of each service's spending plans for the 1994-1999 budget years.
The scenarios are expected to be incorporated in the guidance document when it is completed next month.
The scenarios assume a major role for the U.S. military in coming years even though the nature of U.S. economic and military power -- and how they should be employed in the pursuit of global U.S. interests -- remains very much under debate.
Some important voices have called for greater emphasis on economic power, productivity and investment as a way to nurture greater stability in the world. Others have argued that even after cutting America's Cold War military roughly in half, the United States still would be the pre-eminent military power in the world.
For some members of Congress, the scenarios in an election year undoubtedly will provide a compelling argument to keep open defense production lines that otherwise would be slated for closing.
But the scenarios are also likely to encounter significant challenges in Congress, since many lawmakers say the time has come to rethink the size of the Pentagon budget, and are likely to take issue with some of the political assumptions underlying the scenarios.
Pentagon's seven scenarios
* Persian Gulf: Fueled by renewed access to oil revenues, Iraq rebuilds its military, according to the scenario. Iraq invades Kuwait and northeast Saudi Arabia with 2,000 tanks and 21 divisions seeking to capture oilfields, air bases and sea ports. The United States would respond with an immediate request to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to come to their defense with nearly five Army divisions, a Marine expeditionary force, 15 fighter squadrons and four heavy bomber squadrons, and three aircraft carrier battle groups. Forecast: victory in 54 days.
* Korean Peninsula: North Korea attacks South Korea with 1.2 million troops and 5,000 tanks seeking to capture Seoul. The United States would deploy five combat divisions, five aircraft carrier battlegroups, two Marine Expeditionary Forces, 16 Air Force fighter squadrons and four heavy bomber squadrons and prevail in 90 days.
* Persian Gulf and Korea: As Iraq invades Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, North Korea seizes the moment to strike South Korea, taxing U.S. support forces and supply lines.
* Baltic nations: "An expansionist authoritarian government" assumes power in Moscow and attacks through Poland to seize Lithuania. Belarus fights with Russia while Ukraine stays neutral. NATO responds, with the Western alliance sending in 18 divisions and 66 tactical fighter squadrons and prevailing in 90 days.
* The Philippines: In 1999, a coup in the Philippines degenerates into factional fighting and some forces seize U.S. hostages at the Subic Bay naval. U.S. forces prevail in one week.
* Panama: Right-wing elements of the national police force in alliance "with former drug-dealing Panamanian Defense Force leaders who have connections to narco-terrorist elements of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia," threaten to close the Panama Canal unless the government hands over power. U.S. forces seize Panama's air and sea ports and prevail in about one week.
* New global enemy: Out of the former Soviet Union or from some combination of powerful nations, a new anti-democratic and expansionist superpower emerges to threaten U.S. interests, calling for total mobilization for global war in the year 2001. In the parlance of the Pentagon, this threat is referred to by the acronym REGT, or "resurgent-emergent global threat." The purpose of postulating this scenario, according to the study, "is to establish key planning assumptions and an illustrative timeline for the reconstitution of U.S. military forces" on a large scale.