WASHINGTON -- The United States should rewrite its national security strategy, placing more emphasis on defending the country against terrorists, training a portion of the military to handle peacekeeping missions and devising new ways to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, a high-level commission will propose today.
The 14-member panel of military and civilian leaders, headed by two former senators, Republican Warren Rudman of New Hampshire and Democrat Gary Hart of Colorado, says the decade-old military doctrine of preparing to fight two major wars at once is not the proper yardstick for determining the size of U.S. forces -- now about 2.4 million active duty and reserve troops -- and fails to address the skills needed for new kinds of operations overseas.
Since the end of the Cold War, American troops have usually found themselves keeping the peace in Bosnia or Haiti or helping allies in small-scale deployments like East Timor. These kinds of missions will increase in coming years, the report says.
"What they're saying diplomatically is, you've got the wrong plan for the future," said a military affairs specialist familiar with the report. The specialist, who spoke on condition that he not be identified, provided some details of the report, which is to be made public at a news conference today.
The executive director of the panel, retired Air Force Gen. Charles Boyd, who agreed to discuss portions of the report, said that besides peacekeeping missions, the Pentagon must develop forces that can deploy more quickly than existing units on "lethal operations."
Moreover, the commission says, national leaders should not simply dwell on the post-Cold War threats posed by Russia's nuclear force or China's saber rattling toward Taiwan but find "opportunities" on the economic and political fronts to engage both countries.
The primary goal
America's primary foreign policy goal must be to improve relations with Russia, China and India, commission members concluded.
The 16-page report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/ 21st Century, as the panel is known, also broadens the term "national security." After defending America, a top priority should be improving the quality of primary and secondary education, particularly in the areas of math and science, the report says.
"Strength and strategy begins at home," said one committee source, who said the recommendation echoes similar calls by President Eisenhower after the Soviet Union launched the first satellite, Sputnik, in October 1957.
This is the second of three reports by the commission, which was created by Congress in 1998 and is staffed by the Pentagon. Panel members include former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, former United Nations Ambassador Andrew Young and retired Army Gen. John R. Galvin, who commanded all U.S. forces in Europe.
It has been more than 50 years since the United States attempted such a sweeping assessment of its national security needs and structure. The last such evaluation preceded passage of the National Security Act in 1947, which created the Air Force, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, which advises the president.
But the United States faces far different challenges than it did in the post-World War II era, the panel said last fall in its initial report on emerging threats, pointing to problems posed by computer hackers and terrorists armed with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Nonmilitary threats, such as those affecting the economy, environment or health, might be as insidious as a military attack, the panel said in its first report.
To deal with such threats, the panel says in the new report, the United States must place a greater emphasis on "homeland security," bringing in nonmilitary players -- such as local police and hospital and public health staffs -- as part of a national plan. The commission recommends "adequate funding and organization," with the National Guard playing a significant role.
A terrorist attack on U.S. soil "is a risk we're not well prepared to meet," said Boyd, the panel's director.
The Clinton administration already has tapped members of the National Guard to serve on 22-member teams that would work with state and local officials in the event of a chemical or biological attack. The Pentagon has created 27 of these teams around the country.
The commission reinforced a concern raised by some public health experts: There has been little coordination between official Washington and local medical communities concerning how to respond to a terrorist attack. And not enough has been spent to create a national stockpile of medicines and antidotes for use in a chemical or biological attack.
In a later report, the commission could recommend the creation of a Cabinet-level department responsible for homeland defense, said the military specialist who described the panel's findings. Currently, the coordinator for domestic terrorism is Richard Clarke, a little-known National Security Council staff member.
Some military leaders have bristled at peacekeeping duties in Bosnia and Kosovo, complaining that such work is best left to police officers. The Pentagon has said the main role of U.S. forces is to fight the nation's wars.
The commission says, however, that the military must "adapt portions of its force structure" to specialize in humanitarian relief and peacekeeping missions.
Moreover, the military must shed its cumbersome Cold War force structure of 70-ton tanks and other heavy weapons, creating more mobile units with lighter arms that can be deployed rapidly to global hotspots, the commission says.
The Army, under Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the chief of staff, proposed last fall a faster-moving fighting force with lighter, more lethal weapons.
The commission report will recommend that national leaders expand their efforts to deal with the threat of nuclear proliferation. Besides drafting new arms agreements, the United States must be willing to launch airstrikes against countries posing a nuclear threat or deploy commandos to capture nuclear weapons from terrorists.
Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., a defense analyst with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, has reviewed the report and said it deals with some "provocative issues" -- such as pre-emptive attacks against foreign weapons of mass destruction. Still, the report is short on how to achieve the goals, he said, or where to shift federal dollars.
Should more money be spent on the U.S. intelligence community and foreign aid and less on the Marine Corps? wondered Krepinevich aloud. "You should have a clear idea as to who the winners and losers are," he said. "You don't get that sense from this. ... It's very ambiguous."
But the commission source said the report is "a teaser" for the final report, scheduled for release early next year as a new president takes office. "We're setting ourselves up for a report, extremely detailed, on how to change."
The final report is expected to recommend a reorganization of the national security and foreign policy establishment -- from the CIA to the Pentagon and from the State Department to the Treasury Department.