 |
To begin with, I want to join the many others who have paid tribute to Congressman Weldon and NDIA for putting this conference together. I know that I speak for both Congressman Weldon's House colleagues and those of us in the Defense Department who work closely with him in his capacity as Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Research and Development that there is no more dedicated public servant in the United States -- and no more concerned member of Congress -- than Congressman Weldon.
Today's conference is proof, in and of itself, of this man's concern for his nation's defense and his constituents' economic well being. As a native son of New Jersey (my grandmother was actually born on a New Jersey farm only a few miles east of here; and I grew up, and later worked, in high tech firms in New Joysee"). I am particularly pleased to see his efforts to highlight the role of the whole mid-Atlantic region in advanced research and development. Touring the exhibits last night was truly impressive.
Only a few days ago, right before the NATO action against Yugoslavia began, I spent some time at Aviano (with the pilots and ground crews), in Bosnia, (with the SFOR troops), and in Sigonella (with the Navy and Air Force pilots and crews, as well as the logistics support personnel covering all Naval operations in the Mediterranean), and I am genuinely proud of what I found. As you all well know, we not only have the best military equipment in the world, but we are incredibly fortunate to have such outstanding, dedicated, and competent men and women; it truly makes you thankful -- and proud -- for what they are doing for us and for this great country. Congressman Weldon and members of his committee must share this pride -- pride in what they have done to make this possible.
Today, as we survey our world, we see new forces of terror and instability -- economic, social, and political -- threatening to erode the peace which our NATO allies and others have so carefully crafted and maintained. Our response must be one that enables us to shape the international security environment in ways favorable to the U.S. and to be able to respond to the full spectrum of threats -- from whatever the source.
We no longer need to be reminded that we face a very real -- and present --set of new threats from a variety of asymmetric forces capable of being directed against us and our allies -- from all parts of the world. Recent terrorist bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the North Korean and Iranian ballistic missile launches, the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan, the growing proliferation of low-cost cruise and ballistic missiles, the sophisticated cyber attacks on the U.S. Department of Defense computer systems, and -- of course -- the current atrocities in Kosovo, have brought home to all of us the very real nature of present and emerging threats.
The NATO strikes on Yugoslavia illustrate both the reality of the new threat and the uncertainty of geopolitical events and trends.
The end of the Cold War, the breakup of the Soviet Empire, the emerging power of rogue nations, the rise of transnational terrorism, the re-balkanizing of the Balkans, and other equally destabilizing geopolitical events -- accompanied by truly revolutionary changes in technology -- are transforming our vision of 21st century security needs and military strategy. Two fundamental changes seem clear: first, we will see more short, intense regional conflicts (often followed by extended periods of peacekeeping). And, second, our military will seek to project power without putting a large number of forces at risk. Massed forces will be replaced by massed firepower, precisely placed on targets. Modern, so-called "reconnaissance/ strike" warfare (often referred to as the essence of the "Revolution In Military Affairs") is based on real-time, all-weather, accurate and secure information systems, combined with long-range, unmanned, "brilliant", highly-lethal weapons designed to achieve precision kills. Technology has also enabled us to reduce dramatically our response time, as geopolitical events warrant.
The type of regional conflict that we will see more frequently in the 21st century is likely not to allow six months to build up forces and deploy them -- a luxury Sadam allowed us in the Persian Gulf War. There also will no longer be "free" ports or airfields. Aggression will be instantaneous, with little warning, brutal, and difficult to defend against. This is particularly true in the case of transnationals and international terrorist organizations --because they are willing to sacrifice themselves and their own civilian populations, as well as hostile civilian populations, to achieve their objectives. Our reaction to this form of aggression must be swift and decisive. The first few days, if not the first few hours, can easily determine the outcome. Our response must come within 24 hours, with sustainability in place in seven days -- not in weeks or months. Such responsiveness requires a significant change in doctrine, tactics, organization, and equipment.
The current and likely future geopolitical situation will generally foster coalition operations. Each nation's security is highly interdependent on the willingness of coalition partners to act in concert when threatened by hostile forces. Technology -- when proper coalition planning is achieved -- enables us to act effectively, in concert, to achieve the limited objectives we seek. This means that our allies' systems must be fully interoperable -- and equally secure. The rapid global spread of modern information technology makes this possible.
Unfortunately, much of the new technology is also readily available to potential enemies; for example: commercial communications/navigation/earth surveillance satellites, low-cost biological/chemical weapons, cruise and ballistic missiles, etc. (which, if they can't develop them, they can purchase them -- and the skills to use them -- on the world arms market). Therefore, we must develop effective countermeasures to this technology; for example: information warfare defenses; vaccines and special medical agents to counter biological and chemical weapons; defenses against ballistic and cruise missiles; and the ability to destroy hard and deeply buried targets. In some respects, we have become the victims of our own technological advances. Our successes in using new technology to our advantage in operations such as Desert Storm, Bosnia, and now Yugoslavia have made those technologies an object for acquisition by all.
Because of the rapid proliferation of technology, it becomes doubly difficult for our military and our allies to maintain battlespace dominance. Nevertheless, it is imperative that we do so. We must be prepared to conduct multiple, concurrent contingency operations worldwide. We must be able to do so in any environment; including one in which an adversary uses asymmetric means, such as nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons; information warfare and large quantities of low-cost cruise and ballistic missiles.
As Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, I have set five priorities for maintaining and improving total battlespace dominance:
|
