Tuesday, November 2, 1999 10:15 to 11:45 a.m.
Panel 1:

Understanding the Implications of the 21st Century Challenges

Senator John Warner
Lieutenant General Patrick M. Hughes
Mr. Robert D. Kaplan
Dr. Richard A. Falkenrath

This new century will introduce forces bent on terror and destruction that stem from the interaction of mass democracy with post-Industrial Revolution social conditions. Although information technology will undercut authoritarian regimes, the widespread notion that democratization is a cure-all for the world's ills is unfounded. The wars in Yugoslavia, the current predicament of Russia, and other problems with abrupt democratization provide evidence to support this theory. Lacking certain prerequisites such as a vigorous middle class, many countries quickly degenerate into "hybrid regimes"oligarchies operating behind the façade of democracy. A gradual transition from authoritarianism to representative governments would help solidify popular support for democracy based upon growing public participation, market economies, and rule of law. More likely, however, in the years just ahead will be the emergence of greater numbers of regimes lacking the political, legal, and economic requisites for democracy. Such regimes will face conditions in which ethnic conflict, lawlessness, civil strife, terrorism, and political fragmentation will be rampant.

The proliferation of WMD and delivery systems will place frightening new weapons in the hands of rogue states and non-state antagonists, allowing them to confront the United States with asymmetric means. Unable to challenge directly the overwhelming military power of the United States, hostile actors will make use of such capabilities. The spread of information technology, expertise, and the ability to procure WMD will permit a broader range of actors to possess such weapons.

The primary threats to U.S. interests will take two forms. First, North America is increasingly vulnerable both to missile attack and to terrorist action. While the probability of WMD strikes remains low, they directly threaten vital U.S. intereststhe security of the United States itself. Second, WMD-equipped actors could target American forces or those of allies. The fear of such attacks could either deter U.S. intervention or intimidate allies into opting out of future coalitions. More disturbing, accelerating technological change will contribute to the complexity of the future security environment. The proliferation of information technology will link people as never before, while providing a new basis for empowerment. The outgrowth of this process is increasingly a set of "distributed global competitors," state and non-state actors scattered around the world but linked electronically via the Internet and other means. Preparing to counter such asymmetric strategies is critical to U.S. defense strategy in the 21st century. Defense planners must maintain conventional power, measured in numbers of personnel and military hardware, even as they maximize benefits from the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) and develop measures to counter and otherwise cope with asymmetric warfare. The Armed Services must remain engaged in the "right-sizing" of forces, based on the appropriate mix between traditional military equipment and new systems spawned by the ongoing RMA.

Domestic politics, particularly public expectations of casualty-free warfare, will be a major limiting factor on America's engagement in the world and possibly undercut U.S. staying power in potential conflict flashpoints. Such a preoccupation on our part will give added incentive to those who seek to preclude or limit U.S. intervention by threatening or actually inflicting casualties on our forces. The countervailing and conflicting requirements of U.S. global strategy and the persistence of a strategic culture that contains minimal tolerance for casualties will produce a growing dilemma for the United States as a 21st century superpower. It will therefore be especially important for policy makers to muster broad public support for U.S. national security strategy.

Another issue that must be addressed more effectively is the over-extension of our Armed Forces. The cumulative effect of the numerous small-scale contingency operations and of accompanying high operational tempo on our military personnel has adversely affected retention and recruiting. Equipment shortages in Operation Allied Force in 1999, including cruise missiles and electronic-warfare aircraft, were ominous signs. Moreover, the willingness and ability of allies to reduce the military burden on the United States remain in serious doubt. Despite disparities between U.S. and European military capabilities dramatized by the Kosovo campaign, there is scant evidence that NATO European countries will boost their defense budgets to redress this imbalance. The United States will likely continue to shoulder the bulk of the military burden on behalf of the international community, but this must change if we are to meet our many commitments.

page created 31 October 2000

Return to Fletcher Conference Front Matter

Return to CMH Online