By Ann Roosevelt
Moving into the second decade of the 21st century, the Army does not see major changes in its future operating environment from its view a couple of years ago, the chief of staff said.
“Suffice it to say, our view of the environment has not significantly changed, and it’s persistent conflict,” Gen. George Casey said at the Brookings Institution yesterday.
Two years ago, Casey spoke at Brookings, describing an operational environment of persistent conflict for the next decade, where the United States would continue to be enmeshed in a long-term ideological struggle with global extremist terrorist networks. As well, international trends were “more likely to exacerbate rather than ameliorate” the problems. Global trends included globalization and the proliferation of technology–a double edged sword, where the ubiquitous computer would become the means of command and control for a group such as Hezbollah in its 2006 war with Israel. The trend in demographics shows increased populations and urbanization burdening governments and resources such as water and fuel becoming a source of conflict.
Ahead of the unveiling of the federal budget and Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Feb. 1, Casey said the Army has come up with four roles to deal with the second decade of the new century in a period of persistent conflict “quite similar to what you see the defense roles are here when the QDR comes out.”
First, the Army must prevail in a protracted counterinsurgency campaign. “Win the wars you’re in, as Secretary [Robert] Gates said; and we have to organize, train and equip ourselves to be able to do that, and to do that as long as it takes,” Casey said.
Next, the Army has to be able to engage to help others build their own capacity. “We cannot win these wars ourselves, we can only win them when the local security forces can maintain domestic order and deny their country as a safe haven for terrorists,” he said.
The Army also must continue its efforts to support civil authorities at home and abroad, much as the service is helping disaster relief efforts in Haiti and supporting civil authorities in Afghanistan and Iraq by helping to organize and integrate the application of all the other elements of national power to achieve the desired results.
“Fourth, the Army must be ready to deter and defeat hostile state actors and hybrid threats,” he said.
“Against those roles we are working to build an army as a versatile mix or tailorable and networked organizations that is operating on a rotational cycle,” Casey said.
Putting the service on a rotational cycle as the Navy and Marines have done for years is a major change for the service, but it must be done, he said.
“We have to do it because it’s the only way that we can continue to provide trained and ready forces for the missions we have today and to hedge against contingencies. And to do this in a way that’s predictable and sustainable for the all volunteer force.”
While working against this template, Casey responded to a question saying the service could take on another conflict, such as Korea, though it would be mean a “freeze” on forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and diverting in the pipeline to deploy there. It would be about an 80 percent solution, he said. However, once the drawdown in Iraq was substantially complete, the service would have more flexibility.
To cope with such scenarios is part of the service effort to get back in balance–something Casey was very concerned with in his Brookings speech two years ago. Now, he sees the service back in balance in the next couple of years.
What concerns the chief of staff most is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, and safe havens, where nations such as Yemen now, and Afghanistan pre-9/11, become places of safety for those who aim to damage U.S. interests.