Focus 580; The Role of Air Power in the U.S. Military

Good morning and welcome to focus 580 This is our telephone talk program. My name is David Inge. Glad to have you listening this morning in the first part of the program we'll be talking a bit about the defense needs of the country. U.S. defense policy how it is that we're thinking about what kind of military we need and how to get there. And I guess for the program today is Lieutenant Colonel Robert Harvey. He's a national defense fellow at the University of Illinois here in Urbana in the program for arms control disarmament and international security as a visiting scholar he gives lectures and takes part in seminars and discussions concerning international security issues. Among other things he's a command pilot with more than 4000 flying hours. He holds a master's degree in aeronautical science. He's a graduate of the Air Force squadron officer school and the Marine Corps Command and Staff College His most recent assignment was as commander of an F-16 fighter squadron at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina. His assignments have also included tours at Hill Air Force base in Utah and a couple of bases in Germany. He flew in the Persian Gulf War he flew 22 combat missions and received the

Distinguished Flying Cross for his service. And we're glad he could be here with us and spend a little bit of time talking about these topics here this morning. And as we talk questions of course are welcome all we ask though is that for people calling and that they try to keep their questions brief just so we can keep things moving along and try to get everybody end but of course anybody is welcome to call the number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Also we have a toll free line so that means if it would be a long distance call for you. You may use that number that's 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 3 3 3. W I L L toll free 800 1:58 W-M. Well thanks very much. Good morning David thank you for having me. Almost as soon as the Cold War ended Are we thought the Cold War was ended. People in the Pentagon and defense circles started to raise this question. What kind of. Defense are we going to need now that it seems we're in a new era.

Exactly. At the end of the Cold War in 1992 the Pentagon conducted what was called a bottom up review and later in 1907 the quadrennial defense review which they're undergoing right now this second Quadrennial Defense Review and all of these are designed to shape the military or to give it their best guess anyway as to what size military and what capabilities are required for the future. In 1992 I don't think at the time anyone really foresaw that we would be so deeply involved in contingency operations or operations other than warfare. We typically in the military have been given one task excuse me throughout our history. And that's been basically to win the nation's wars post-Cold War environment involved in contingency operations are ranging from humanitarian assistance around the world to interventions such as Bosnia and Kosovo. At the time of the end of the Cold War it was widely accepted that we could afford to draw down our force structure and didn't have much fear of fighting a major war so at that time we

began a drawdown of our forces and in the Air Force in particular we've reduced our structure by 40 percent since the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately we've been tasked our or our overseas contingency taskings have increased over 400 percent a time in the same timeframe. And that includes Like I said situation such as Bosnia and Kosovo but also operations Southern Watch and Northern Watch where we still enforce the no fly zones over there or Iraq. Well after the Cold War as people were talking about you know what's the threat going to be in the future it seems that that there was this feeling that the United States needed to be able to fight two major land wars at the same time and the the the target adversaries always seem to be Iraq and North Korea and. As I understand it a couple of people who were very important in developing that sort of policy or that sort of scenario were indeed Colin Powell and Dick Cheney during the first Bush

administration now overhead and there they are in serving a second Bush administration. And at that even at the time I think that some people some defense analysts looked at that scenario and said that seems not terribly likely to us that we actually would be doing that. And now it seems also that the administration perhaps is getting ready to say well yes I guess we think that it's not that likely that and are starting to talk about moving away from the two war scenario. Do you think that isn't right I would think that's true. That's called the two major regional contingency scenarios the two MRC scenario at the end of the Cold War Of course we had just fought the war in Iraq and there was a potential there that flare up again at any time and of course we're still deployed to South Korea in defense of South Korea from the Korean War in the 50s. Both of those cases at the time seemed the most likely flare up areas around the world of course we had no it we had no inclination whatsoever that we'd ever fight a war with Russia or a

major war in Europe again so in attempt in an attempt to base our force structure to determine the size the proper size of our force structure we looked at the two most likely scenarios that would happen. Initially in 1992 the thought process was that if Saddam Hussein and worst case being of Saddam Hussein started a war again we were fighting a war there then the North Koreans could act up at the same time putting the most stress on our forces simultaneously so that's why the two MRC simultaneous type environment developed out of the Pentagon subsequent to that though in the QPR of 1907 they decided that we could reduce our force structure a little bit further by going a situation or scenario let's say that both of those wars probably wouldn't start at the same time. It's plausible that one government or the other could act up first and then the other one seeing how stressed United States forces were then could act up. So we went to a near simultaneous to major regional contingency

planning situation. Yes I think today the review in the Pentagon is taking a really hard look at whether or not we need force structure capable of fighting two wars at the same time nearly simultaneously. They're looking at something called a delaying action in one while they can complete the war and the other very similar to the World War Two scenario where we put our emphasis on Europe first and then fought the war in the Pacific later. Well I'm interested in how people particularly in the various service branches think about this as sort of my understanding that if if we're saying that we don't think that we're going to be fighting a major land war. Like the one that we're preparing to fight against the Soviets and that maybe even the nature if we have a major conflict on the ground it's not going to be like World War Two. That is we're going to be relying very heavily on standoff precision bombing things that the Navy and the Air Force I may predict who would be involved in it is not

going to be so much a matter of a lot of tanks on the ground that we're going to have to if that's the kind of thing that we think we're going to be doing. There's also going to have to be restructuring and that guys in the army aren't real happy to hear that news. But guys in the Air Force Yeah they're pretty happy to hear that news because that means we were saying well air power is going to be really really important and that that that the ground troops foot soldiers and armor is just not is. Yeah. Yes we're going to have them we're going to have soldiers we're going to have tanks but that that of this is just not going to be quite as important as we thought it was back to the time particularly when we thought maybe we're going to have to defend Europe against an attack from the soil. And that's exactly true in today's environment the the weapon of choice has become air power as an initial weapon of choice or as an initial method for controlling belligerent type country let's say for example the no fly zones or deny flight in Bosnia prior to the war or prior to the peace accords in

Bosnia. And now the operations Northern Southern Watch over Iraq those are primarily enforced by air power. But there will be a need for a ground army at some time. Now when we look at how to size our military the first thing you've got to remember is this is just a guess based on the intelligence around the world so if we look at our own history we were woefully unprepared at the end of World War 2 we had a massive drawdown we retired everybody and sent them back to civilian life in less than five years later we were caught totally unprepared in Korea. We're trying to avoid that or are the governments trying to avoid that these days by trying to decide what is the right size of military to maintain in peacetime so that we're not caught that off guard. We do depend heavily on guard and reserve forces. Which are obviously not full time military forces. That's the heritage of our country from the beginning days of the founding fathers they wanted us not to have a large standing army but to depend on the citizen soldiers in times of crisis. That's what we're leaning on today. We're depending more and more every day on the Guard and

Reserve even for contingency operations Guard Reserve pilots for example fighter pilots from the gardens or Terre Haute Indiana Springfield Illinois and Fort Wayne Indiana often go to Southern Watch and Northern Watch. And now I believe even some Guard units took part in Kosovo last year or 99. One of the figure I came across and I'm hoping this is correct this this came out of in an op ed piece that appeared in The Boston Globe last fall that said that since the Gulf War the number of military personnel deployed in operations on any given day averaged 40000 and even if you quadruple that to provide for troop rotation the total would be less than 12 percent of the force. Now I guess somebody would look at that and suggest well that we have many more people in the military than we actually need. How does anybody actually have a number that says well we think that we need so many service people and in and then perhaps and when you look at you say well we need pilots we need.

People to sail ships we need people to drive tanks. How many in the in the various branches. We need. Well that's exactly what the Quadrennial Defense Review is doing. And also I believe Secretary of Defense the new secretary of defense Mr. Rumsfeld is is conducting his own independent review of the force structure and the capabilities each service should have in the future so I think from both of those reviews you'll see not not a great increase in size certainly maybe not even an increase in the budget but some different programs that will be pushed versus others. Again remember that the size of the military of course just isn't isn't just the 40000 that are deployed I mean we have force structure inside United States to support that. You have the training force structure for example in order to train those 40000 people. And remember some get out every year some come in every year. So in order to train those you have an entire infrastructure set back here to train personnel and get them through the

pipeline get them ready to the poor overseas. You have retirements and folks getting out of the service every day need to replace them as well so that's basically a duplication there as well. It's a it's again it's a it's a tough situation to be in to decide what is right it's as if you were buying insurance for your home. Do I need flood insurance well if I live in a flood plain I probably need flood insurance. If I don't live in a flood plain Do I want to not ever buy flood insurance. Probably not. Maybe maybe not but I certainly need fire insurance theft insurance those kinds of things so it's a matter for the country of how much insurance would you like to have the function of the military is nothing more than a continuation of politics. The United States has been very active around the world engaging other countries around the other governments and other countries around the world particularly in the last 10 years through operations other than war. And that puts a severe strain and high demand on the military force structure. That was before the end of the Cold War not designed to deal with that since the end of the

Cold War we've adjusted of course and we've done our best as we usually do to attempt to fulfill the objectives that we've been given the goals and the missions that we've been given. Those were not obviously blowing things up and destroying things in certain countries but going into a country with our troops on the ground and engaging the military in in cooperative means in other words were supporting the militaries in various countries of the former Soviet bloc and we helped them show them the way we do business and help them with their command control and hopefully they'll begin to do business and through that sharing and learning. We build mutual trust in each other. I mean it was again our guest were anyone who might have tuned in the last little bit here we're speaking with Lieutenant Colonel Robert Harvey. He's a national defense fellow at University of Illinois in the program for arms control disarmament and International Security. He has an active duty Air Force officer and command pilot. He's here too to give lectures and take part in seminars and discussions about international security issues. Questions are welcome. Three three three.

W while all toll free 800 to 2 2. W Well one thing that I read recently was that as far as the Air Force is concerned that there was and I'm not sure how recently this as a last couple of years perhaps there that the Air Force was actually looking at a pilot shortage. Not so much because within the Air Force it wasn't that they didn't have qualified pilots but that there were people who were there who were performing administrative functions who were working at desks instead of actually flying planes. And so but the bottom line was that you actually didn't have enough pilots is that. That's correct. That's absolutely true do we. We're short pilots that stems from a couple of different problems first of all the airlines are hiring. The airlines can hire every pilot that the military can produce from now for the forseeable future. That's a that's a significant draw in pilots out of the service it's a lucrative career it's a very well-paid career field. Pilots in the military of course are folks in the military not paid quite well. They're not

paid anywhere near what airline pilots make so that's quite a draw for folks to get out of the service other part of that as I mentioned earlier was the 400 percent increase in the points overseas. Typically from the period 98 to 2000 an average pilot in a combat unit was deployed overseas 180 days per year. That's 180 days per year away from your family your kids and then the lifestyle itself is that you move basically about every three years anyway so you're operating your family your kids etc. taking them somewhere else every three years sometimes overseas sometimes not a lot of pilots have decided that that lifestyle that being deported that much is not worth worth it to them so they've got now gone to the airlines. But the others you brought up about folks being on the staff yes we do keep some pilots on the staff that are in our immediate ready reserve those pilots can be brought back up to flying status within a month or two and ready to go to combat as soon as possible should we find ourselves in a conflict. The only other procedure for building a pilot for making a pilot takes a couple of years. Got to send him through the

pilot training and and then training in that individual aircraft so that provides us a ready reserve in this shortage that we've had and we've been experiencing it ever since Desert Storm. In the shortage what we do is what we have done is we've drawn a lot of those pilots off of the staffs and off of those desk jobs and put them back into cockpits. We've reduced our pilot number on the staff considerably. Nearly almost all of the pilots are back in the flying billets now. We have color here others if you have questions you're certainly welcome to call the number. If you're here in Champaign Urbana where we are 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We do also have a toll free line and that was good anywhere that you can hear us so if it would be a long distance call use that number 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. The caller is in Chicago and it's line number four. Hello good morning gentleman. Yes I'm going to have you on the program. I wonder this as far as I know I just want to comment on that last question. As far as does the storm is

concerned I think President Reagan planted the seed so to speak and I am not President Bush harvest of the crop. I've never I didn't spend a lot of money on the military and it was good for me when you had said to us that you know it will make the build up and then score an overwhelming victory in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. I just wondered since we don't have a shortage of pilots. Should we start coming on advanced technology such as the missile defense system and piloted drama you know to carry the weapons and that type of thing. What do you think. Yes that's exactly what we're doing but it's not generally because of a shortage of pilots. We would like to use the unmanned combat aerial which was really uninhabited combat vehicle is what we call it. It's an unmanned aircraft that we're trying to develop to go into the higher threat situations. And then release weapons. What we're trying to do there is avoid the loss of pilots of course through combat losses so yes we are pursuing other technologies partly

because of the the pilot shortage but mostly because we just don't want to lose pilots in combat. Well you know if we have that during the recent situation in China we would not have had those 24 individuals go through what they did if we had had an on piloted. Surveillance planes over there the Chinese may very well shut it down but we would not had these two we wouldn't have these 24 people have to go through that experience of being right that's true. However remember that that aircraft was in international airspace at the time and we anticipated no such problems. Well that's true as a matter of fact I understand that surveillance is so good today that you don't actually have to fly over the enemy territory that you can be outside the church once you get what you require. Yeah exactly yeah. OK thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks Well again other questions comments are welcome. Three three three. W y l l toll free 800 1:58 W while we touched on I think you touch a little bit on the subject of infrastructure and that is we I guess we should acknowledge that you know in the military you do have to have people to fly planes. You've got

to have people to sail and battle ships and you have to have troops on the ground infantry and so forth. Those are all of those people that are actively engaged in combat. You also have to have a lot of support staff you have to have the people that trained them. You have a lot of people who work on bases just to keep the place going you've got to have mechanics you have to have medical personnel exact you have to have ministry of staff and all there are all kinds of people that you have to have to to do that. But having said that I think some people are also concerned that maybe the infrastructure we have more infrastructure than we need and particularly when you're when you have the separate branches of the service if everybody in a sense has got to have the same infrastructure then maybe again there we have to we have more people and they actually need and if we could somehow consolidate that that we could we could take care of the of the need we could perform all those functions. And yet perhaps we could do it in a more efficient and more cost effective sort and that's exactly right.

They were trying to do that in many instances and let's go back to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission that was created a few years back brac. It was designed to study the military infrastructure inside the United States and decide which one which bases we didn't need and we could close. But it's presented to Congress as an all or nothing package. You either close all the bases that that the commission recommends or you close none of them. Now I mean when you talk about closing bases. You know you have to go to certain areas for example Pierce you knew you have to go to the folks around Rantoul and say we're going to close your base. That doesn't sit very well Congressman senators and those kinds of folks. Any time you want to draw down your infrastructure has to be approved by Congress. So then you have to wonder OK who's willing to give up their base if we went to St. Louis and said hey guys we want to close Scott Air Force Base What do you think the folks around St. Louis would say. That's probably not a good option for them. Now it's been very successful here in the rental area folks up there have been able to take. You need Air Force Base and turn into something worthwhile. And they've done a great

job of it. Also successful down in Myrtle Beach South Carolina where we closed air force base near the beach. The cities are able to take over the land that the air bases have been sitting on and use it for worthwhile projects. But again it's it's something you need to get through Congress that's a tough thing to do there. We are getting close to the midpoint of the program and actually there's something we need to do a little test here of our emergency broadcast system. Something we do the first Tuesday of every month. So maybe rather than launching into another question let's just do that real quick and take about a minute and then we'll continue our conversation. This is a test of the Emergency Alert System. And this is Focus 580 our telephone to our program my name is David and I guess this morning here in this first

hour focus 580 Lieutenant Colonel Robert Harvey. He's a national defense fellow at the University of Illinois in the program for arms control disarmament and international security he has an Air Force active duty Air Force officer and command pilot. And we're talking here a little bit about how it is we're thinking these days about the defense that we need and how to get there. Questions are welcome three three three W. wild toll free 800 2 2 2 W. 1. I think probably when people think about the possibility of restructuring or making major changes in the way the armed forces are structured in this country people also talk about service rivalry between the various branches of service and wonder whether in fact we couldn't set up a system that was that was more unified rather than have separate branches that seem to compete with one another for resources and sometimes perhaps duplicate hardware and other things because you know if you've got a plane somebody else has got to

have their own plan and it can't be the same plane it's got to be a different plane. And where that in that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And I'm sure though that within the various branches there are very strong traditions ideas that independence are a very important thing and the idea is that where the Air Force and where the army and where somehow different. Can you imagine though moving toward a time when it's it's more like just one force and you don't really have that kind of separate yet. That is we have a we have a sea bass. We have a sea based leg we have an air base leg we have a land based like. And that it's all really part of one force Exactly and that's the driving force behind what's known as the Gramm-Rudman act in 1906. Prior to that time we even though we had a joint staff it really didn't answer to the president the chairman didn't work for the president worked for the secretary of defense the chairman the Joint Chiefs of Staff now works directly for the president. The Joint Chiefs of Staff is made up of the commanders of

all the services. They sit on the staff on the joint in the tank and decide what's best for America overall as opposed to what's best for the individual services services. So we are leaning in that direction. It's a kind of a baby steps kind of thing we have to go one step at a time. But now that the joint staff is. Developed and actually owns oversight there's a direct division of the Joint Staff that talks about act or oversees acquisition of all the services and services have to recommend to join staff when you want to buy this particular aircraft or this particular ship and the joint staff has to recommend that to the chairman the chairman recommends it to the president so we're moving in that direction. It may take another few decades or even longer before we have a little bit more seamless operation. Currently however again if you go back to the to the structure the Congress has given us they have created five separate divisions for money. The Air Force Army Navy

the Special Operations OK for the Marine Corps gets their money from the Navy. So the Special Operations Command is independent. So each is competing for a part of the budget that Congress will follow will allow at the end of the year. So again it's an all in interactive type of thing between the military budget or the military departments. The secretary of defense and the Congress Congress is actually the power of the purse are the ones who decide what we're going to buy and when we're going to buy it. Now sometimes there are things that maybe are lower priorities for the military services to buy but there are higher priorities for Congressmen to buy because it's built in their district. OK so those are kinds of infighting that go on in Washington that you have to have to take into account when you're trying to budget things. It is a big budget battle. Eventually hopefully in the in the future some time that we'll all work for what we all do work for one one guy but we'll all. All the budget folks work for one guy and that will solve some of those problems. When you look at the capabilities of each of the independent services though I think when you get down looking at the details of what he eats individual

service does you'll see that there's really not that much overlap. Even though for example the Navy has some space structure they primarily channel most of that through the air force or anything that really goes up into space channeled through the Air Force where the Navy owns or the Air Force owns it or in a seance it doesn't really matter. It's kind of channeled through space command. So we try not to duplicate effort. And another thing we try to do is use commonality and buy off the shelf type technologies. For example the Joint Strike Fighter that we're trying to build that will be a fighter for all the services the Marines will buy at the Navy will buy it. Even the British Marines will buy. And of course the Air Force will buy it. We're talking about a common airframe and then it does different capability to land on a carrier will take off vertically for short takeoff for the Marines. Yet a conventional takeoff version for the Air Force. So we're trying to do that we're working towards that business. That's an excellent point and Gramm-Rudman are a few years ahead of you there. Yeah well there I one wonders if even I'm certain that in the future. No matter what happens there would still be people would strongly identify with what it is they do and there would be

this really sense strong sense of identity perhaps that I'm up that I fly jets or that I am a Marine or that you know I'm a you know I'm a guy who works on an aircraft carrier or or a battleship or whatever but can you really even imagine a day when everybody's essentially wearing the same uniform. I could see that. Personally I like that idea that we're all just in the same in the service of the United States and we all wear the same uniform and I just happen to fly or I just happen to do this as my part of that contribution. Certainly I think that there's a strong mentality toward that United States military. We're all Americans first we all try to think that way. Although you know when you ask me what I do that while I'm a pilot you know I'm an airman Basically I'm an airman I do whatever the Air Force needs me to do. Same with Marines Marines or Marines and they do whatever they're told to do whether carrying a rifle or pushing a pen and Washington somewhere. We're all Americans first and I hope we hope we keep that attitude you know going back to

the point that the caller raised I think that again some people who are in the Defense Policy business or analysis business have been talking for some time now about how new technologies will revolutionize defense and for example the one point that you discussed on uninhabited the air craft air airplanes essentially that have known what people want to know people and you know right and there are a lot of other things that sometimes are in that category of whiz bang stuff that you know one wonders is this just it's a cool sounding idea or can this thing actually become something that we would use. But having said all that I think though that some some people are suggesting that we we could be doing more already with taking advantage of new technologies and that for some reason we're just very slow. And that is it's it's hard to break out of the way that we had been thinking about. What kind of conflict we're preparing for and how to beat that. In

fact sometimes I think some people suggest that one of the problems we're having nowadays is that rather than the the missions shrinking that we think the military needs to perform they have actually grown we're actually expecting more of the military because we haven't quite gotten away from the old land based war idea. And at the same time we have added all these other things. We did things radio more rather than less. That's a great point I'd like to address that for many if I could the number of missions that we've been asked to do over the last 10 years has grown exponentially now for example. I'd like to quote General crew aka The Marine commandant former Marine commandant. He coined a term called the three block war. We're asking this 18 year old kid now with that with a rifle to do some young corporal we sent him to a place let's say for example Somalia and in the first block as he's walking into a village or town and he he's he's met by cheering crowds who are glad to see him pat him on the back treat him really nice when he gets to the second block what he's found is the crowds aren't quite so enthusiastic yet

there's still crowds but then from the rooftops the snipers are shooting at him and his buddies. You're asking him to make the distinction in block want to block to between good guys bad guys when to shoot not to shoot when he gets to block 3 and the crowd becomes hostile Now you're asking him to make the decision. Good guys bad guys who do shoot who not to shoot civilians not civilians who's got weapons and what not. You're taking a kid off the street America just average kids like you got here in the university and you're giving him a rifle you given him some training. But how can you really train a kid for that. How can you train him to understand the difference between block one block to block 3 that's quite a challenge. The significant challenge for a young man to deal with a young young woman to deal with. That's that's the challenge that we face today for the younger guys. Let's back up and talk about the technology issue though that the caller brought up. Technology is a wonderful thing but remember it's very expensive. So again we work within constrained budgets and hopefully we're not out there wasting too much money we're trying our best not to. But let's say for example in World War 2 we

wanted to blow up a factory in Schweinfurt Germany. We sent 300 B-17 through the seven teams with 10 men each so three thousand men we lost 60 in one day. We lost 600 men in one day and we went back the next day and same thing lost 60 more points. Now today with our technology and our advancements and remember this only 50 years 55 years now with our technology today and our advancements we can book that factory with one or point one guy two bombs. And we can put them in whatever window we want to put them in now. That's a great capability to have but it sure doesn't help us in that three block war. So we've been working on that for 50 years we have been working on the three block war. Up until this last decade. Now we're trying to train military folks or people who've been thinking this way for 50 years or one way for 50 years how to deal with a totally different problem. Yet that young corporal still has to be able to hit the beaches as in the folks anyway Jima did. I think that one specific thing that I know I have talked with people about

one technological develop that makes a big difference is the ability we have together intelligence about the opponent the field of battle. It certainly was the case for a long long time probably through most of the history of warfare that you really don't have any idea what you're going to face till you get there and once you're in a battle when you're in the middle of it it's really hard to know what's going on just a little bit to one side of the place that you are exactly warfare is not an easy thing to do you deal with that. It certainly doesn't follow any set rules. Intelligence gathering though can give you an incredible advantage over your enemy if you get the right intelligence. Remember he's trying to give you false intelligence as well he's trying to conceal whatever it is he's trying to do he's trying to conceal that from you likewise you're trying to conceal it from him. So intelligence would be a magnificent thing if you had all powerful intelligent all seeing

all knowing. That's what we're working toward. We've got all kinds of intelligence gathering techniques and mechanisms and tools everything from satellites down the people in listening posts on the ground. But still. Putting all the intelligence together determining the course of action that your adversary is taking and then determining what course of action you should take to defeat his course of action that still is a skill an art that it has to be developed and trained in officers and leaders. Well though is it really the case that say if you're a commander on the battlefield. If I could give you now the kind of information that commanders who came before you never would have had that as a say I can say I'll give you a perfect view of the terrain I'll tell you where the where your opponents are I'll give you everything from minute to minute you'll know exactly what's happening where your guys are where his guys are. Does that really though mean that then I can say you know having you know I want to give you all this information but I'm also give you less

hardware less fewer troops than I would have in the past and that maybe you think you need it can I actually do that. Yeah I didn't do it you certainly can if I know what's going to happen. If I knew exactly what was going to happen then I could tell you the exact minimum number of force structure that I would need to counter that. That would be great but again there's something called the fog of war the right Carl Clausewitz to develop better brought up back in 800 so that things don't always go the way you want and you just don't know what's going to happen so you need to prepare be prepared for the unknown the unexpected. We have about 10 minutes left in this part of focus 580 our guest Lieutenant Colonel Robert Harvey. He's a national defense fellow at University of Illinois in the program for arms control disarmament and international security questions welcome. Three three three W I L L or 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5 hears call or talk with in Champagne County on our line number 1.

Hello good morning. Not particularly a question though of the deterioration of language certain that the military uses is as widely commented on I think we've had a lot of examples of that in one. One thing I'll just point out is that the U.S. is just looking out at what the existing environment is as if it hasn't had a lot to do with constructing the realities of having to deal with and that sort of presumes that you know there's no discussion of policy other than military. The this idea of the three block war or sort of really brings the right home that we're talking about is a war against civilians and that's why Kerry is in the position he's in. Because it was a war against civilians you slit the throats in one hunch. You lined them up in another area and shoot them. There are different strategies for different blocks but the main thing is that it's a war against civilians that that that that is in the embodied in the premise of that whole discussion. I'm just going to talk right past the sky and say that I think it's interesting to see that the first caller the only other

caller actually the presumption was you know missile defense is just well on its way and it's also not a policy that can be discussed. And since curious that the announcement is coming today that's curious also that they're not talking about C-based in a big way which I guess is because you have to get some of these Navy people in and the shipyards involved in it too. But there's a book written by someone in the Syracuse peace community a long time ago I hope it's still in print called arming the heaven. Which just sort of catalogs the kind of mad fancy stuff people were having at the beginning of the space. Space age and what kind of weaponry and that sort of thing the second actually makes the argument the space shuttle was upsized because it was also seen as a personnel delivery to HOTSPOTS a kind of vehicle never really wasn't any way out. All right that's enough for me I guess I'm just tying up with the rest of us. I'm whatever you want to call it.

All right well you can respond and if you want to respond as I'm sure I'd like to take that one on. Well first of all let's just point out that the United States government makes a policy Ena and I agree with you if you did it but if you don't like the policy you know you're certainly free to call your congressman call your senator and nine kerja to do that. The point is that the military does the best job that they can do given a situation such as Bosnia or Somalia or whatever whatever it is we do the best that we can do we're just average Americans like everybody else out here trying to do the best job we can. The point that I would drive home here is that policy is made by the politicians which in turn is made by the people and people of this country have a great powerful tool in that they can email their congressmen call their congressman write to their congressman their senator pick up the phone give them a call they'd love to hear from you. Other questions are welcome as I say we have about 10 minutes left in this part of focus five eighty three three three W. wild toll free 800 1:58 W while one of the things that we've talked about one of the changes in the

the nature of the mission the military have to face is that there are now more missions where military are involved where it's not a not a clear cut combat situation where they're involved in peacekeeping they're involved in essentially doing things that are intended to effect or support some kind of political change on the ground somewhere in the world that does not involve us by bombing the play that's exactly right. Our new our new mission if you'll if you'll call it that is to do many other things besides just a clear cut war one side versus the other side. This concept of peacemaking or peace keeping peace keeping for example you go e put our troops in between two belligerents or maybe even more belligerence as his case in Bosnia. And you kind of put our boys and girls in between the other folks that are shooting each other and you say please don't shoot our guys in the middle. That's an interesting concept. It holds and it's held in Bosnia because the

belligerents have decided not to shoot at the peacekeeping forces. In other cases that doesn't always work. Now the concept of peacemaking is so close to the other end of the spectrum called warfare that you know you have to go into a situation and make the belligerent stop shooting at each other. That's a difficult thing to do that's more closer to warfare and we kind of shy away from that. But again you have to ask the public of America before you get involved in one of these kinds of things is it worth it to American to have Americans getting killed. Is it worth it to America to have Americans getting killed as opposed to other people getting killed in another part of the world. And at what point do we say yes and at what point do we say No again that's not up to the military decide we pretty much go we're told to go and do the best that we can do. I just want to bring one other thing back here. That young corporal walking through the three blocks you know he's just an average kid from America somewhere with an average education hopefully better than average education. And now he's trying to do the best that he can you know he's not out there to to give

anybody a black eye by. Doing something illegal immoral or any of those kinds of things he's worried about his his life and his buddies lives and he's just trying to do the best he can. We owe him the benefit of the doubt and try to support him a little bit. How is it possible to say here is something that's not really possible because you can't speak for everybody in uniform but is it possible to say. How people in the military particularly the people who really are on the ground the people walking along carrying rifles feel about the places that they go now where the mission is not that clear where they have as much of a political function as a military or I can certainly speak to that I've got many friends in all the services and it involves the Air Force as well. Originally in the early 90s most people were kind of shocked and upset and said you know why am I doing it why are we doing this why am I doing this. This isn't what I do I fight wars etc.

but over the decades we've we've adapted to it and we've learned that that's going to be our bread and butter that's where we're going to make our money. So we've adapted to it we've done the best that we can and we're trying to make it work and we're just in there pitch in and trying to do the best that we can. I think it's not so much a sore point anymore is that as an understanding that if we're involved in these situations hopefully will avoid the bigger wars at the far end so we want to get involved we want to do our best. What do you think about the kind of quality of recruits that you're getting now. I like the quality in military force structure is a phenomenal today the all volunteer force is first of all it's made of people who want to be there. Certainly those that re-enlistment stay in made up entirely of people who want to be there and I think American Americans can all be proud of the force structure that we had today that these kids are phenomenal They're bright they're intelligence that they're they're nice they're kind kids they like to have fun we all like to have fun but push comes to shove I couldn't think of anybody else in the world I'd rather depend on and these American kids out there

today. As I say we have a couple of minutes left or someone has a question to get on the phone real quick Don't wait to live in the last minute. The number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 w oil or 9 4 5 5. We do also have a toll free line. And that's good wherever you can hear us around Illinois Indiana that's 800 to 2 2 9 4 5. Again three three three. Wy L.L. and toll free 800 2 2 2. W Well I think we are getting another caller here lined up. So rather than again launching into a question wait and we'll get them ready to go here on our line number one and we're right here. Yes Champaign County Hello. Yes I have a question for those coming home. Yes I have a 12 year old son who has been interested in the Air Force since. Probably about five years old and it sounds like you or your guest has had a good career in the Air Force and I could wonder

if he could give me an idea about his background and how he became interested in this type of career and what I might be able to do for my son if he continues to show this kind of interest. Well I'm always been interested in flying I've loved the idea of flying or since I think I was eight years old saw the Thunderbirds fly at an air show and that's the first thing I would tell you is taken to an air show and let him see all the airplanes because he'll love it. The first thing that's going to be important is education I encourage all the kids out there get an education that's the most important thing. And all the officers all the pilots in the military are officers and all the officers have to have a four year college degree before they are considered to be officers so encourages education surely. And I take him to the air shows take him out to the airport let him fly once he can get an introductory flight at most of the little base operators at some of the local airports and that will really help him out. OK. Thanks so much. You bet I want to get one more here. Callers in champagne's line

too. Hello. Just an observation and a question. The two callers back the Germans. Quoting the Vietnam experience with what we were trying to do in Somalia and Bosnia is way off base and his language was a little prick Jordan. I did agree with him though on the missile defense plan I get the impression that we are much better off building our conventional infrastructure and I'm not anywhere near convinced that this missile defense plan is feasible or that we should pursue it. And I was wondering if you could comment on that. No hang up. OK thanks. Sure I'll give you my opinion on that. First of all you know that's the NMD national missile defense a very expensive project. Whether or not we need that. I don't have made up in my own mind yet but I do understand both sides of the issue that some folks think that there is potential out there for somebody to launch a nuclear weapon at us at the United States should that ever happen it would be a sad day if we didn't have a national missile defense. But on the other hand it is

very expensive. And that's one of those things where you have to say could I spend the money better elsewhere. Again that's one of those things where I'd encourage you to let your senator know because these decisions are made certainly directly in Congress and in the administration. That's. They want to hear from me they want to know what you think they want to know. Specially if you think you could spend that money somewhere else to let them know we're at the point we're going to have to stop with the promise I'm sure that a lot of the things we've touched on this morning including national missile defense will come back and we'll do other programs on Certainly that I'm sure in the future will be talking about and other sorts of defense related issues from other perspectives so you're not happy with us when you just stay tuned and we'll try to get some other shows for you in the meantime we want to say thanks very much. Thank you Dave guessed Lieutenant Colonel Robert Harvey He's a national defense fellow at the University of Illinois in the program for arms control disarmament and International Security.