Reconstitution, the Secretary has talked to already. As we put this budget together, we recognized that it is an uncertain world. We can't be sure what will happen in the years ahead; and if things don't go the way we would like them to go, we have to be able to reconstitute our forces at a higher level. Finally, the Secretary has already talked about the need for a solid research and development program. We have seen what our technology can do and in the years ahead, we have to make sure that we keep our technological edge. Desert Storm is a good way to look at how we have used these four force packages and capabilities. When Desert Shield began on the 7th of August, we led with light contingency forces to put our presence on the ground as soon as possible. Over time, we drew in our Atlantic and Pacific forces to build up our presence, and now you have seen all of those forces come together to include contributions made by our strategic forces, as well as the use of all of those underlying bedrock capabilities that I spoke to. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I believe that we will continue to need a world-class military. Smaller, but with the same professionalism, competence, pride and ability you see demonstrated in Operation Desert Storm. Moreover, I believe we can have just such a world-class military in the future if we work together for this common purpose. Working together means we have to break out of old time-warp patterns in the Pentagon, especially parochialism and log rolling. To a remarkable and unprecedented degree, as evidenced in Operation Desert Storm, we have worked together to develop the strategy and the force packages that derived from that strategy. I hope Congress will respond in kind. We need to close bases to increase efficiency and conserve programs. We need to kill programs. We cannot afford all of the programs we have been carrying in previous budgets. We need to constrain our mutual desires to micromanage military force structure. Such micromanagement costs us enormous inefficiencies, and by small and endless tampering, defeats our common purpose. We need to curb parochial investments. Breaking free of the debilitating practices of the past demands that we invest wisely in the future. We can no longer afford to do otherwise. If we can achieve this common purpose, working together, we can maintain the finest armed forces we have ever had and we can do it in a way that accommodates change, accommodates fiscal reality and yet ensures our national security. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEN. COLIN L. POWELL Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on America's military posture in connection with your hearings on the President's defense budget for fiscal years 1992 and 1993. While we discuss this budget request here today, American forces and our coalition allies are engaged in combat half way around the globe. Thus, I plan to discuss Operation DESERT STORM as well as America's overall military posture. I know the members of the House Armed Services Committee feel the same pride I feel in the professionalism and courage of the men and women of our armed forces now at war in the Persian Gulf region. Some of our troops are prisoners of war, some are missing in action, and some have lost their lives. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families. As we discuss today the best military strategy and force structure for defending America from the threats she might face, we must never forget that, after the money is spent and the weapons purchased and the forces trained, it all comes down to dedicated men and women willing to put their lives on the line for their country men and women such as those at war in the Gulf today. Dramatic Changes and the New World Order Looking back over the past twelve months, we have continued to see a period of tremendous change in the world, of new forces shaping the strategic landscape. The international security environment is undergoing a profound transformation, due in no small measure to steadfast US and allied resolve. In 1989, we witnessed the first stages of the emerging new order with the upheaval in Central and Eastern Europe and the fall of the Berlin Wall, as people kept under the yoke of Communism and dominated by the Soviet Union for four decades gained their freedom. In 1990, the changes accelerated: Germany united, Soviet troops leaving Central and Eastern Europe as host countries held free elections, the Warsaw Pact collapsing, and a major arms control agreement was concluded which will reduce conventional forces in Europe. These events might never have occurred had it not been for the strength and purpose we and our allies 1 National Security Interests and Obiectives Despite the dramatic changes in the international environment, the broad national security interests that give focus to U.S. military objectives, strategy and forces remain largely constant. encompass: These interests The survival of the United States as a free and independent nation, with its fundamental values intact and its institutions and people secure. A healthy and growing US economy to ensure opportunity for individual prosperity and a resource base for national endeavors at home and abroad. - A stable and secure world, fostering political freedom, human Healthy, cooperative, and politically vigorous relations with allies, friendly nations, and former adversaries. The Role of US Armed Forces The fundamental role of America's armed forces remains constant: to deter war and, should deterrence fail, to defend the nation's vital interests against any potential foe. As a great democracy we are morally bound to an inherently defensive posture. As the world's sole superpower in every meaning of the term, we have global interests and responsibilities that require a military force of wide-ranging capabilities. We need these forces to: - Deter military attack against the United States, its allies, and other · Protect free commerce; enhance the spread of democracy; Contribute to regional stability through military presence, mutual security arrangements, and security assistance; and to discourage 2 thereby, in concert with other instruments of power, policies and Stem the production and transit of illegal drugs and their entry into the United States. Help other national and international agencies combat terrorism. Emerging and Enduring Realities While our national and military objectives have remained relatively constant, the threat to our accomplishing those objectives has changed. So has the fiscal environment that sustains our military forces. Two emerging realities accentuate these changes. The most important emerging reality is the end of the Cold War and a redefined and improved relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. The old context for maintaining our force structure is gone, and our understanding of what will replace it is necessarily incomplete. The second emerging reality is that, given the requirement to bring government spending and revenues into balance, military planners must assume that our defense budget and the resources available to us will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. However, as the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait amply demonstrates, we cannot afford to reduce our budget so quickly and so far as to harm our capability to defend our interests whenever they may be threatened. Nevertheless, reduced defense budgets, like our Cold War victory, are realities with which military leaders must deal. Accompanying these emerging realities are important enduring realities. The first is the reality of Soviet military power. While the Soviet military threat is finally being reduced, it will hardly disappear. Notwithstanding its evolving ideology and the intentions of its leadership, the Soviet Union remains the one country in the world with the means to destroy the United States in a single devastating attack. Even after a START Treaty is concluded and the two sides begin to reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals, the USSR will retain thousands of nuclear warheads. And Moscow continues to modernize its strategic nuclear forces as it reduces some of its older, obsolete systems. 3 With the ratification of the CFE Treaty, the principal threat to Western Europe a short-warning attack by massive Soviet conventional forces - I will have been removed. Nevertheless, whatever the future Soviet state may look like, it will still have millions of wellarmed men in uniform and will remain, by far, the strongest military force on the Eurasian landmass. The second enduring reality is America's continued vital interests across the Atlantic Ocean. All of the positive changes we have seen in Europe are a testament to the success of collective defense. Preserving a free and stable Europe will remain an enduring interest of the United States that requires our attention and our resources. Although the prospect of a concerted military threat to Western Europe from the East has faded, continued political and economic instability in Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union presents new concerns and the imperatives for new approaches to collective security. Consequently, we and our NATO partners are conducting a thorough review of alliance strategy. The broad outlines of a new force posture are already emerging and include highly mobile military units, some of which will be restructured into multinational formations. The number of active units will be scaled back, and increasing reliance will be placed on mobilization and reconstitution. Also across the Atlantic are the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. There, enduring obligations and regional threats to US vital interests will place continuing demands on our armed forces. After we eject Iraq from Kuwait, we will need to examine carefully our commitment to the region and what sort of collective security arrangement will be required to deter future threats to our friends and allies there. A third enduring reality lies in and across the Pacific Ocean. There, the divided Korean Peninsula stands in contrast to a Europe becoming increasingly whole and free. However, the US security burden in Korea is being eased by the continuing growth of democracy, economic success, and military capability in South Korea. The continuing presence of US combat forces on the Peninsula is essential to bolster deterrence, as well as to promote the long-term prospects for a peaceful North-South dialogue. Our recent assessment of the US-Republic of Korea (ROK) security relationship demonstrated that we can make modest reductions in our force presence in Korea, as well as in Japan and elsewhere in the 4 |