關於「重返東亞」的大戰略、「海空一體作戰」的戰略、「福特號」超級航艦與美國國防部長Chuck Hagel裁減陸軍的計劃(中)
[您可以跳過英文的部分]
三
Hagel部長的「2015會計年度預算預覽」發表了之後，各方都加以評論，我們先來讀「華爾街日報」的社論。
“Obama's Shrinking Army”
Plenty of cash for entitlements, but not enough for defense.
The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 28, 2014
The White House made clear last week that it had no interest in Social Security reform, citing budget projections showing a shrinking deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio. This week Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel rolled out a budget that would shrink the Army to pre-World War II levels, on the excuse that the Pentagon needs to recognize "the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges."
So we're rolling in dough when it comes to entitlements, and on Wednesday the President also proposed to spend $302 billion on roads. Yet we're out of cash for defense. This is the policy combination that has made much of Europe bankrupt and defenseless at the same time.
Speaking Monday at the Pentagon, Mr. Hagel stressed how much better off the military was under his budget than it would have been under sequestration, which may be true. And there are points in the Hagel plan to support. It preserves the Marine Corps at close to its current strength of 190,000. It maintains a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. It promises investment in our decaying nuclear infrastructure. It retires the Eisenhower-era U-2 spy plane in favor of unmanned Global Hawks and cuts purchases of the problem-plagued and vulnerable Littoral Combat Ship to 32 ships from 52, in favor of plans for a more capable frigate-like alternative.
The Secretary also called for paring personnel costs, which account for about half the Pentagon budget. He's asking for further base closures and warned that he'd use his discretionary authority to cull bases if Congress balked. He'd be within his rights. The Pentagon "is operating at 20% excess capacity in bases—many billions a year," says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington, D.C. think tank. "This is the height of waste."
That's the good news. The bad news is Mr. Hagel's promise of a military structured to "carry out a variety of missions more relevant to the President's defense strategy."
Thus the special-ops forces favored by Mr. Obama will grow to nearly 70,000 personnel, a force larger than the entire German Army. We're all for the SEALs and Rangers, but it didn't require a brigade to kill Osama bin Laden or free Captain Phillips. The Army's helicopter fleet will be cut by 25%. The entire fleet of A-10 "Warthog" ground-attack jets, one of the most reliable combat aircraft the U.S. has ever fielded, will be retired, presumably to be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but not until 2020.
Those decisions are of a piece with the headline news that the Army will shrink to between 440,000 and 450,000 troops from 520,000 today. "Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged stability operations, an Army of [the current] size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defense strategy," Mr. Hagel said. Translation: Since we're never going to fight a war like Iraq again, we can do with a much smaller force.
One problem with this thinking is that it ignores that the Army was too small even at the height of the Iraq War. As former Army Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane reminds us, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars had to be fought sequentially, not concurrently, because the U.S. lacked the manpower to conduct two full counterinsurgency campaigns at the same time. "And they weren't big wars," Gen. Keane adds.
It is hubris and bad policy to assume the U.S. will never again fight another lengthy, manpower-intensive war that begins abruptly and requires a swift response—think of Korea or Kuwait. Critics of Iraq often claim it was a "war of choice," but the reality of these cuts is that it will leave the next Commander in Chief with far fewer choices to deter aggression or respond to a threat. There could not have been a surge in Iraq, and thus a military victory, with an Army of 450,000 troops.
The steep reduction in manpower and equipment is an invitation to unexpected aggression. [大規模裁軍是在對無法被預測的侵略發出邀請] In his speech, Mr. Hagel insisted that the force levels he envisions would be sufficient to protect the homeland, win a war in one theater, and conduct a successful holding action in a second. But how would a U.S. that found itself in another Gulf War respond if China took advantage of the opportunity to seize Taiwan, or if Russia took Ukraine? The purpose of fielding a large Army is to minimize the temptations for aggression. [國防部長在演說中堅持，---Read More--- 他所展望與規劃的未來武裝部隊的規模足以保護美國本土、在一個戰場獲勝並能在第二個戰場從事有效的牽制行動。但是在美國發現它得打另一場中東戰爭時 ，如果中國趁機佔領台灣或俄羅斯佔領烏克蘭時，美國將如何應付?「華爾街日報」為什麼主張要建立較大規模的陸軍呢?因為這可以把侵略的引誘減到最小]。[註: 在許多美國媒體與學者專家的文章中，都會順便提到台灣的安全問題，這表示它們與他們的雷達視距中有台灣。親美的台灣人應該對它們與他們表示感謝。]
Mr. Hagel concluded Monday's speech by quoting Henry Stimson, the Republican statesman Franklin Roosevelt recruited in July 1940 to prepare the country for war. Stimson inherited an Army of 270,000 troops and within a year it had grown to 1.46 million. Mr. Hagel, another Republican named to the Pentagon by a Democratic president, may imagine he's walking in Stimson's footsteps, but he and the President are taking the Army in the opposite direction.
四
接下來我們來讀 倫敦「金融時報」一篇很精彩的評論文章。
“US military: Boots off the Ground”
Plans to cut the US army are sparking political resistance at home
By Geoff Dyer
The Financial Times
February 28, 2014
Before he stood down as US defence secretary in 2011, Robert Gates issued a memorable warning about an American military that has now been at war for more than 12 consecutive years in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Any future defence secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined,” he told cadets at West Point. [美國前國防部長Robert Gates在西點軍校的演講中說: 任何再向總統建議派遣一支大規模的陸軍部隊到亞洲或中東或非洲的未來的美國國防部長的頭殼都應該被檢查，他這句話是小布希總統打伊拉克戰爭一段時間後到今天的美國主流民意，受中國或俄羅斯威脅的亞洲或歐洲國家或地區的人民必須警惕。]
Chuck Hagel, his successor at the Pentagon, has taken the advice to heart. In a speech this week that outlined plans to bring the military into line with the reality of a new era of lower budgets, the US defence secretary announced that the army would bear the bulk of the burden. [很顯然，現任的美國國防部長把前任的話銘記在心。]
Having reached a peak of 566,000 soldiers during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, the US army will be scaled back to between 440,000 and 450,000. It will leave the US with the smallest force since before the start of the second world war.
“This is the first time in 13 years we will be presenting a budget to the Congress of the United States that is not a war-footing budget,” Mr Hagel said this week. “You may say that it is a defining budget because it starts to reset, reshape, rebalance and refine our enterprise for the future.”
The headline-grabbing reductions in land forces come at a time when the US public has soured on military entanglements overseas and when many questions are being asked about America’s ability and willingness to project power – especially after President Barack Obama’s public wobble last year over military action in Syria.
For members of the military, the implications of cuts in Pentagon welfare spending are just as painful. “After everything we have been through, it is just sickening that they want us to keep paying more,” says James Rodriguez, an Iraq veteran who was coming out of an appointment at Walter Reed Military Medical Center near Washington on Thursday.
Mr Hagel’s speech raises two fundamental questions about the US military, the first strategic, the second political. Is such a big cut in the army evidence of an American retreat from the world or is it a smart readjustment to the new threats that confront Washington? [美國國防部長Hagel的大規模陸軍裁軍計劃是美國從世界撤守的證據 ，還是美國對付諸多新的威脅的聰明調整?][註: 關於美國是否已在或正在從世界撤守一事，我們以後會寫文章來討論]And second, can the Pentagon boss implement the big changes he has announced in the face of tenacious vested interests, both within the Pentagon and in Congress?(美國國防部長Hagel在面對來自國防部內部與國會既得利益者的強力反對之下，能否執行他所宣佈的大規模陸軍裁軍計劃?)
In a war-weary country, a big cut in the size of the army – which surged in the years after September 11 2001 – is very much in line with the popular mood. The decision fits neatly with Mr Obama’s claims that his presidency will see the two big wars of the past decade come to a close and that the US should do some nation-building at home. [作者同意 ，Hagel的大規模陸軍裁軍計劃是符合現在的主流民意的 ，也符合現任美國總統要把注意力轉向美國國家內部建設的主張。]
“The worst phrase in American politics right now is boots on the ground,” says William Galston, a former Clinton official now at the Brookings Institution. “From the point of view of the American people, naval power is clean, air power is clean, but land power is dirty.” (從美國人民的觀點來看 ，海軍與空軍的力量是乾淨的，而陸軍則是污穢的。)[註: 這就是為什麼建州派在現階段強力支持美國從柯林頓第二個任期以來從事以對付中國威脅為出發點的「海空一體作戰」的軍事建設工程，可惜這項大工程的許多預算被911以後的反恐戰爭及伊拉克戰爭吃掉。]
In his speech this week, Mr Hagel was at pains to suggest the cuts in the army did not represent a retreat by the US from its global role. Rather than preparing for big land operations that the administration is desperate¬¬ to avoid, he said the Pentagon was focusing on the major challenges and threats that the US was facing, notably terrorism and the rise of potential competitors such as China. [唯恐被外界以為陸軍大規模的裁軍計劃意味著美國將從它在全球性的角色中撤退，國防部長Hagel說，他的建軍計劃將聚焦在對付對美國的主要威脅與挑戰，特別是恐怖主義與像中國這種潛在的競爭者的竄起。][註: Hagel的確是注意到中國這個邪惡帝國的竄起對美國所帶來的威脅。不過，建州派必須不斷提醒他認真地執行「海空一體作戰」的軍事建設與作戰準備。]
While the headline figures for the army and the marines are being slashed, the number of special operations forces – the sorts of units that conducted the operation to kill Osama bin Laden – is expected to rise by¬¬ 6 per cent. Projecting power in the western Pacific is much more about the navy and the air force than the army. (在西太平洋投射美國武力主要是海空武裝力量 ，而非陸軍)
While both services will feel some pain in the cuts, Mr Hagel has made efforts to limit the impact, especially on their assets in Asia.Hagel部長的「2015會計年度預算預覽」發表了之後，各方都加以評論，我們先來讀「華爾街日報」的社論。
“Obama's Shrinking Army”
Plenty of cash for entitlements, but not enough for defense.
The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 28, 2014
The White House made clear last week that it had no interest in Social Security reform, citing budget projections showing a shrinking deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio. This week Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel rolled out a budget that would shrink the Army to pre-World War II levels, on the excuse that the Pentagon needs to recognize "the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges."
So we're rolling in dough when it comes to entitlements, and on Wednesday the President also proposed to spend $302 billion on roads. Yet we're out of cash for defense. This is the policy combination that has made much of Europe bankrupt and defenseless at the same time.
Speaking Monday at the Pentagon, Mr. Hagel stressed how much better off the military was under his budget than it would have been under sequestration, which may be true. And there are points in the Hagel plan to support. It preserves the Marine Corps at close to its current strength of 190,000. It maintains a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. It promises investment in our decaying nuclear infrastructure. It retires the Eisenhower-era U-2 spy plane in favor of unmanned Global Hawks and cuts purchases of the problem-plagued and vulnerable Littoral Combat Ship to 32 ships from 52, in favor of plans for a more capable frigate-like alternative.
The Secretary also called for paring personnel costs, which account for about half the Pentagon budget. He's asking for further base closures and warned that he'd use his discretionary authority to cull bases if Congress balked. He'd be within his rights. The Pentagon "is operating at 20% excess capacity in bases—many billions a year," says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington, D.C. think tank. "This is the height of waste."
That's the good news. The bad news is Mr. Hagel's promise of a military structured to "carry out a variety of missions more relevant to the President's defense strategy."
Thus the special-ops forces favored by Mr. Obama will grow to nearly 70,000 personnel, a force larger than the entire German Army. We're all for the SEALs and Rangers, but it didn't require a brigade to kill Osama bin Laden or free Captain Phillips. The Army's helicopter fleet will be cut by 25%. The entire fleet of A-10 "Warthog" ground-attack jets, one of the most reliable combat aircraft the U.S. has ever fielded, will be retired, presumably to be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but not until 2020.
Those decisions are of a piece with the headline news that the Army will shrink to between 440,000 and 450,000 troops from 520,000 today. "Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged stability operations, an Army of [the current] size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defense strategy," Mr. Hagel said. Translation: Since we're never going to fight a war like Iraq again, we can do with a much smaller force.
One problem with this thinking is that it ignores that the Army was too small even at the height of the Iraq War. As former Army Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane reminds us, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars had to be fought sequentially, not concurrently, because the U.S. lacked the manpower to conduct two full counterinsurgency campaigns at the same time. "And they weren't big wars," Gen. Keane adds.
It is hubris and bad policy to assume the U.S. will never again fight another lengthy, manpower-intensive war that begins abruptly and requires a swift response—think of Korea or Kuwait. Critics of Iraq often claim it was a "war of choice," but the reality of these cuts is that it will leave the next Commander in Chief with far fewer choices to deter aggression or respond to a threat. There could not have been a surge in Iraq, and thus a military victory, with an Army of 450,000 troops.
The steep reduction in manpower and equipment is an invitation to unexpected aggression. [大規模裁軍是在對無法被預測的侵略發出邀請] In his speech, Mr. Hagel insisted that the force levels he envisions would be sufficient to protect the homeland, win a war in one theater, and conduct a successful holding action in a second. But how would a U.S. that found itself in another Gulf War respond if China took advantage of the opportunity to seize Taiwan, or if Russia took Ukraine? The purpose of fielding a large Army is to minimize the temptations for aggression. [國防部長在演說中堅持，
Mr. Hagel concluded Monday's speech by quoting Henry Stimson, the Republican statesman Franklin Roosevelt recruited in July 1940 to prepare the country for war. Stimson inherited an Army of 270,000 troops and within a year it had grown to 1.46 million. Mr. Hagel, another Republican named to the Pentagon by a Democratic president, may imagine he's walking in Stimson's footsteps, but he and the President are taking the Army in the opposite direction.
四
接下來我們來讀 倫敦「金融時報」一篇很精彩的評論文章。
“US military: Boots off the Ground”
Plans to cut the US army are sparking political resistance at home
By Geoff Dyer
The Financial Times
February 28, 2014
Before he stood down as US defence secretary in 2011, Robert Gates issued a memorable warning about an American military that has now been at war for more than 12 consecutive years in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Any future defence secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined,” he told cadets at West Point. [美國前國防部長Robert Gates在西點軍校的演講中說: 任何再向總統建議派遣一支大規模的陸軍部隊到亞洲或中東或非洲的未來的美國國防部長的頭殼都應該被檢查，他這句話是小布希總統打伊拉克戰爭一段時間後到今天的美國主流民意，受中國或俄羅斯威脅的亞洲或歐洲國家或地區的人民必須警惕。]
Chuck Hagel, his successor at the Pentagon, has taken the advice to heart. In a speech this week that outlined plans to bring the military into line with the reality of a new era of lower budgets, the US defence secretary announced that the army would bear the bulk of the burden. [很顯然，現任的美國國防部長把前任的話銘記在心。]
Having reached a peak of 566,000 soldiers during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, the US army will be scaled back to between 440,000 and 450,000. It will leave the US with the smallest force since before the start of the second world war.
“This is the first time in 13 years we will be presenting a budget to the Congress of the United States that is not a war-footing budget,” Mr Hagel said this week. “You may say that it is a defining budget because it starts to reset, reshape, rebalance and refine our enterprise for the future.”
The headline-grabbing reductions in land forces come at a time when the US public has soured on military entanglements overseas and when many questions are being asked about America’s ability and willingness to project power – especially after President Barack Obama’s public wobble last year over military action in Syria.
For members of the military, the implications of cuts in Pentagon welfare spending are just as painful. “After everything we have been through, it is just sickening that they want us to keep paying more,” says James Rodriguez, an Iraq veteran who was coming out of an appointment at Walter Reed Military Medical Center near Washington on Thursday.
Mr Hagel’s speech raises two fundamental questions about the US military, the first strategic, the second political. Is such a big cut in the army evidence of an American retreat from the world or is it a smart readjustment to the new threats that confront Washington? [美國國防部長Hagel的大規模陸軍裁軍計劃是美國從世界撤守的證據 ，還是美國對付諸多新的威脅的聰明調整?][註: 關於美國是否已在或正在從世界撤守一事，我們以後會寫文章來討論]And second, can the Pentagon boss implement the big changes he has announced in the face of tenacious vested interests, both within the Pentagon and in Congress?(美國國防部長Hagel在面對來自國防部內部與國會既得利益者的強力反對之下，能否執行他所宣佈的大規模陸軍裁軍計劃?)
In a war-weary country, a big cut in the size of the army – which surged in the years after September 11 2001 – is very much in line with the popular mood. The decision fits neatly with Mr Obama’s claims that his presidency will see the two big wars of the past decade come to a close and that the US should do some nation-building at home. [作者同意 ，Hagel的大規模陸軍裁軍計劃是符合現在的主流民意的 ，也符合現任美國總統要把注意力轉向美國國家內部建設的主張。]
“The worst phrase in American politics right now is boots on the ground,” says William Galston, a former Clinton official now at the Brookings Institution. “From the point of view of the American people, naval power is clean, air power is clean, but land power is dirty.” (從美國人民的觀點來看 ，海軍與空軍的力量是乾淨的，而陸軍則是污穢的。)[註: 這就是為什麼建州派在現階段強力支持美國從柯林頓第二個任期以來從事以對付中國威脅為出發點的「海空一體作戰」的軍事建設工程，可惜這項大工程的許多預算被911以後的反恐戰爭及伊拉克戰爭吃掉。]
In his speech this week, Mr Hagel was at pains to suggest the cuts in the army did not represent a retreat by the US from its global role. Rather than preparing for big land operations that the administration is desperate¬¬ to avoid, he said the Pentagon was focusing on the major challenges and threats that the US was facing, notably terrorism and the rise of potential competitors such as China. [唯恐被外界以為陸軍大規模的裁軍計劃意味著美國將從它在全球性的角色中撤退，國防部長Hagel說，他的建軍計劃將聚焦在對付對美國的主要威脅與挑戰，特別是恐怖主義與像中國這種潛在的競爭者的竄起。][註: Hagel的確是注意到中國這個邪惡帝國的竄起對美國所帶來的威脅。不過，建州派必須不斷提醒他認真地執行「海空一體作戰」的軍事建設與作戰準備。]
While the headline figures for the army and the marines are being slashed, the number of special operations forces – the sorts of units that conducted the operation to kill Osama bin Laden – is expected to rise by¬¬ 6 per cent. Projecting power in the western Pacific is much more about the navy and the air force than the army. (在西太平洋投射美國武力主要是海空武裝力量 ，而非陸軍)
The new budget “sustains a lot of stuff that is dear to the navy and to the air force”, says Jim Hasik, a defence expert at the Atlantic Council in Washington. (國防部長Hagel提出的新預算維持了美國的海空武力的許多部分)It is in some ways a natural readjustment after the surge in spending over the past decade, rather than a new era of austerity. In constant dollars, the Pentagon will still spend at about its historical average levels, even compared with the cold war when the military challenge it faced was much starker.
That said, there are still some concerns about the decision to whittle down the land forces so sharply. For a start, it ignores the way that the Pentagon has never been able to predict the nature of the next threat. In August 2001 there was no one in the US government thinking about how to conduct an invasion and war in Afghanistan – yet nearly 13 years later the army is still there.
Some of the Pentagon’s in-house intellectuals also worry that the US military could be over-wooed by the potential benefits of new technologies, such as drones, precision missiles and robotics, as it seeks to reduce spending.
“My concern is that we will engage in wishful thinking motivated by budget constraints,” says Major General HR McMaster, one of the army’s most prominent scholar-soldiers. He is critical of what he calls the “fallacies” that new technologies or highly capable special operations forces are going to revolutionise warfare. “These are important capabilities but they are not a strategy,” he says. “We need the ability to provide the kind of deterrence” a large army provides. [美國著名的軍事家McMaster評論說: 國防部目前在強調研發或部署的若干新軍事科技與武器系統並不能對戰爭帶來革命性地改變 ，那些都只是戰術面的改變，而非戰略，我們需要大規模的陸軍建設所帶來的嚇阻能力。]
Another of Mr Hagel’s predecessors, Donald Rumsfeld, was also a big believer in the idea that the US military should rely much less on a large contingent of ground troops and much more on special forces – a theory that led him to underestimate the number of troops needed in the Iraq invasion.
The second pressing question is whether Mr Hagel will be able to implement plans that need to be signed off by Congress. Lawmakers have a long tradition of defending weapons programmes that the Pentagon wants to end because of the jobs involved. Just last year, the air force proposed cancelling a big order of Global Hawk surveillance drones, only to be forced to buy the aircraft after a backlash in Congress.
While core military spending of $500bn (which excludes items such as $80bn for the Afghan war budget) remains vast by any international comparison, there is a looming tension in the Pentagon budget between its ability to invest in future weapons and the department’s large entitlements bill, which has risen sharply over the past decade. The military pension system currently has an unfunded liability of $1.27tn which is expected to rise to $2.72tn by 2034.
To retain space in the budget for investments in new capabilities, Mr Hagel promised cuts in two areas: base closures and steps to rein in the Pentagon’s spiralling personnel and healthcare costs. Both will involve bitter political fights with Congress.
“I have no doubt there will be huge congressional battles over what was announced. In an election year, it is going to be hard for Congress to swallow some of these proposed reforms,” says Barry Pavel, a former senior Pentagon official.
The political fallout from announcing a big cut in the army is muted partly because the impact is likely to be dispersed. Yet members of Congress will fight fiercely against any suggestion that bases in their states or districts should be closed. “The one thing on the Hill where I always found unanimity is on opposition to BRAC [base realignment and closure],” said Eric Fanning, undersecretary for the Air Force, this week.
Attempts to control personnel costs are even more controversial. Among military analysts it is almost an article of faith that the Pentagon needs to reduce spending on salaries, pensions and healthcare if it is to have money for new weapons programmes. “Realigning personnel costs and funding the pension system just has to be done, but it is a sort of third rail now,” says James Joyner, a professor at the US Marine Corps Staff College.
The bipartisan budget deal announced in December included a provision that would have cut the rate of increase for military pensions. However, veterans and other military groups have launched a fierce lobbying campaign over the past two months to block the proposal, which now looks likely to be dropped.
Moreover, prominent members of Congress have warned the Pentagon against further measures to rein in pension costs. “Any politician who wants to do this again is going to get the hell kicked out of them,” Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator for South Carolina who is facing a primary challenge for his seat, said at a press conference last month, surrounded by military personnel.
In his recent memoir, Mr Gates saved his choicest words for Congress. “Up close, it is truly ugly,” he said, decrying the “rude, insulting, belittling, bullying and all too often highly personal attacks” that he faced from lawmakers.
One of the reasons Mr Hagel was chosen to lead the Pentagon was that he was considered an ideal candidate to tackle these political thickets. A former Republican senator, he also won two Purple Hearts as an infantryman in Vietnam after enlisting rather than being drafted. But the next three years are going to be a bruising experience as he tries to trim the Pentagon without smothering the future.
(待續)
台灣建州運動發起人周威霖
David C. Chou
Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement
(an organization devoted in current stage to making Taiwan a territorial commonwealth of the United States)
David C. Chou
Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement
(an organization devoted in current stage to making Taiwan a territorial commonwealth of the United States)
沒有留言:
張貼留言