Future Vision: Where the Pentagon Plans to Go

It should come as no surprise that the United States under George W. Bush and the neo-conservatives has become an imperial nation. Premier in this quest for total dominance is the U.S. Military. Therefore, the vision and plans that are reflected in the National Defense Strategy of the United States - 2005 and the National Military Strategy of the United States of America - 2004 come as no surprise. However, there are extensions of scope and depth over the earlier renditions of these plans that help explain some of the maneuvering that is going on between the various "intelligence agencies." What is depicted in the two aforementioned documents charts a new position for the military.

The Themes That Remain the Same
There are themes that are continued from the 2001 an 2003 Strategy documents (Nuclear Posture Review 2002, National Security Strategy 2002, and Quadrennial Defense Review 2001). These include:
1) Permanent bases located strategically around the globe;
2) Pre-emptive use of force (pre-emptive war);
3) Highly mobile forces deployed on short notice;
4) Use of new generation biological, nuclear, and energy weaponry (microwave, plasma, sound);
5) Use of high and remote technology to strengthen a smaller fighting force.

What Is New
What is new, or significantly expanded in these two documents is the Pentagon's reach and involvement outside of direct military areas. These include:
1) Strengthening intelligence and covert operations;
2) Employing planted operatives within suspect organizations;
3) Moving into areas to "interrupt" economic funding of terrorist organizations or "suspect" states.

While there is a nod to "horizontal integration" with other agencies - which I take to mean information sharing with the other 15 (acknowledged) intelligence agencies in the U.S. - it is clear that the vision is to merge areas traditionally the reserve of other groups under its umbrella. This is in stark contrast to the hoopla of establishing an intelligence directorate under Negroponte. It is clear from both documents that the Pentagon sees itself as the central player and actor in intelligence and counter-intelligence, as well as militarily.

It should also not be surprising that both documents trumpet that we are a nation at war, and that war will last well into the foreseeable future.

What Do These Things Reflect?
In reading both documents, as well as recent maneuvering on the part of Rumsfeld, the role of the Military in the United States is about to (or perhaps already has) change(d) dramatically. No longer is the military to be focused on defense of the nation militarily, but its role is to become central in all activities. I visually an octopus with tentacles in a variety of areas generally not associated with the military, and spanning both international and domestic arenas. It is no surprise that almost fifty cents of ever tax dollar goes to defense.

It would seem to me that there are problems with the Department of Defense becoming the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. The documents represent a dramatic concentration of power within the hands of one organization. While the plans call for decentralization of forces, it calls for virtually total centralization of intelligence, counter-intelligence, and "weapons" (including information systems) under the DoD.

There are purely institutional problems with this direction. First is that there is no diversity of information and perspective that would provide a check on erroneous information - and acting on it. The military has a specific focus and training. It is not a "universally" equipped organization and never will be. This is no where more clear than in Iraq where soldiers (trained to war and to kill, and to operate outside the law) are expected to be "police" aimed at preserving life and operating inside the law. Concentration of all the areas under the military leads to a monovision which can be fatal.

The second area of concern would be checks and balances. The larger the scope of the military is, the more Congressional oversight also becomes dispersed. Communication between various oversight committees is not likely to meet the challenge of actually providing any oversight at all. Further, as other agencies who mission becomes swallowed (or duplicated) within the Pentagon lose voice and input, there is decreasing points of comparison to provide reality and context to Pentagon perspective, planning and activities.

Third, is perhaps the most frightening within the context of a democratic society. Overweening power concentrated in the military effectively transform the nation into a military state. Further, this is a military state that responds to the orders of effectively one person - the President (thanks to Congress signing over this constitutional power to declare war). This looks suspiciously like a dictatorship regardless of the trappings of the "vote." This is the situation in Pakistan where Musharraf is both the head of the government and actively head of the military. It is also the recent move in China where Hu Jintao is both President and head of the military. It has also been the case in numerous coups around the world, and the political structure with the "dreaded" Cuban President Castro.

I know that most folks don't spend much time reading government reports, investigations, and plans, but I strongly encourage people to do so. The information in such documents rarely makes the news and they show the context in which the "news" happens. Such documents are critical to citizens performing our role in the checks and balances system. Both of the new documents released are summaries only and under 30 pages each - certainly worth the time to scan. In reading them, I have to wonder what the details are that reside in the confidential reports we won't see for 50 years (if ever). However, they do clearly show direction and intent, and I am not comfortable with either.

Posted by rowan at March 21, 2005 11:16 AM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |