OPENING REMARKS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
Philip A. Odeen
Chairman, National Defense Panel
January 28, 1998
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for
the opportunity to testify before your committee. I would like to open
by introducing the members of the Panel.
On behalf of
the entire nine member National Defense Panel, let me say that we are honored
to have been asked to serve on the Panel and also honored to be here today.
The National Defense Panel was legislated and enacted to be independent,
innovative and forward thinking. To many, its emphasis was to identify
and think through the relevant questions, rather than to provide specific
answers. Finally, we are deeply honored to have been asked to take on what
we believe is one of the most important national security issues facing
the United States – namely, how must our nation’s defenses and national
security structure change to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
I believe the
desire of this Committee to create the Panel reflects a common concern
that we are not yet on the right path to the future. The search for this
path has at least three dimensions. First, it requires looking far into
the future and trying to understand the conditions and types of challenges
and challengers we will face. Second, it requires not so much determining
specific solutions, but developing an approach to determine what will need
to be changed and how. Finally, and most importantly, a path to the future
requires taking action now. It requires making hard decisions about where
to invest, where to divest and where to stay on the current course.
The development
of our Post Cold War strategic thinking has evolved over the last decade.
Indeed, each of the internal studies and external reviews have identified
key elements of what today is emerging as a new national security paradigm.
However, we believed that it was essential for our Panel to address each
of the three aspects I just mentioned – and to do so in a more thorough
and open manner. We decided we had to look further into the future to the
2020 time frame. Next, we decided we had to develop a transformation strategy
that would focus on starting the process of change now. Finally, we felt
compelled to highlight the key decisions and decision making criteria that
must be addressed. Implementing that strategy and making the actual decisions
is, of course, the clear responsibility of the legislature and administration.
In addition
to relying on the independent nature of the Panel, let me also comment
on the structure and approach we pursued. The Panel members have demonstrated
expertise and experience across the defense, diplomatic, business and academic
worlds. Moreover, the Panel augmented its own knowledge base by seeking
a wide variety of perspectives from both inside and outside the US national
security community and those of our international partners (as well as
China and Russia). To the extent possible, these perspectives were incorporated
into our nine months of study and deliberations. Let me tell you what we
think we learned.
First, the future
we face in 2020 will be very different. A whole host of new challenges
and opportunities are emerging. While we may find ourselves facing enemies
on traditional battlegrounds, it is far more likely that we will face very
different adversaries and that our conflicts will include locations in
space, throughout our information networks, in highly urbanized areas,
within the undeveloped and developing world and, perhaps even on our own
soil. Our adversaries will include not just the armed forces of nations,
but also international criminals and terrorist groups. Our challenges will
expand, requiring us to deal with vast bodies of migrating peoples and
the environment itself. These contingencies may occur in areas where we
have no forces present and limited ability to move them there. We may even
find that our actions to move troops to conflict locations is thwarted.
As we deal with these challenges, we are likely to face weapons of mass
destruction and attacks on the information systems upon which we have become
dependent. The same advanced technologies we have incorporated into our
war fighting, communications and support systems will be available to our
adversaries. Finally, dealing with these challenges and conflicts will
not depend upon just our own forces, but will also demand closer integration
with diplomatic efforts, the assets of other nations and a whole host of
non-governmental organizations who are already working hard to reverse
miseries throughout the world. The economically and environmentally intertwined
nature of today's world will cause the problems of one region to be felt
world wide -- a factor that will tax our institutions, but which cannot
be ignored. Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, this is the world the Panel
believes we will face in the coming century.
The Panel also
discussed the many opportunities this new century will afford us. Nations
currently developing both economically and institutionally can be nurtured
to become responsible members of the world community. We must make use
of the present time of peace to establish positive and cooperative relationships.
Additionally, technologies in the electronics, space and information realm
can be harnessed to provide us with both better knowledge and capabilities.
But exploiting both these opportunities requires a commitment to act now
as this period of relative peace continues.
As the Panel
carefully considered the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century,
one thought became more and more clear -- we must change and we must begin
the process of change now. No one can predict the future. No one can identify
with sufficient clarity who will challenge the United States, or when,
or where. Indeed, continued change and uncertainty are likely to remain
with us for years to come. Now is not the time to develop detailed answers
and specific plans. Instead, today should mark the beginning of a transformation
process that has serious and committed experimentation as its foundation.
The experimentation we seek must be rooted in joint efforts -- in fact,
our notion of ‘jointness’ must move beyond the halls of the Defense Department
and incorporate the many government agencies and departments which find
themselves involved in the broader national security arena. A period of
concerted experimentation will permit us to match new solutions and innovative
approaches to future challenges as they evolve. It will allow us to match
the capabilities we establish to the world of the 21st century, rather
than to the conditions we are leaving behind us. Moreover, a commitment
to experiment will ensure that the Department's vision of the future, which
is basically sound, will be matched with near term and decisive action.
Today that is not the case.
At the heart
of this transformation, therefore, are hard decisions. First, we must rethink
how we assess and allocate risk. No one on the Panel would suggest that
the conflicts which may arise in the near term are not without risk to
the US. However, we believe that focusing our attention and resources on
today's concerns will prevent us from being prepared to face very different
ones in the future. Second, it is the strong belief of the Panel that resources
currently used to maintain Cold War infrastructure and upgrades to current
war fighting systems must be reconsidered. Those same resources can and
should be used starting now to support the transformation upon which our
future depends. The resources saved today can be used to establish the
capabilities we will need in the 21st century. Finally, additional resources
for defense are unlikely at best. Therefore, we must make the hard divestiture
decisions today that will ensure our success tomorrow.
To support both
a long term transformation strategy and near term options, our report includes
the considerations we believe must guide decision making. This template
can help distinguish investments for the future from investments geared
to the past. To be sure, our bias is to the future. We believe the risk
of not changing in time is far more perilous than the risk posed by near
term concerns.
But the transformation
strategy proposed by the Panel includes more than an experimentation philosophy
and resource allocations within the Defense establishment. It extends beyond
defense and to the very heart of our national security system. We cannot
expect to meet a very different future with the same apparatus that moved
us out of the Second World War and through the entire Cold War. Additional
players must be incorporated, processes for integration must be revamped,
and transnational considerations must be included. The economic aspects
of national security must take on a prominence similar to that of defense
during the Cold War. In the opinion of the Panel, it is time to reconsider,
and possibly update, the National Security Act of 1947.
In closing,
let me reiterate the objectives this Panel set for itself during our first
few meetings. We understood that we could not provide detailed answers
for tomorrow – no one can. Instead, we focused on the key questions and
a process for their resolution. We felt that our contribution would best
be made if we could reinvigorate and extend a broad debate about national
security in the 21st century. It is our hope that our work has achieved
that goal. More importantly, it is our hope that as a nation we stand ready
to conclude that debate by making the changes necessary to extend the successes
and strong leadership of the United States well into the next century.
Before I yield
to the questions of the Committee, I’d like to thank the Secretary of Defense
for his support of the Panel’s efforts throughout the last year. His assurance
of access to him and his staff, as well as analysis done throughout the
Department, allowed us to consider all perspectives. Our ongoing dialogue
with Secretary Cohen also enriched the Panel’s effort and enhanced the
relevance of our work. Let me also thank your Committee for giving us the
opportunity to serve the nation. I hope we have made a real and lasting
contribution.