What is the future of combat systems?

By Suzia van Swol-University of New Mexico, Talk Radio News Service
Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said that “for over nearly eight years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan we’ve watched with pride and gratitude the magnificent performance of America’s land forces,” and that we have not done enough to support our ground forces transformation or to prepare them to meet future threats.

At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the current and future goals of the U.S. military land power, Lieberman said that it is the intent of these hearings to identify requirements for land and air power as part of the committee’s primary responsibility to authorize funding for the programs for air and land power that they conclude are necessary to provide for the common defense.

Lieberman said that the question we need to ask is, “What is the future of the future combat systems program?” He said that the defense budget faces pressure because of the need to reset the equipment that has been used in our ongoing wars while also shifting new resources to support the fight in Afghanistan.

Andrew Krepinevich, President for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments said that “what we need is a rebalanced army, but the kind of army that we are looking at right now is in my estimation far too rebalanced and oriented on traditional conventional military operations.”

Thomas Donnelly, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, said that administrations of both parties have wanted to preserve American leadership in a global sense. Donnelly said that “the outcome of this war is critical to us” and “the primary instrument that we have to achieve that success is our land forces.”

Donnelly says that we need to have an active duty army that is somewhere about the size that it was at the end of the Cold War, which was approximately 780,000.

Say what? Committee looks into language barrier issues

Does the United States military need to be versed in more than one language? This was the question, front and center at the House Armed Services Subcommittee hearing today. Committee members heard from panelists with an array of backgrounds in everything from linguistics to communications and the armed services.

Dr. Montgomery Mcfate who has worked to help social scientists support the armed services acknowledged that a critical question would be how the armed forces should acquire or access linguistic skills. “There are multiple possible means, to include: education, training, advisors, and databases. An additional question concerns the optimal amount of sociocultural knowledge that United States military personnel should have, and the trade-offs in terms of time, money and manpower that acquiring this knowledge entails,” said Mcfate.

The issue of linguistics according to Dr. Amy Zalman of Science Applications International Corporation is not only a cultural barrier but a national security concern. Zalman provided a 2003 document, Military Transformation which details the calls for “processes to enable innovation and adaptability in respect to linguistics.” The document that was presented goes on to say “if we do not transform, our enemies will surely find new ways to attack us.”

The belief that language can have powerful consequences if not dealt with was echoed by panelist Dr. Andrew Krepinevich who told the committee “no one wants to build the next tank army to attack America, they want to build chemical weapons.” Krepinevich along with the other members of the panel believe that it is the United States responsibility to deal with the cultural linguistic challenges that face the armed forces. “The need for language proficiency is now,” said Krepinvech.