DOCSLIB.ORG

World War I Modern Warfare

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
World War I Modern Warfare Defining Moments World War I and the Age of modern warfare Kevin Hillstrom 155 W. Congress, Suite 200 Detroit, MI 48226 Chapter Five The United States Joins the Allies and Russia Backs Out 5 Perhaps it will not be long before we will read each day long lists of American boys killed or wounded in the trenches of France. There will be boys in those lists that you know, boys that I know. And as our eyes film over with tears it will be at least some comfort to us to be able to say, “I am helping too. I am saving food for the boys who are fighting.” —Herbert Hoover, director of the World War I-era U.S. Food Administration ith each passing month of 1917, the Great War continued to devour the lives of hundreds of thousands of European soldiers and civilians. WThis slaughter—and the apparent military and political stalemate that was driving it—was a source of great and mounting despair to the peoples of both the Central Powers and the Allies. In reality, however, the war underwent momentous shifts during these grim months of bloodshed and heartache. Rus- sia withdrew from the war after long-threatened political convulsions finally swept Tsar Nicholas II from power in March 1917. Russia’s decision to end the war via a separate peace treaty with Germany might, under ordinary circum- stances, have been a death blow to the Allied cause. But Britain and France and their partners were able to absorb this shock thanks to the Americans, who in April 1917 finally cast aside their neutrality and took up arms against Germany. America’s Early Stance of Neutrality When World War I had exploded across the European continent in 1914, the United States had resolutely adopted a policy of neutrality. The adminis- 73 Defining Moments: World War I and the Age of Modern Warfare tration of President Woodrow Wilson (see biography, p. 153) maintained this stance throughout 1915 and 1916. It did so despite calls for U.S. military intervention from former president Theodore Roosevelt and other observers who saw Germany’s invasions of Luxembourg, Belgium, and France as evil acts—and the Germans’ quest to dominate Europe as a potential long-term threat to Amer- ica’s economic interests. Some Americans, in fact, became so upset by U.S. neutrality in the war that they traveled to Europe at their own expense to aid the Allied cause. “A mixed and eccentric collection joined the French Foreign Legion,” noted historians Meirion and Susie Harries. “Among them Bob Scanlon, a black New York boxer; big-game U.S. president Woodrow Wilson won re-election in 1916 in part because “He hunter René Phélizot of Chicago; Algernon kept us out of war.” Satoris, grandson of General Ulysses S. Grant; retired butcher Eugene Jacobs of Pawtucket; Frederick Capdeville, son of a West Point fencing master; and Alan Seeger, a poet.” 1 Americans also fought in the trenches as part of British or Canadian mil- itary units, while other men and women bravely served in war zones as nurs- es, doctors, and ambulance drivers. “Despite the picture painted by the most famous of the drivers, [author] Ernest Hemingway, who was serving in Italy, the ambulance services were not playing at war or indulging in heroics. Their task was to evacuate the wounded from the front over ruined roads, from shell holes, through mud and gas clouds, almost always under fire.” 2 Americans who were involved in the early years of the war—as many as 15,000 by some estimates—were the exception, though. Most of their fellow Americans remained staunchly “isolationist”—opposed to U.S. involvement in the affairs of other nations—and news reports in 1915 and 1916 about the spi- raling slaughter on the Western and Eastern fronts actually deepened their anti- war feelings. They felt that sacrificing their own men to the war raging across the ocean made no sense. In 1916, in fact, Wilson’s successful presidential re- election campaign over Republican presidential nominee Charles Evans Hugh- es was based in large part on the slogan, “He Kept Us Out of War.” 74 Chapter Five: The United States Joins the Allies and Russia Backs Out During these same years, however, the United States’ sympathy for the Allied cause—and its growing disgust with Germany—became more and more evident. Many Americans identified closely with British people who spoke the same language and shared many of their cultural traditions, and they felt badly for Belgian and French families whose peaceful existence had been obliterat- ed by Germany’s invading military machine. The war also developed in ways that gave the United States significant eco- nomic incentives to side with the Allies over Germany and the other Central Powers. When British naval forces imposed a blockade that shut down all ship- ping into and out of German ports, the Allies became the only available transat- lantic buyers of American crops and military supplies. These arrangements became an important source of revenue for American farmers, manufacturers, and other businesses. Finally, American lawmakers, officials, and bankers knew that the governments in London and Paris were using credit to pay for aircraft, rifles, trucks, artillery shells, blankets, wheat, oil, and other materials they needed to supply their troops and keep their cities running in wartime. If Ger- many won the Great War, those debts incurred by the British and French—more than $2 billion, by some estimates—would probably never be paid. German U-Boat Attacks Push America Toward War Despite the Americans’ gradual drift into a posture that was sympathetic to the Allies, however, the United States might have remained on the sidelines were it not for a series of German actions and strategies that horrified Ameri- cans. Over the course of the war’s opening weeks, German military forces had rolled over Belgium in brutal fashion, turning historic cathedrals, museums, and neighborhoods into rubble and ashes. And within a year of the war’s opening salvos, German troops on the Western Front had unleashed flamethrowers, poi- son gas, and other frightening new weapons of destruction. This behavior elicited angry newspaper editorials in American cities and outraged speeches in Congress, but calls to enter the war did not noticeably increase until German U-boats began terrorizing cargo ships and passenger lin- ers in the Atlantic. These submarines particularly targeted enemy navy ships and armed merchant carriers, but they also sank hundreds of unarmed merchant ships—often without warning. This “unrestricted submarine warfare” took thousands of innocent lives and elicited angry condemnations from the Wilson White House. 75 Defining Moments: World War I and the Age of Modern Warfare The U-boat attack on the Lusitania, in particular, triggered a turning point in American public opinion about getting directly involved in World War I. The HMS Lusitania was torpedoed by the German submarine U20 off the coast of southern Ireland while en route from New York City to Liverpool, England on May 7, 1915. The ship sank with shocking speed, disappearing beneath the waves within twenty minutes. The death toll from the surprise attack was 1,201 pas- sengers and crew, including 128 Americans. Germany initially claimed that the passenger liner was a legitimate target because it was armed and carried enemy troops from Canada. Both of these claims were false; the only items on board that were of a military nature were several thousand cases of rifle cartridges. Wilson sent a series of stinging rebukes to the German government after the sinking of the Lusitania (see “The United States Protests the Sinking of the Lusitania,” p. 163) , and Kaiser Wilhem II and his top generals recognized that the incident had stirred up a hornet’s nest across the sea. Frantic to keep the United States and its manufacturing and military assets from formally joining forces with the Allies, Germany agreed in the fall of 1915 to implement mea- sures to ensure that U-boats only targeted military warships, troop transports, and supply ships. U-boat attacks continued to claim the lives of innocent civilians, though. When a German U-boat sank the French passenger ferry Sus- sex on March 24, 1916, sending 50 passengers to their deaths, the outcry from both Allies and Americans was severe. Germany subsequently issued the so- called Sussex Pledge, which further committed German submarine comman- ders to use vessel searches and other techniques to make sure they were sink- ing legitimate targets. The Sussex Pledge also included a promise that innocent passengers and crew would be safely removed from any ship that was going to be torpedoed to the bottom of the ocean. Germany honored this pledge for several months, but in late 1916 the nation’s most powerful generals and admirals were calling for a return to unre- stricted submarine warfare. “There can be no justification … for refusing any further to employ what promises to be our most effective weapon” to cripple the Allied war effort, insisted German admiral Alfred von Tirpitz. “We should ruthlessly employ every weapon that is suitable for striking against England on her home ground.” 3 This attitude reflected the increasingly bleak situation faced by Germany. Neighboring Austria-Hungary’s military capacity had weakened so dramatically that its positions on the Eastern Front required heavy German support. Things were also grim for Germany’s army, which was being stretched to the breaking point by the two-front war. “By the end of 1916, the year of Ver- 76 Chapter Five: The United States Joins the Allies and Russia Backs Out Artist’s rendering of the Lusitania as it was struck by torpedoes from a German submarine.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Should the United States Develop and Employ Strategic Information Warfare Capabilities?
    Should the United States develop and employ strategic information warfare capabilities? Information technologies have transformed U.S. and, indeed, international society. The ways we socialize, educate and inform ourselves, engage in business and practice our religions have been changed, and in many cases now rely, on digital information and communication. Can warfare—the defense and promotion of our national security and interests—be exempt under any circumstances from developing and employing the latest information strategies? Is this even a choice in the 21st century, much less a hard choice? Information warfare has been variously defined by different analysts but a standard general definition, as provided by the U.S. Air Force is “any action to deny, exploit, corrupt, or destroy the enemy’s information and its functions; protecting ourselves against the actions and exploiting our own information operations.” The goal of information war is now frequently described as “information dominance.” (1) Major General Kenneth Minihan, stated, “information dominance is not ‘my pile of information is bigger than yours’…It is a way of increasing our capabilities by using that information to make right decisions, (and) apply them faster than the enemy can. It is a way to alter the enemy’s entire perception of reality. It is a method of using all the information at our disposal to predict (and affect) what happens tomorrow before the enemy even jumps out of bed and thinks about what to do today.” (2) Pro: Information warfare is not a new concept that arose with the Internet. Information has always been a decisive factor in deciding the victory or defeat of one military force over another.
    [Show full text]
  • Unlocking NATO's Amphibious Potential
    November 2020 Perspective EXPERT INSIGHTS ON A TIMELY POLICY ISSUE J.D. WILLIAMS, GENE GERMANOVICH, STEPHEN WEBBER, GABRIELLE TARINI Unlocking NATO’s Amphibious Potential Lessons from the Past, Insights for the Future orth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members maintain amphibious capabilities that provide versatile and responsive forces for crisis response and national defense. These forces are routinely employed in maritime Nsecurity, noncombatant evacuation operations (NEO), counterterrorism, stability operations, and other missions. In addition to U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and U.S. Navy forces, the Alliance’s amphibious forces include large ships and associated landing forces from five nations: France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). Each of these European allies—soon to be joined by Turkey—can conduct brigade-level operations, and smaller elements typically are held at high readiness for immediate response.1 These forces have been busy. Recent exercises and operations have spanned the littorals of West and North Africa, the Levant, the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. Given NATO’s ongoing concerns over Russia’s military posture and malign behavior, allies with amphibious capabilities have also been exploring how these forces could contribute to deterrence or, if needed, be employed as part of a C O R P O R A T I O N combined and joint force in a conflict against a highly some respects, NATO’s ongoing efforts harken back to the capable nation-state. Since 2018, NATO’s headquarters Cold War, when NATO’s amphibious forces routinely exer- and various commands have undertaken initiatives and cised in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic as part of a convened working groups to advance the political intent broader strategy to deter Soviet aggression.
    [Show full text]
  • Blitzkrieg: the Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht's
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2021 Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era Briggs Evans East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Evans, Briggs, "Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era" (2021). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3927. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3927 This Thesis - unrestricted is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era ________________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of History East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History ______________________ by Briggs Evans August 2021 _____________________ Dr. Stephen Fritz, Chair Dr. Henry Antkiewicz Dr. Steve Nash Keywords: Blitzkrieg, doctrine, operational warfare, American military, Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, World War II, Cold War, Soviet Union, Operation Desert Storm, AirLand Battle, Combined Arms Theory, mobile warfare, maneuver warfare. ABSTRACT Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era by Briggs Evans The evolution of United States military doctrine was heavily influenced by the Wehrmacht and their early Blitzkrieg campaigns during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A. Navy Activity Descriptions
    Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 APPENDIX A Navy Activity Descriptions Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing TABLE OF CONTENTS A. NAVY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................ A-1 A.1 Description of Sonar, Munitions, Targets, and Other Systems Employed in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Events .................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 Sonar Systems and Other Acoustic Sources ......................................................... A-1 A.1.2 Munitions .............................................................................................................. A-7 A.1.3 Targets ................................................................................................................ A-11 A.1.4 Defensive Countermeasures ............................................................................... A-13 A.1.5 Mine Warfare Systems ........................................................................................ A-13 A.1.6 Military Expended Materials ............................................................................... A-16 A.2 Training Activities ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Civil War and Early Submarine Warfare, 1863 Introduction
    1 The Civil War and early submarine warfare, 1863 Introduction Civil War combat foreshadowed modern warfare with the introduction of the machine gun, repeater rifles, and trench warfare, and the use of trains to quickly move troops. However, one of the most celebrated tactical innovations of the war was the use of submarines by the Confederate Navy. An early example of this type of naval ingenuity was the CSS Pioneer developed by Horace Lawson Hunley, James McClintock, and Baxter Watson. The Confederates were forced to abandon the Pioneer during testing for fear of capture but she eventually found her way into Union hands, where the submersible was examined and sketched by Ensign David Stauffer of the USS Alexandria. Following the war, the Pioneer was scrapped for metal. Most accounts of actual Civil War submarine combat focus on the sinking of the USS Housatonic by the CSS H. L. Hunley in February 1864, but few mention an earlier but unsuccessful attack by a cigar-shaped vessel, the CSS David, in October 1863. This letter from Union sailor Lewis H. West is a rare eyewitness account of that incident, one of the earliest submarine attacks in naval history. On his first night on board the USS New Ironsides, West experienced the David’s attack. Stealthily cutting through Charleston Bay almost entirely submerged, the David crew attempted to explode a torpedo (what we now refer to as a mine) and in the process nearly destroyed their own vessel. According to West, the “nondescript craft” barely damaged the New Ironsides, and divers found “that not a plate or bolt is started.” The CSS David survived the explosion and the small-arms fire that raked the hull.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of the War at Sea During WWI
    The Importance of The War At Sea During WWI By: Taylor Pressdee, Anna Ward, Nathan Urquidi What Was the Impact of ‘The War at Sea’? ● Opened a new kind of warfare: Submarine Warfare ● Involved civilians as well as sailors and soldiers ● One of the major reasons that the United States joined the Allies ● Influenced major events during the war: Battle of Jutland, the naval blockade, submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania Who Was Affected By The War at Sea? ● “Total War” ● War At Sea affected civilians as well as soldiers ● Ship Liners, and Coastal cities were in danger of attack ● Starvation was prevalent in specifically Germany because supply ships were being sunk Timeline May 31st 1916 September 1915 Battle of Jutland Germans stop using U-boats February 1st 1916 Germans begin using U-boats again May 7th 1916 Lusitania Sinks Battle of Jutland Battle of Jutland ● Fought on May 31st 1916 ● Only major battle fought at sea ● Fought by the Jutland Peninsula between England and Germany ● Two Admirals in charge of both fleets: Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer (Left) and Admiral Sir John Jellicoe (Right) The Battle ● British forces intercepted a German message containing a plan to attack them on May 28th ● However, Admiral Scheer postponed the attack due to bad weather ○ Attempted to plan another attack down by the Jutland Peninsula, however Britain intercepted this plan as well ● Vice Admiral Jellicoe moved his fleet down to the Jutland Peninsula, awaiting the attack Aftermath of the Battle ● The British suffered losses, but not nearly
    [Show full text]
  • A Retrospective on the So-Called Revolution in Military Affairs, 2000-2020
    SECURITY, STRATEGY, AND ORDER A RETROSPECTIVE ON THE SO-CALLED REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS, 2000-2020 MICHAEL O’HANLON A RESTROSPECTIVE ON THE SO-CALLED REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS, 2000-2020 MICHAEL O’HANLON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1 This paper revisits the debate that raged in American defense circles in the 1990s over whether a revolution in military affairs was imminent in the early parts of the 21st century. It also seeks to establish a benchmark, and reaffirm as well as refine a methodology, for forecasting future changes in military-related technologies by examining what has transpired in the first two decades of the 21st century. Taking this approach helps improve and validate the methodology that is employed in my forthcoming book, The Senkaku Paradox: Risking Great Power War Over Small Stakes (2019). A subsequent paper seeks to extrapolate a similar analysis out to 2040, gauging the potential for major breakthroughs in military technology and associated operational concepts over the next two decades. Such analysis is of critical importance for evaluating American and allied military and strategic options relevant to great-power war and deterrence in the years ahead. The paper’s category-by-category examination of military technology mirrors the approach that I employed in a book published in 2000, Technological Change and the Future of Warfare (though it really should have been entitled, The So-Called Revolution in Military Affairs, because I was largely challenging the then-popular notion that a military revolution of historic importance was afoot). Much of the research foundation of that book was the study of a list of 29 different types of technologies in an attempt to gauge which might undergo revolutionary change by 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics
    American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Updated July 29, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32492 American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Summary This report provides U.S. war casualty statistics. It includes data tables containing the number of casualties among American military personnel who served in principal wars and combat operations from 1775 to the present. It also includes data on those wounded in action and information such as race and ethnicity, gender, branch of service, and cause of death. The tables are compiled from various Department of Defense (DOD) sources. Wars covered include the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam Conflict, and the Persian Gulf War. Military operations covered include the Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission; Lebanon Peacekeeping; Urgent Fury in Grenada; Just Cause in Panama; Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Restore Hope in Somalia; Uphold Democracy in Haiti; Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF); Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); Operation New Dawn (OND); Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR); and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS). Starting with the Korean War and the more recent conflicts, this report includes additional detailed information on types of casualties and, when available, demographics. It also cites a number of resources for further information, including sources of historical statistics on active duty military deaths, published lists of military personnel killed in combat actions, data on demographic indicators among U.S. military personnel, related websites, and relevant CRS reports. Congressional Research Service American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • World War I 1914-1918
    A Significant War Over 16 million people died in WWI and over 20 million were wounded, totaling over 37 million. There are 317 million people in the United States today. That means, that if the casualties from WWI were applied to the United States today, one in every nine people would be dead or wounded. That is how much of an impact this war had on the world, especially Europe, and why it is important to know and understand. World War I What was the correlation between the Age of Imperialism and the outbreak of World War I? Long Term Causes Militarism- Glorifying Military Power Keeping a large standing army prepared for war Arms race for military technology Long Term Causes Nationalism- Deep Devotion to One’s Nation Competition and Rivalry developed between European nations for territory and markets (Example France and Germany- Alsace-Lorraine) Long Term Causes Imperialism- European competition for colonies Quest for colonies often almost led to war Imperialism led to rivalry and mistrust amongst European nations Long Term Causes Alliance System- Designed to keep peace in Europe, instead pushed continent towards war Many Alliances made in secret By 1907 two major alliances: Triple Alliance and Triple Entente The Two Sides Triple Alliance Triple Entente Germany England Austria-Hungary France Italy Russia Central Powers Allied Powers Germany England, France, Austria-Hungary Russia, United Ottoman Empire States, Italy, Serbia, Belgium, Switzerland Game of Allegiance Did it get confusing trying to keep your allegiances
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Warfare
    Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 23:51 30 May 2016 Cyber Warfare This book is a multidisciplinary analysis of cyber warfare, featuring contribu- tions by leading experts from a mixture of academic and professional backgrounds. Cyber warfare, meaning interstate cyber aggression, is an increasingly important emerging phenomenon in international relations, with state- orchestrated (or apparently state- orchestrated) computer network attacks occur- ring in Estonia (2007), Georgia (2008) and Iran (2010). This method of waging warfare – given its potential to, for example, make planes fall from the sky or cause nuclear power plants to melt down – has the capacity to be as devastating as any conventional means of conducting armed conflict. Every state in the world now has a cyber- defence programme and over 120 states also have a cyber- attack programme. While the amount of literature on cyber warfare is growing within disciplines, our understanding of the subject has been limited by a lack of cross- disciplinary engagement. In response, this book, drawn from the fields of computer science, military strategy, international law, political science and military ethics, provides a critical overview of cyber warfare for those approaching the topic from what- ever angle. Chapters consider the emergence of the phenomena of cyber warfare in international affairs; what cyber- attacks are from a technological standpoint; the extent to which cyber- attacks can be attributed to state actors; the strategic value and danger posed by cyber conflict; the legal regulation of cyber- attacks, both as international uses of force and as part of an ongoing armed conflict, and the ethical implications of cyber warfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Atomic Bomb I INTRODUCTION II FISSION and FUSION III
    Atomic Bomb I INTRODUCTION Atomic Bomb, extremely powerful explosive weapon whose force is fuelled by the splitting, or fission, of the nuclei of specific isotopes of uranium or plutonium (uranium-235, uranium- 238, and plutonium-239) in a chain reaction. The process of fission releases enormous energy in the form of extreme heat and a massive shock wave. A slow, carefully controlled fission reaction generates power for electricity companies worldwide, but in an atomic bomb the release of energy continues unabated until all fissile material is exhausted. In addition to its virtually limitless destructive effects —flash burns, and widespread destruction through pressure waves, and high winds—a nuclear explosion also produces deadly radiation in the form of gamma rays and neutrons, which destroy living matter and contaminate soil and water. II FISSION AND FUSION Atomic bombs are nowadays called nuclear weapons, which are of two general types: fission or fusion. Fission weapons were the first atomic bombs to be developed, tested, and used in war, when the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945, at the end of World War II. Fusion bombs, also called hydrogen or thermonuclear bombs, are vastly more powerful than fission bombs. They were developed and tested in the early 1950s, but these have never been used in warfare. A thermonuclear device depends on a fission reaction to produce extreme heat that causes hydrogen isotopes of deuterium and tritium to come together, or fuse. This process yields energy many times greater than that of fission-type devices. Most nuclear weapons in present-day stockpiles are thermonuclear devices.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge
    Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge Andrew Krepinevich, Barry Watts & Robert Work 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge by Andrew Krepinevich Barry Watts Robert Work Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments 2003 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent public policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking about defense planning and investment strategies for the 21st century. CSBA’s analytic-based research makes clear the inextricable link between defense strategies and budgets in fostering a more effective and efficient defense, and the need to transform the US military in light of the emerging military revolution. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundation, corporate and individual grants and contributions, and government contracts. 1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 http://www.csbaonline.org CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... I I. NEW CHALLENGES TO POWER PROJECTION.................................................................. 1 II. PROSPECTIVE US AIR FORCE FAILURE POINTS........................................................... 11 III. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND ASSURED ACCESS: A CRITICAL RISK ASSESSMENT .29 IV. THE ARMY AND THE OBJECTIVE FORCE ..................................................................... 69 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 93 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the Cold War, the United States defense posture called for substantial forces to be located overseas as part of a military strategy that emphasized deterrence and forward defense. Large combat formations were based in Europe and Asia. Additional forces—both land-based and maritime—were rotated periodically back to the rear area in the United States.
    [Show full text]