Secretary Cheney’s remark should not surprise anyone who is familiar with the recent military history of the United States. Power projection is not a new concept. With a few exceptions, America has not been reluctant to call upon its uniformed services to protect its interests. After World War II, military force planning and development revolved around the need to maintain a considerable presence in Europe and Korea. However, recent changes in the international and domestic environments has forced the Defense Department to adopt a new planning strategy. As a result, power projection has taken on new meaning for the services....

The American Revolution left the United States with a military incapable of projecting significant force outside its own borders. As citizens of a weak nation, Americans traveling abroad were vulnerable to the depredations of foreign powers such as the Barbary states of the Mediterranean. Seeing the US as an easy source of tribute, the Barbary states were wont to seize American ships traveling through the Mediterranean.¹ In 1793 Algerian warships captured ten American vessels and enslaved 105 US citizens. In response to the continuing threat and President Washington’s urgings, Congress authorized the construction of six frigates, including the USS Constitution,...

While each service cites the need for operating jointly in future power projection contingencies, they also identify how the characteristics of their particular force mix enhance the nation’s power projection capability. Occasionally, a service apologist betrays a more parochial viewpoint. In a 1990 article one Army officer wrote:

Put another way--the Army is the only force that can finally win wars. Air power and sea power are also crucial in any major conflict, and military operations will be joint. But enemy nations do not live in the oceans or in the air, nor do they cling to the seashores, they...

The nature of future conflict must be thoroughly analyzed to determine a proper strategy and force mix required for potential contingency responses. This includes understanding the military power of the enemy, his strength of morale, alliance system, national culture, national infrastructure, relative industrialization, state of technology, and a host of other factors. In the past, naval forces were our only means of projecting military power abroad. As our standing army grew and matured, it became a continental and then an international force to be reckoned with. When man finally conquered the upper elements, air forces with their unique characteristics added...

While the services plan to cope with changes in the international environment, they must also be responsive to the realities of the domestic environment. As the 19th century military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz stated, war exists in the domain of a paradoxical trinity consisting of the people, the military commander, and the government.¹ Without the support of the people, military undertakings will suffer in both their execution and outcome.² Military planners have long understood strategy and force structure are shaped by the national culture and fiscal realities. Prior to committing military forces to any contingency, senior military leaders (and the...

Since the end of World War Two the US defense establishment based the majority of its strategic and force development planning on the possibility of a major war with the Soviet Union or a Soviet satellite state. The probability of a regional conflict was perceived as greatest in Central Europe, Korea, or in a hot spot such as the Middle East. Following the 1950 invasion of South Korea, the US and its NATO allies began building a large conventional force in Europe to deter a Warsaw Pact assault through traditional invasion routes such as Germany’s Fulda Gap. A large force...

Exactly how are the services responding to the new national security strategy? The defense establishment believes the current impetus for changing how to plan, equip, and train for war is part of an evolutionary process that has gathered momentum over the last twenty years. The service departments understand the changing international power structure, increased regional tensions, and new domestic priorities require a corresponding change in how they will achieve security objectives established by the National Command Authority. The proliferation of nuclear and high-tech weaponry will make the battlefield of the future increasingly lethal for land, sea, and air forces, while...

Faced with massive force cuts, the Department of Defense is striving to identify the most effective force mix for projecting power abroad. One method that might provide a relative indication of effectiveness is comparing the attributes of air, land, and sea power to an aggregate set of characteristics needed for future projection forces. Based on service guidelines discussed in Chapter Six it is possible to extrapolate the general force characteristics the services believe are necessary for a strong 21st century power projection capability. The Navy claims its forces have great flexibility, mobility, deployability, and endurability. The Marine Corps contributes its...

To build and maintain a strong power projection capability during a time of fiscal constraint, the services must tailor their forces to achieve the greatest military utility while reducing redundant capability. For a number of years defense budget apportionment was guided by a relatively simple formula of one- third to each military department. Many believe this methodology minimized friction and competition between the services. In reality, it simply allowed policymakers to avoid making the hard decisions necessary to maximize defense capability. Richard Hallion, a former advisor to the Secretary of the Air Force and currently Chief of Air Force History,...