Crises and consumption (original) (raw)

The recent war against Iraq may have implications for various defense programs of interest to Congress. This report surveys some of those potential implications, and will be updated periodically as new information becomes available. Three cautionary notes associated with post-conflict "lessons-learned" reports apply to this report: Information about the Iraq war is incomplete and imperfect, so early lessons are subject to change. Each war is unique in some ways, so observers should avoid "overlearning" the lessons of the Iraq war. And potential U.S. adversaries can derive lessons from the Iraq war and apply them in future conflicts against U.S. forces, possibly devaluing U.S.-perceived lessons. It can also be noted that some persons or organizations offering purported lessons of the Iraq war may have a financial, institutional, or ideological stake in the issue. Many observers have concluded that the Iraq war validated the Administration's vision for defense transformation, or major parts of it. Other observers disagree. The issue is potentially significant because implementing the Administration's vision could affect the composition of U.S. defense spending, and because the Administration may invoke the theme of transformation to help justify or seek rapid congressional consideration of legislative proposals, including proposals that could affect Congress' role in conducting oversight of defense programs. The Iraq war may influence debate on whether active-duty U.S. military forces are sufficiently large to carry out current U.S. military strategy, and on whether greater emphasis should be placed on forces that are less dependent on access to in-theater bases. One of the most significant defense-program debates going into the Iraq warand potentially one of those most significantly influenced by the war-concerns the future size and composition of the active-duty Army. Both supporters and opponents of maintaining at least 10 active-duty Army divisions may find support in the Iraq war for their positions, as may both supporters and opponents of the current Army plan to shift toward a mix of fewer heavy armored units and a larger number of lighter and more mobile units. The Iraq war validated the effectiveness of combat-aircraft armed with precision-guided weapons, and may influence discussions about current plans for investing in specific aircraft and munitions programs. The Iraq war may reinforce support generated by the war in Afghanistan for increased investment in U.S. special operations forces. It may also highlight questions concerning reserve combat divisions and the potential consequences of extended callups of large numbers of reserve forces. The war appears to have demonstrated the value of network-centric operations and timely battlefield intelligence, and the potential value of psychological operations. It appears to have confirmed the importance of preparing for urban combat. The war offered a limited real-world test of the Patriot missile defense system. The war may lead to renewed discussions about strategies for reducing CRS-2 special operations forces, have received very little press coverage. Knowledge about the war at this point is thus fragmentary and unbalanced. Historically, moreover, early information that is publicly available about a war often proves to be inaccurate. Attempts to identify lessons should be tempered by an appreciation for gaps and imperfections in the available information. As information becomes more complete and accurate with time, early lessons may need to be modified or dropped. ! Each war is unique; avoid "overlearning" the lessons of this war. Particularly for U.S. military forces, which fight conflicts in different parts of the world against various adversaries, each war is characterized by a unique combination of variables such as geographic setting, pre-conflict warning and preparation time, U.S. and enemy war aims, the size and composition of enemy military forces, the quality of enemy military training and leadership, the amount and kind of military assistance that the United States or the enemy receives during the war from other governments or groups, the enemy government's degree of popular support among its own population, and the presence or absence of factional divisions within the enemy country's population due to ethnic differences or other factors. Given how at least some of these factors usually change for the United States from one war to the next, it has long been a staple of U.S. lessons-learned reports to note that lessons from one conflict may not necessarily apply to the next, might need to be applied with caution, or might contradict lessons of previous conflicts. Some of the lessons of the Iraq war, for example, may differ from lessons of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 or the U.S. military operation in Kosovo in 1999. In short, the lessons of the Iraq war should not be "overlearned" because the Iraq war in some ways might not serve as an accurate template for future conflicts. ! Non-U.S. observers derive lessons as well, possibly devaluing U.S.perceived lessons. The United States is not the only country that derives lessons from U.S. military operations; observers in other countries do so as well. Non-U.S. observers keenly observe the U.S. way of war and draw conclusions about its strengths and weaknesses. These conclusions, if correct, can be applied by potential U.S. adversaries to improve their ability to contest U.S. forces in a future conflict. Serbia, for example, observed the 1991 Persian Gulf war and drew lessons from it on how to counter the effects of U.S. air power. These lessons were applied with some success by Serbian forces in Kosovo in 1999. In short, lessons that U.S. observers reach about a given U.S. military operation can be devalued by lessons that potential adversaries draw from that same operation. This is another reason to avoid "overlearning" the lessons of a given U.S. military operation. Numerous persons or organizations may offer what they contend are the lessons of the Iraq war. In evaluating purported lessons offered by various sources, one factor to consider is whether those sources have a potential financial, institutional, or ideological stake in the issue. Persons or organizations identifying the lessons of a war can be influenced, perhaps strongly, by such a stake. Indeed, some persons or organizations may deliberately identify and publicize purported lessons with the aim of influencing policy decisions on defense programs in a way that promotes their own CRS-3 interests. Although lessons offered by persons or organizations with a stake in the issue in many cases may be reasonable or correct, policymakers may wish to take such interests into account in evaluating lessons put forward by such sources.