Military Must Factor in Industry's Surge Capacity.

• Author: Johnson, John C.
• Position: Viewpoint

The process repeats year after year: the military diligently analyzes possible conflict scenarios--from terrorist responses and regional threats to full-scale high-intensity military engagements. It postulates probability of occurrence and duration of force-on-force employments. It then determines to the highest degree of specificity possible the proper mix of aircraft, surface combatants, armored vehicles and uniformed personnel required to prevail in potential conflict.

From these conclusions, the armed services make recommendations to the administration. The military--those in line to respond to conflict--desire never to be short of the instruments of war.

However, the defense budget is a discretionary pool of money that varies with the geopolitical landscape and the administration's domestic priorities. Political decisionmakers discount the probability of conflict occurring sufficiently enough to allow funds to be shifted away from defense budgets. They further justify reduced budgetary allocation by pointing to the sophistication of U.S. weapons systems, which many believe allows for a lesser standing inventory requirement.

This clash over how to prioritize force structure is repetitive and ongoing, but each year what fails to be considered in this computational process is industry's role. Industry's ability to "timely" replenish combat losses must be examined to determine the proper inventory level.

At the end of the Cold War, policymakers adopted the position that the armed forces would not be called upon for another protracted conflict but only for regional--high-intensity, short-duration--conflicts or terrorist response--low-intensity, longer-duration--engagements. Neither scenario required industry's input in determining the appropriate force structure. Industry's ability to replenish combat losses would not be a factor in the military's ability to respond successfully to these potential threats.

But in the last decade or so, there has been a shift to more confrontational postures among superpowers--economically, politically and territorially--which raises the probability of a high-intensity, long-duration conflict.

Russian activity in Ukraine, the polar regions, the Baltic and Black Seas, and Russia's incursions into NATO and U.S. airspace have significantly increased, causing many to question Russian President Vladimir Putin's long-term objectives. Not idle, China executes hegemonic activities across the South Pacific, claiming...