|
washington pulse
January 2007
Senators Divvy Up Turf on Defense Issues
By Sandra I. Erwin
 A compromise of sorts apparently has been reached between incoming Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the ranking minority member, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., over who will take the lead on key defense issues.
Levin will proceed with Iraq investigations, while McCain will retain control of the oversight of big-ticket defense acquisition programs. Levin’s initial priorities are “force posture” hearings in February and March, followed by hearings on U.S. strategy in Iraq. SASC is also likely to increase oversight of missile defense, particularly the requirement for more realistic testing.
The current budget woes that threaten to kill the Army’s vaunted Future Combat Systems modernization program should come as no surprise to those familiar with the workings of Capitol Hill. The Army never has successfully articulated what FCS really is, or at least has not done it in terms that regular people can comprehend, according to one senior House staffer. The program is not well understood by the congressional leadership, he said. “The theoretical discussion of the FCS ‘network’ defies immediate understanding of quantifiable increases in lethality, combat capability and survivability.”
With forces stretched thin by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Marine Corps is being urged to reevaluate its commitment of 3,500 troops to the U.S. Special Operations Command. The Marine Corps Special Operations Command, which was created only a year ago, has attracted some of the most highly skilled Marines, such as intelligence and reconnaissance specialists. The upshot is that those Marines are no longer available for rotational deployments to Iraq, which adds to the burden of the conventional forces, insiders say. Gen. James Conway, the commandant, says the Corps does not intend to back away from its support to SOCOM, but cautions that the demands from current conflicts may slow down the transfer of Marines to SOCOM. “In the wake of Afghanistan and Iraq, as the long war continues, and as we see terrorist forces move into ungoverned spaces, our commitment to SOF could ebb and flow.”
Despite dire warnings that the nation is vulnerable to terrorists possessing “suitcase nukes,” the U.S. government has yet to present a cohesive plan to combat the threat, says a Massachusetts Institute of Technology senior researcher.
Government officials often remind us that nukes in the hands of terrorists are the greatest danger the nation faces, says Cindy Williams, principal research scientist at MIT. “Lots of money is spent on this. Yet, when you look at the processes for allocating the money, it’s not clear that anybody but the president can make decisions on how to deal with this.” The responsibility for nuclear counterterrorism is spread among the departments of State, Energy, Defense and Homeland Security, she says. “All agencies have big roles. But it’s not clear who has the responsibility. In addition, the White House National Security Council has multiple offices dealing with the same issue, Williams says. “They try to have cooperative working groups but it’s not clear how instrumental or active they are.”
Please email your comments to Editor@ndia.org
Back To Top
|
Search Tips
