Could pro-active measurement and data meshing create a better military?
According to the Wall Street Journal this weekend, Russia’s attack on Georgia earlier this month could have a significant impact on an unexpected third party—American defense contractors. And a significant impact at that. Quoted in the Journal, an analyst from JSA Research in Newport, RI, called the Russian invasion “a bell-ringer for defense stocks.”
To understand how this could be, one must first consider how the Defense Department plans and prepares for war. Generally speaking, Pentagon officials plan and prepare to fight the “next war” by predicting who our next opponent may be, anticipating what types of weapons technology might be best to defeat them, and arming ourselves appropriately. Prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Pentagon officials largely assumed our future enemies would be traditional nation-states, complete with traditional militaries comprised of armies, navies, and air forces. Accordingly, since technology is almost always the deciding factor in traditional warfare, we armed ourselves with the latest and greatest weapons. The cost, of course, was staggering—and continues to be.
But does an armory well-stocked with the latest, most technologically advanced weapons, always make for the best prepared fighting force? The answer might seem obvious, but after the terrorist attacks of September 11, the waters become a bit murky. After all, what good is a hanger stocked with F-22s and a port filled with Zumwalt class destroyers when a squad-sized force of men armed with box cutters can bring an entire nation to its knees? Indeed, say those in defense circles who feel that too much emphasis is placed on mammoth, multi-decade, extraordinary defense programs like the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, the Army’s Future Combat Systems, and the Navy’s DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer.
According to this camp, which includes Defense Secretary Robert Gates, more emphasis should be placed on the sort of things that help us counter the current threat—lightly armed, highly mobile irregular forces like the ones opposing the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary Gates and his ideological allies in defense circles seemed to have had the stronger hand, until tension between Russia and Georgia erupted into a shooting war—a traditional one at that—earlier this month. Suddenly, Pentagon officials were reminded that traditional militaries and traditional methods of war fighting were not extinct.
Quoted in the Journal, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Representative John Murtha (D-PA) said “We’ve spent so many resources and so much attention on Iraq that we’ve lost sight of future threats down the road. The current conflict between Russia and Georgia is a perfect example.” In other words, potential threats from traditional nation-states are still with us; to counter those threats, we must have the technology the traditional military demands to meet—and defeat—the threat. Hence, the recent boom in defense-related stocks, as investors gamble that the Pentagon will be more likely to procure more costly weaponry to counter the resurrected potential threat from traditional nation-states—Russia or China, for example.
Thus, we see the opposite ends of the spectrum. On one side is a lean-and-mean military poised to counter the current threat; on the other is a juggernaut capable of crushing even the largest and most technically advanced militaries. According to the Journal, Secretary Gates seems to be charting a course that combines elements of both: “developing capabilities to carry out unconventional warfare missions while fielding forces capable of handily defeating adversaries like Russia’s or China’s militaries.” But how can Secretary Gates run such a fine line? Moreover, how could those in the defense industry work together to arm the United States in the most appropriate way?
One thing that would certainly help in both instances is the ability to measure, pro-actively and up front, the effects each potential procurement would have on the health of American defense. Certainly the data is out there for the Pentagon to do this, as is the technology for meshing together seemingly disparate bits of data in order to form a more accurate picture of a program’s impact—or potential impact—on defense as a whole. Defense officials and defense contractors could work together to establish a set of metrics they could use when designing and implementing defense procurement programs. Once those procurements have been approved, they could use similar measurements to refine and perfect those programs based on real-time performance data. By collaborating together in this manner, defense contractors could learn from each other and produce better, more effective weapons systems. After all, a rising tide raises all ships.
A better, faster, more versatile military is possible through constant measurement and refinement. And a more cost effective one at that—which is music to the ears of the American taxpayer.
By Robert Pothier