兰德-Limiting-Regret_-Building-the-Army-We-Will-Need_26页_616kb

Limiting Regret: Summary

Core Content

This report, Limiting Regret, evaluates the U.S. Army's readiness and size in light of evolving national security threats and challenges. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining a robust and ready force to fulfill U.S. commitments and prevent strategic failure, which could lead to regret. The report highlights the need for the Department of Defense (DoD) to reassess its force planning, especially in light of recent events and emerging threats.

Main Points

• Post-2014 QDR Changes: The U.S. national security landscape has changed significantly since the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), with new and more severe threats emerging.
• Risk of Strategic Failure: Insufficient Army ground forces can lead to strategic failure, which in turn can result in regret for not meeting national security commitments.
• Urgent Need for Readiness: The report advocates for the DoD to pause the drawdown of Army forces and fund the highest readiness levels for both active and reserve components.
• Mobilization Plans: The DoD should establish plans for mobilizing the entire Army National Guard, Army Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve in case of contingencies.
• Threats to Consider: The report identifies three key threats—ISIL, Russian aggression in the Baltics, and North Korean nuclear and conventional threats—that have not been adequately addressed in current force planning.

Key Findings

• The U.S. Army’s current end strength and readiness levels may not be sufficient to meet the demands of emerging and growing threats.
• The QDR 2014 underestimated the threat posed by ISIL, which has become a significant and persistent danger to U.S. interests.
• The QDR did not fully account for the potential Russian aggression against NATO's Baltic states, which could lead to a rapid fait accompli if not deterred.
• The QDR also failed to adequately address the North Korean artillery threat to Seoul, as well as the broader WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) risks, including the potential for nuclear proliferation and theft following a regime collapse.

Current Army Usage

• The U.S. Army is currently deployed in multiple regions, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and other global areas, with approximately 44,000 troops in active operations.
• There are 83,000 forward-stationed troops in Europe (with NATO) and the Asia-Pacific region.
• 143,000 soldiers are engaged in "infrastructure activities," which include training, organizing, and equipping the force for future missions.
• The Army maintains a 1:2 deployment ratio, with 132,000 soldiers in the continental United States (CONUS) supporting Global Response Force (GRF), Regionally Aligned Force (RAF), and other contingency missions.

U.S. Commitments vs. Force Planning

Potential Regret Scenarios

1. ISIL Remains Strong

• If the U.S. fails to degrade or destroy ISIL, it could become a terror-state, leading to instability in Iraq and Syria, and potentially partition of these regions.
• This would undermine U.S. credibility and the security of its allies, and could lead to regret over the failure to prevent the growth of a major threat.

2. Russia Takes Military Action in the Baltics

• A Russian invasion of the Baltic states could result in a swift occupation within 36–60 hours.
• The U.S. and NATO may be forced to respond with sanctions or a counteroffensive, both of which could lead to regret if not handled effectively.
• A nuclear response by Russia could expose NATO allies to tactical nuclear weapons and risk alliance fracturing.

3. North Korea Provokes or Collapses

• A North Korean attack on South Korea or a regime collapse could result in artillery bombardments of Seoul and theft of WMD.
• The U.S. would need to provide evacuation, humanitarian support, offensive capabilities, and seizure of WMD sites.
• Failure to do so could lead to regret over not fulfilling commitments to a key ally, and potentially regret over the lack of U.S. military capability to support South Korea.

Conclusion

• The report argues that the QDR 2014 has created a gap between U.S. commitments and the readiness and size of the Army.
• It calls for the DoD to pause the drawdown of Army forces and to prioritize funding for readiness.
• The mobilization of reserve components is essential to address potential contingencies.
• Strategic failure could result in significant regret, especially in the context of ISIL, Russian aggression, and North Korean threats.
• The security of the U.S. and its allies depends on the conscientious fulfillment of commitments and the maintenance of a capable and ready force.