The future of the force: Better think twice before cutting lots of heavy ground units

Here is an excerpt
from an e-book,
The Wounded Giant: America's Armed
Forces in an Age of Austerity, to
be published
next week by Penguin Press.

By Michael O'Hanlon

Best Defense guest
commentator

During the Vietnam War,
the United States Army's active-duty forces were almost a million and a half
soldiers strong. In World War II, the number had approached six million (not
counting the Army Air Force or other services). Under Ronald Reagan, the figure
was more like 800,000. After reducing that strength when the Cold War ended to
less than half a million, and after considering Donald Rumsfeld's ideas in
early 2001 to cut even more, the nation built up its standing Army by almost
100,000 troops over the last decade, while modestly increasing the size of the
Marine Corps from about 170,000 to 200,000 active-duty Marines as well. We are
now on a downward slope again. But how low can we go?

It is easy to see the
pros and cons of deeper cutbacks. On the favorable side, we are a nation tired
of war, and especially tired of long counterinsurgency missions in distant
Asian lands -- not for the first time in our history. In addition, we have
oceans to protect us from most potential adversaries, and high-technology
weapons to try to keep the peace without putting U.S. troops on the ground in
distant lands. On the other hand, in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade,
we have relearned the lesson that if you want to enhance the stability of a
faraway land, you cannot do it with the "shock and awe" of air and missile
strikes alone. In addition, if you go in too small, you may only worsen the
situation and have to salvage it with larger forces later. Moreover, the size
of armies needed to help stabilize such places is partly a function of the size
of their populations, not just the quality of our technology or our troops on a
person-by-person basis. In a world with more than six billion people, hundreds
of millions of whom are still living in turbulent places that could threaten
U.S. interests, it is not clear that the American Army can keep getting
smaller.

And even if we try simply
to avoid manpower-intensive war in the future, we may just fail. We have tried
that approach before, deciding that as a nation we were simply done with
certain forms of combat. But then we have usually wound up being forced by the
course of history to re-learn old lessons and re-create old capabilities when
our crystal balls proved to be cloudy, and our predictions about the nature of
future combat proved wrong. The stakes involved in faraway lands in the age of
transnational terrorism and nuclear weapons are too high for us to blithely
assume that we've seen the last of complex ground missions in distant lands
just because we don't happen to like them. [[BREAK]]

The U.S. military today is indeed the second largest
military in the world, after China's. But it is only modestly larger than those
of North Korea, India, and Russia. The size of its active-duty Army also only
modestly surpasses that of South Korea and Turkey, among others. So as we begin
the debate about its future size, we are not exactly beginning with a huge
force as a starting point.

Nevertheless, the U.S.
military probably can become smaller as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind
down. We should not rush into this, and we should not adopt the attitude some
advocate that America's main overseas capabilities be reduced principally to
Air Force and Navy capabilities. The latter services are formidable and
essential. But "standoff" warfare featuring long-range strikes from planes and
ships cannot address many of the world's key security challenges today -- and
possible scenarios in places like Korea and South Asia, discussed further
below, that could in fact imperil American security. In the 1990s, advocates of
military revolution often argued for such an approach to war, but the
subsequent decade proved that for all our progress in sensors and munitions and
other military capabilities, we still need forces on the ground to deal with
complex insurgencies and other threats.

An emphasis on standoff
warfare is sometimes also described as a strategy of "offshore balancing" by
which the distant United States steps in with limited amounts of power to shape
overseas events, particularly in Eurasia, rather than getting involved directly
with its own soldiers and Marines. But offshore balancing is too clever by
half. In fact, overseas developments are not so easily nudged in favorable
directions; proponents of this approach actually overstate American power. It
also suggests a lack of real American commitment. That can embolden adversaries
and worry friends to the point where, among other things, they may feel obliged
to build up their own nuclear arsenals -- as the likes of South Korea, Japan,
Taiwan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia might well do absent strong security
ties with America.

All that said, we will
have to streamline in the years ahead. This is not really for any lack of
manpower to people a larger Army and Marine Corps. We have nearly five million
young people reaching eighteen every year, and need to recruit only about
200,000 at present for the current military. Although many of the remaining 4.8
million do not qualify for today's force due to their lack of fitness,
educational attainment, or other characteristics, ways could be found to make
more of them eligible -- such as my friend Marshall Rose's idea of premilitary
fitness camps that could whip out-of-shape young men and women into shape
with incentives for positive completion. At present, however, and certainly for
as long as the U.S. economy remains weak, availability of manpower will not be
our limiting factor. Rather, it is that the expense of having people in uniform
has become so great that we must not have more troopers than we need.

As such, once the wars
wind down, we should reverse the recent increases in the active forces of the
U.S. Army and Marine Corps and return to Clinton and early Bush levels. That
would mean roughly 15 percent cuts, relative to current combat force structure
-- roughly twice the cut currently planned by the services. There was in fact a
reasonable amount of bipartisan consensus on those earlier force levels, with
defense secretaries Aspin, Perry, Cohen, and Rumsfeld all supporting them over
a ten-year period. These reductions in ground forces would not quite achieve 15
percent reductions in costs, as certain nonlinearities exist. New weapons must
still be developed regardless of how many will be purchased; weapons unit costs
tend to go up when fewer are purchased; some support activities like
intelligence do not decline automatically when force structure is cut. But
savings would be 10 to 12 percent in the ground forces, or $15 billion to $18
billion in annual spending. Commensurately, Air Force tactical combat forces
might be cut 10 percent.

To give a sense of the
respective facts and figures, today's U.S. Army has about 550,000 active-duty
soldiers. In addition, as of early 2011 data, another 110,000 reservists had
been temporarily activated -- nearly 80,000 from the National Guard and just
over 30,000 from the Army Reserve. The U.S. Marine Corps is about 200,000
strong, with another 5,000 Marine reservists temporarily activated. By
contrast, the active Army of 2000 was 472,000 strong and the Marine Corps
numbered 170,000. Excluding activated reservists, therefore, making 15 percent
personnel cuts would reduce current levels approximately to those of a decade
ago.

Today's Army likes to
organize its forces and measure its strength more in terms of brigades than the
old standard of divisions; there are usually now four brigades to a division,
and the former have been turned into units that are independently deployable
and operable in the field. Today's ground forces include forty-five brigade
combat teams in the active Army as well as twenty-eight in the National Guard.
The Army also has thirteen combat aviation brigades in the active force and
eight in the reserve component. The Marines, organized somewhat differently and
using different terminology to describe their main formations, have eleven
infantry regiments as well as four artillery regiments. Roughly speaking, a
Marine Corps regiment is comparable in size and capability to an Army brigade.

Throughout the 1990s,
U.S. ground forces were sized and shaped primarily to maintain a two-war
capability. The wars were assumed to begin in fairly rapid succession (though
not exactly simultaneously), and then overlap, lasting several months to
perhaps a year or two. Three separate administrations -- Bush 41, Clinton 42,
and Bush 43, and a total of five defense secretaries -- Cheney, Aspin, Perry,
Cohen, Rumsfeld -- endorsed some variant of it. They formalized the logic in
the first Bush administration's 1992 "Base Force" concept, the Clinton
administration's 1993 "Bottom-Up Review" followed four years later by the first
Quadrennial Defense Review, and then Secretary Rumsfeld's own 2001 QDR. These
reviews all gave considerable attention to both Iraq and North Korea as
plausible adversaries. More generally, though, they postulated that the United
States could not predict all future enemies or conflicts, and that there was a
strong deterrent logic in being able to handle more than one problem at a time.
Otherwise, if engaged in a single war in one place, the United States could be
vulnerable to opportunistic adversaries elsewhere. With Saddam Hussein gone,
this deterrent logic can be adjusted, a point to which we return below.

In these debates in the
dozen years following the Cold War and Desert Storm, most considered actual
combat in two places at once unlikely. Few predicted prolonged wars in two
places at once. Yet we got exactly that in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last
ten years. Of course, many disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq in
particular. But the basic fact that conflict is unpredictable -- that, to quote
the old aphorism, "You may not have an interest in war but war may have an
interest in you" -- endures.

The Obama administration
appears to agree; as its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report states,
after successfully concluding current wars, "In the mid- to long term, U.S.
military forces must plan and prepare to prevail in a broad range of operations
that may occur in multiple theaters in overlapping time frames. This includes
maintaining the ability to prevail against two capable nation-state aggressors.
. . . "The Obama QDR is actually somewhat more demanding than the military
requirements that guided American planners between 1991 and 2001. It adds a
stabilization mission and smaller operations on top of the two-war requirement,
though it may be overestimating the capacities of its force structure in doing
so.

In my judgment, though, a
two-land-war capability is no longer appropriate for the age of austerity. The
"one war plus several missions" framework proposed here for sizing combat
forces -- "one plus two" for short, if the two is understood as two relatively
significant efforts -- is designed to be a prudent but still modest way to ensure
this type of American global role. It is prudent because it provides some
additional capability if and when the nation again engages in a major conflict,
and because it provides a bit of a combat cushion should that war go less well
than initially hoped. It is modest, verging on minimalist, however, because it
assumes only one such conflict at a time (despite the experience of the last
decade) and because it does not envision major ground wars against the world's
major overseas powers on their territories.

More specifically, if
there ever was conflict pitting the United States against China or Iran, for
example, it is reasonable to assume that the fighting would be in maritime and
littoral regions. That is because the most plausible threat that China would
pose is to Taiwan, or perhaps to neighboring states over disputed sea and
seabed resources, and because the most plausible crisis involving Iran would
relate either to its nuclear program or to its machinations in and about the
Persian Gulf waterways. It is reasonable for the United States to have the
capability for just one ground war at a time as long as it can respond in other
ways to other possibly simultaneous and overlapping challenges abroad.

Having such a single
major ground-war war capability is somewhat risky, underscoring the risks of
even deeper defense cuts than I am outlining here. But it is hardly radical or
unprecedented. During the Cold War, American defense posture varied between
periods of major ambition -- as with the "2½ war" framework of the 1960s that
envisioned simultaneous conflicts against the Soviet Union (probably in
Europe), China in East Asia, and some smaller foe elsewhere -- and somewhat
more realistic approaches, as under Nixon, which dropped the requirement to 1½
wars. Nixon's "1 war" would have been conflict in Europe against the Warsaw
Pact, a threat that is now gone. His regional war capability, or his "½ war"
posture, was therefore similar to what I am proposing here. Nor does this
proposal lead to a dramatically smaller ground force. Having the capacity to
wage one major regional war with some added degree of insurance should things
go wrong, while sustaining two to three protracted if smaller deployments, is
only modestly less demanding than fighting two regional wars at once.
Unfortunately, today's world does not allow a prudent decision to go to an even
less demanding strategic construct or an even smaller force.

This one-war response
capability needs to be responsive and highly effective to compensate for its
modest size. That fact has implications in areas like strategic transport,
discussed further in the next chapter. It also has implications for the
National Guard and Reserves. They remain indispensable parts of the total
force. They have done well in Iraq and Afghanistan, and merit substantial
support in the years ahead -- better than they have often received in our
nation's past. But they are not able to carry out prompt deployments to crises
or conflicts the way that current American security commitments and current
deterrence strategy require. As such, we should not move to a "citizens' army"
that depends primarily on reservists for the nation's defense.

Translating this new
strategy -- one war, plus several smaller missions -- into force planning
should allow for roughly 15 percent cutbacks. Army active-duty brigade combat
teams might number about thirty-eight, with the National Guard adding
twenty-four more. Combat aviation units might decline to eleven and seven
brigades in the active and National Guard forces, respectively. The Marines
would give up perhaps two units, resulting in ten infantry and three artillery
regiments respectively in their active forces, while keeping their three
divisions and three associated Marine Expeditionary Forces. This force would be
enough to sustain about twenty combat brigade teams overseas indefinitely, and
to surge twenty-five to thirty if need be. If the United States found itself in
a major operation, it could and should begin to reverse these cuts immediately,
building up larger active ground forces as a hedge against the possibility that
the new operation (or additional ones) could prove longer or harder than first
anticipated. But that would take some time, roughly two to five years to make a
meaningful difference, and as such the peacetime cuts should not go too far.

The above deployment math
is based on the principle that active forces should have roughly twice as much
time at home as on deployment and that reservists should have five times as
much time at home as abroad -- even in times of war. That would be enough for
the main invasion phase of the kinds of wars assumed throughout 1990s defense
planning and the invasion, occupation, and stabilization of Iraq actually
carried out in 2003; force packages ranging from fifteen to twenty brigades
were generally assumed or used for these missions. So the smaller force could
sustain an Iraq-like mission for months or even years while also doing smaller
tasks elsewhere.

This capacity falls short
of the twenty-two brigades deployed in 2007-8 just to Iraq and Afghanistan, to
say nothing of Kosovo or Korea, where additional brigade-sized forces were also
present in that time period. If multiple long crises or conflicts occurred in
the future, we would have to ratchet force strength back up. Thankfully, the
Army and Marine Corps of the last ten years proved they can do this. They added
that 15 percent in new capability within about half a decade without any
reduction in the excellence of individual units.

Somewhat greater savings
-- $5 billion to $8 billion more per year -- could be realized if the same
capability was retained but more of it was located within the Army National
Guard. Rather than downsize from forty-five active brigade combat teams and
twenty-eight Guard teams to respective figures of thirty-eight and twenty-four,
as recommended, one might reduce the active brigades down to just twenty-eight
in number for example. The active-duty Army would wind up totaling fewer than
400,000 soldiers with this proposal. The overall U.S. military might compensate
by adding not just ten but twenty National Guard brigade combat teams to its
force structure, for a total of forty-four. That would keep unchanged the total
Army ability to carry out a long-term deployment at acceptable deployment rates
for reservists. (In other words, it would add enough additional Guard brigades
that their numbers would compensate for the fact that they couldn't be used as
often as active units.) This would amount to a major shift in the character of
the American Army and would place huge faith in the reserve component.
Arguably, the reserve component has proven in recent years that it is up to the
task. With twenty-eight active brigades, the Army would still have enough
capability to conduct two or three missions while having perhaps fifteen to
twenty active-duty brigades ready for quick deployment to a war. However, if a
war did begin, the Army would need to move very fast to mobilize a dozen or
more Guard brigades to allow them the time needed to train properly so that they
could replace the initial response force within a year or so if the operation
was not quickly concluded. I am uncomfortable with this degree of reliance on
the reserves given the time pressures involved, but it is worth acknowledging
that the option does exist.

Some might question
whether we even still need a one-war capability. Alas, it is not hard to
imagine plausible scenarios. Even if each specific case is unlikely, a number
of scenarios cannot be ruled out. What if insurgency in Pakistan began to threaten
that country's nuclear arsenal, and the Pakistani army concluded that it needed
our help in stabilizing their country? Far-fetched at present, to be sure -- but
so was the idea of war in Afghanistan if you had asked almost any American
strategist in 1995 or 2000. Or perhaps, after another Indo-Pakistani war that
reached the nuclear threshold, the international community might be asked to
lead a stabilization and trustee mission in Kashmir following a ceasefire -- not
an appealing prospect to anyone at present, but hard to rule out if a nuclear
exchange put the subcontinent on the brink of complete disaster. What if Yemen's
turmoil allowed al-Qaeda to set up a major sanctuary there like it did in
Afghanistan fifteen years ago? What if North Korea began to implode and both
South Korea and the United States felt the need to restore order before the
former's estimated nuclear arsenal of perhaps eight bombs wound up in the wrong
hands?

Consider the Korea case
in more detail. This would not necessarily be a classic war; it could result,
for example, from an internal coup or schism within North Korea that
destabilized that country and put the security of its nuclear weapons at risk.
It could result somewhat inadvertently, from an exchange of gunfire on land or
sea that escalated into North Korean long-range artillery and missile attacks
on South Korea's close-by capital of Seoul. If the North went down this path,
something that its brazen 2010 sinking of the South Korean navy ship Cheonan
and subsequent attacks on a remote South Korean island that together killed
about fifty South Koreans suggest not to be impossible, war might occur out of
an escalatory dynamic the two sides lost control over. Certainly the way in
which North Korea remains a hypermilitarized state, devoting by far the largest
fraction of its national wealth to its military of any country on Earth, while
accepting that many of its people wallow in poverty or even starve, should make
one worry somewhat. Perhaps Pyongyang might be inclined to try to use that
military -- in an attempt at brinkmanship or extortion that was foolish to be
sure, but that could still prove quite dangerous. It is largely because of such
possibilities that the United States should not abandon its South Korean ally,
even though that nation is now far stronger than it used to be and stronger
than North Korea. The risks of deterrence failure would be too great, given
Pyongyang's proclivities to attempt brinkmanship and intimidation. If we did
break the alliance, hypothetically speaking, another likely outcome would be
South Korean development of a nuclear arsenal, with further erosion of global
nonproliferation standards as a result. It is not a risk worth taking now.

It is also possible that
if North Korea greatly accelerated its production of nuclear bombs, of which it
is believed to now have about eight, or seemed on the verge of selling nuclear
materials to a terrorist group, the United States and South Korea might decide
to preempt with a limited strike against DPRK nuclear facilities. North Korea
might then respond in dramatic fashion. Such a war cannot be ruled out.

Given trends in the
military balance over the years, the allies would surely defeat North Korea in
such a war and then occupy its country and change its government. North Korea's
weaponry is more obsolescent than ever, it faces major fuel and spare parts
shortages in training and preparing its forces, and its personnel are
undernourished and otherwise underprepared. Yet horrible things could still
happen en route to allied victory. The nature of the terrain in Korea means
that much of the battle would ultimately be infantry combat. Whatever its other
problems, North Korea's rifles still shoot and its soldiers are still
indoctrinated with the notion that they must defend their homeland at all
costs. North Korea has built up fortifications near the DMZ for half a century
that are formidable and could make the task of extricating its forces difficult
and bloody. North Korea also has among the world's largest artillery concentrations,
and could conduct intense shelling of Seoul in any war without having to move
most of its forces at all.

Even nuclear attacks by
the North against South Korea, Japan, or American assets could not be
dismissed. Sure, outright annihilation of Seoul or Tokyo would make little
sense, as the United States could and almost surely would respond in kind, and
allied forces would track down the perpetrators of such a heinous crime to the
ends of the Earth. Any North Korean nuclear attack on a major allied city would
mean certain ultimate overthrow of the offending regime, and almost surely
death (or at least lifetime imprisonment) for its leaders once they were found.
But the point about nuclear war is that it wouldn't necessarily start that way,
and therefore it is not so easy to dismiss out of hand. Perhaps North Korea
would try to use one nuclear bomb, out of its probable arsenal of eight or so,
against a remote airbase or troop concentration. This could weaken allied
defenses in a key sector, while also signaling the North's willingness to
escalate further if necessary. It would be a hugely risky move, but not totally
inconceivable given previous North Korean actions.

Possible Chinese
intervention would have to be guarded against too. To be sure, in the event of
another Korean war, Beijing is not going to be eager to come to the military
defense of the most fanatical military dictatorship left on the planet. But it
also has treaty obligations with the North that may complicate its
calculations. And it is going to be worried about any possibility of American
encroachment into North Korean lands near its borders. For all these reasons, a
Korean war could have broader regional implications -- and pose huge threats to
great-power peace. This worry requires that Washington and Seoul maintain close
consultations with Beijing in any future crisis or conflict. But it also
suggests that U.S. and South Korean forces would want to have the capability to
win any war against the North quickly and decisively. That would reduce the
odds that China would decide to establish a buffer zone in an anarchic North
Korea with its own forces in a way that could bring Chinese and allied soldiers
into close and tense proximity again. If China insisted on creating such a
buffer zone temporarily, by the way, it would be preferable to allow the PRC to
do so rather than fight it to prevent such a possibility, in my judgment -- to
avoid turning this conflict scenario into a possible repeat performance of the
first Korean War.

So what does this all add
up to, in terms of American force requirements for a possible future Korean
contingency? Again, let me underscore my hope that such a horrible war will
never occur, and indeed my prediction that it will not. But hope is not a
strategy, as Colin Powell liked to say, and in addition often the best way to
preserve the peace when dealing with a state like North Korea is to be
absolutely clear in one's own resolve and absolutely prepared in military
terms. To accomplish this, necessary U.S. forces would have to be quite
substantial. They might focus principally on air and naval capabilities, given
South Korea's large and improved army. But they should also involve American
ground forces, since a speedy victory would be of the essence, and since as
noted the fighting could be quite difficult and manpower intensive. While South
Korea is very capable, and has a better military than does North Korea, it
would be important to win fast to limit damage to Seoul and to seal off North
Korea's borders in order to prevent the smuggling out of nuclear materials.

American ground forces
would also be important because American mobile assets (such as the 101st air
assault division and Marine amphibious forces) provide capabilities that South
Korea does not itself possess in comparable numbers. Perhaps fifteen to twenty
brigade-sized forces and eight to ten fighter wings, as well as three to four
carrier battle groups, would be employed, as all previous defense reviews of
the post-Cold War era have concluded. American forces might not be needed long
in any occupation, given South Korea's large capabilities, but could be crucial
for a few months.

U.S. Forces that were 15
percent smaller than today's would admittedly be hard-pressed in certain other
scenarios. They probably could not stabilize a country like Iran, for example.
In the unlikely but not impossible event that, due to dramatic Iranian
escalation in use of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, we felt the need
to intervene on the ground in that country, a smaller U.S. Army and Marine
Corps would be a disadvantage. There is no denying it.

Even in this case,
however, we would not lack options. We would retain the ability, even without
allied help on the ground, to overthrow a regime such as that in Tehran that
carried out a heinous act of aggression or terror against American interests in
the future. Such a deterrent could also be useful against any other powerful
extremist government with ties to terrorists and nuclear ambitions or
capabilities, should it someday take power in another country (above and beyond
a current case like North Korea). The force would not be enough to occupy and
stabilize a country like Iran thereafter. And leaving it in chaos would hardly
be an ideal outcome. But this capability could nonetheless be a meaningful
deterrent against Iranian extremism, as we could defeat and largely destroy the
Revolutionary Guard and Qods Forces that keep the current extremists in power
if it ever became absolutely necessary. That translates into a meaningful deterrent
capability -- which is of course what we are after, since dissuading the
extremists in Tehran from worse behavior in the first place is our real goal.
To the extent the international community as a whole then saw the
reestablishment of order in Iran as important, it could if desired help provide
ground forces in a subsequent coalition to stabilize the place -- a job that
could require half a million total troops. (Thus, even today's American ground
forces would in fact be inadequate to the job of stabilizing Iran, which with
80 million people is three times as populous as either Iraq or Afghanistan.)

For missions like helping
stabilize a large collapsing state, perhaps Pakistan or Nigeria, smaller U.S.
ground forces could well prove sufficient as part of a coalition. That is, they
might suffice if part of the security forces of the state at issue remained
intact, or if a broader international coalition of states contributed to the
operation.

Consider one of these -- the
Pakistan scenario -- in more detail. Such a scenario is extremely unlikely; for
all its challenges, Pakistan does not appear on the verge of collapse. It is
also important to underscore, especially in this period of fraught
U.S.-Pakistan relations, that any international effort to help Pakistan restore
order to its own territory could only be carried out with the full
acquiescence, and at the invitation of, its government. That is because there
is no scenario I can imagine in which Pakistan's army would entirely melt away,
meaning that it would be a force we would have to reckon with and in fact want
to work with regardless of circumstances. It is also because the country is so
huge that the task would be unthinkably demanding, even with today's military,
if the U.S. and international roles were not primarily in support of indigenous
efforts. Even independent American writers like me can worry Pakistanis with
discussion of such scenarios, and the May 2011 killing of bin Laden only
exacerbates the Pakistani sensitivities to any discussion of scenarios that
would infringe upon their sovereignty. But we cannot avoid the issue.

Of all the military
scenarios that undoubtedly would involve U.S. vital interests, a collapsed
Pakistan ranks very high on the list. The combination of Islamic extremists and
nuclear weapons in that country is extremely worrisome. Were parts of Pakistan's
nuclear arsenal ever to fall into the wrong hands, al-Qaeda could conceivably
gain access to a nuclear device with terrifying possible results. The Pakistan
collapse scenario appears somewhat unlikely given the country's traditionally
moderate officer corps; however, some parts of its military as well as the
intelligence services, which created the Taliban and have condoned if not
abetted Islamic extremists in Kashmir, are becoming less moderate and less
dependable. The country as a whole is sufficiently infiltrated by
fundamentalist groups -- as the attempted assassinations against President
Pervez Musharraf in earlier days, the killing of Benazir Bhutto in 2007, and
other evidence make clear -- that this terrifying scenario should not be
dismissed.

Were Pakistan to
collapse, it is unclear what the United States and like-minded states would or
should do. As with North Korea, it is highly unlikely that "surgical strikes"
to destroy the nuclear weapons could be conducted before extremists could make
a grab at them. The United States probably would not know their location -- at
a minimum, scores of sites controlled by special forces or elite army units
would be presumed candidates -- and no Pakistani government would likely help
external forces with targeting information. The chances of learning the
locations would probably be greater than in the North Korean case, given the
greater openness of Pakistani society and its ties with the outside world; but
U.S.-Pakistani military cooperation, cut off for a decade in the 1990s, is
still quite modest, and the likelihood that Washington would be provided such
information or otherwise obtain it should be considered small.

If a surgical strike,
series of surgical strikes, or commando-style raids were not possible, the only
option would be to try to restore order before the weapons could be taken by
extremists and transferred to terrorists. The United States and other outside
powers might, for example, respond to a request by the Pakistani government to
help restore order. Given the embarrassment associated with requesting such
outside help, the Pakistani government might delay asking until quite late,
thus complicating an already challenging operation. If the international
community could act fast enough, it might help defeat an insurrection. Another
option would be to protect Pakistan's borders, therefore making it harder to
sneak nuclear weapons out of the country, while providing only technical
support to the Pakistani armed forces as they tried to quell the insurrection.
Given the enormous stakes, the United States would literally have to do
anything it could to prevent nuclear weapons from getting into the wrong hands.

Should stabilization
efforts be required, the undertaking could be breathtaking in scale. Pakistan
is a very large country: its population is over 175 million, or six times Iraq's;
its land area is roughly twice that of Iraq; its perimeter is about 50 percent
longer in total. Stabilizing a country of this size could easily require
several times as many troops as the Iraq mission, and a figure of up to one
million is plausible. However, that assumes complete collapse.

Presumably, any chaos
within Pakistan would be localized and limited, at least at first. Some
fraction of Pakistan's security forces would remain intact, able and willing to
help defend their country. Pakistan's military includes more than half a
million soldiers, almost 100,000 uniformed air force and navy personnel,
another half million reservists, and almost 300,000 gendarmes and Interior
Ministry troops. Nevertheless, if some substantial fraction broke off from the
military -- say, a quarter to a third -- and was assisted by extremist
militias, it is quite possible the international community would need to deploy
100,000 to 200,000 troops to restore order quickly. The U.S. requirement could
be as high as 50,000 to 100,000 ground forces. The smaller force discussed here
could handle that.

As noted, another quite
worrisome South Asia scenario could involve another Indo-Pakistani crisis
leading to war between the two nuclear-armed states over Kashmir, with the
potential to destabilize Pakistan in the process. This could result, for
example, from a more extremist leader coming to power in Pakistan. Imagine the
dangers associated with a country of nearly 200 million with the world's
fastest-growing nuclear arsenal, hatred of India as well as America, and claims
on land currently controlled by India. I do not suggest that we should create
the option of directly attacking such a hypothetical future Pakistan. That
said, some scenarios could get pretty hairy -- for example, if that future
government in Islamabad had ties to extremists and thought about supporting
them militarily. Certainly if such a future government was involved directly or
indirectly in attacking us, we would need options to respond. These should
include the possibility of a naval blockade and scale up from there as
necessary, along the lines of the capabilities discussed above regarding Iran.

Even more plausibly, it
is easy to see how such an extremist state could take South Asia to the brink
of nuclear war by provoking conflict with India. Were that to happen, and
perhaps a nuke or two even popped off above an airbase or other such military
facility, the world could be faced with the specter of all-out nuclear war in
the most densely populated part of the planet. While hostilities continued,
even if it would probably avoid taking sides on the ground, the United States
might want the option to help India protect itself from missile strikes by
Pakistan. It is even possible that the United States might, depending on how
the conflict began, consider trying to shoot down any missile launched
from either side at the other, given the huge human and strategic perils
associated with nuclear-armed missiles striking the great cities of South Asia.
The United States might or might not be able to deploy enough missile defense
capabilities to South Asia to make a meaningful difference in any such
conflict. But certainly if it had the capacity, one can imagine that it might
be prudent to employ it in certain circumstances.

It is also imaginable
that, if such a war began and international negotiators were trying to figure
out how to end it, an international force could be invited to help stabilize
the situation for a number of years. India in particular would be adamantly
against this idea today, but things could change if war broke out and such a
force seemed the only way to reverse the momentum toward all-out nuclear war in
South Asia. American forces would quite likely need to play a key role, as
others do not have the capacity or political confidence to handle the mission
on their own.

With forty-nine brigade
equivalents in its active Army and Marine Corps forces, and another twenty-four
Army National Guard brigades, the United States could handle a combination of
challenges reasonably well. Suppose for example that in the year 2015, it had
one brigade in a stabilization mission in Yemen, two brigades still in
Afghanistan, and two brigades as part of a multinational peace operation in
Kashmir. Suppose then that another war in Korea breaks out, requiring a peak of
twenty U.S. combat brigades for the first three months, after which fifteen are
needed for another year or more. That is within the capacity of the smaller
force -- though just barely. Specifically, after the initial surge to Korea,
the United States would by these assumptions settle back into a set of missions
that required twenty brigade equivalents in all for some period of a year or
more. The ground forces designed here would be up to the task.

Of course, with different
assumptions it would be possible to generate different force requirements,
making my recommended force look too small or alternatively bigger than
necessary. But the demands assumed above are not capricious. They are based on
real war plans for Korea, and very plausible assumptions about two to three
possible missions elsewhere. And they do not take the U.S. military too far
below levels that have recently been necessary for Iraq and Afghanistan, given
that recent history should remind us of any overconfidence about predicting the
end of the era of major ground operations abroad.

One final important point
demands attention in this analysis of scenarios around the world: what is the
role of U.S. allies in each of them? The fact that America has so many allies
is extremely important -- it signals that most other major powers around the
world are at least loosely aligned with America on major strategic matters.
They may not choose to be with us on every mission, as the Iraq experience
proves. But when America is directly threatened, as in 9/11, the Western
alliance system is rather extraordinary. This has been evidenced in Afghanistan,
where through thick and thin, even at the ten-year mark of the war, the
coalition still includes combat forces from some forty-eight countries.

Yet how much help do
these allies tend to provide? Here the answer is, and will remain, more
nuanced. The other forty-seven nations in Afghanistan have, in 2011,
collectively provided less than one third of all foreign forces; the United
States by itself provided more than two thirds. Still, more than forty thousand
forces is nothing to trivialize.

The allies have taken the
lead in Libya in 2011. But this may be the exception that proves the rule -- the
mission that they led was a very limited air campaign in a nearby country. The
French also helped depose a brutal dictator in Ivory Coast in 2011, and some European
and Asian allies as well as other nations continue to slog away in peace
operations in places such as Congo and Lebanon. The Australians tend to be
dependable partners, Canada did a great deal in Afghanistan and took heavy
losses before finally pulling out its combat forces in 2011, and over in Asia,
the Japanese are also showing some greater assertiveness as their concerns
about China's rise lead to more muscular naval operations by Tokyo.

For future American
strategy, however, we should keep our expectations in check. Overall, the
allies are not stepping up their game to new levels. Any hope that the election
of Barack Obama with his more inclusive and multilateral style of leadership
would lead them to do so are proving generally unwarranted. NATO defense
spending is slipping downward, from a starting point that was not very
impressive to begin with. The allies were collectively more capable in the
1990s, when they contributed most of the ground troops that NATO deployed to
the Balkans, than they are now.

The fraction of the NATO
allies' GDP spent on their armed forces has declined to about 1.7 percent as of
2009, well under half the U.S. figure. That is a reduction from NATO's earlier
figure of 2.2 percent in 2000 and about 2.5 percent in 1990. Secretary Gates
accordingly warned of the possibility of a two-tier alliance before leaving
office in 2011. Yet NATO is still an excellent insurance policy should trouble
loom in the future with China, Russia, or another power. As a time-tested
community of democracies sharing common values and historical experiences, the
alliance offers America a very useful anchor in sometimes unstable Eurasian
waters.

The bottom line is this:
When allies feel directly threatened, as Japan and South Korea sometimes do now,
they will pony up at least to a degree. South Korea in particular can be
counted on to provide many air and naval forces, and most of the needed ground
forces, for any major operation on the peninsula in the future. (South Korea is
less enthusiastic about being pulled into an anti-China coalition, and
Washington needs to watch not only the substance but even the tone of its
comments on this subject.) Taiwan would surely do what it could to help fend
off a possible Chinese attack, not leaving the whole job to the American
military in the event that terrible scenario someday unfolds, though it is
probably underspending on its military (see below for more on this). Many if
not most NATO forces will be careful in drawing down troops from Afghanistan,
making cuts roughly in proportion to those of the United States over the next
two to three years.

In the Persian Gulf, both
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have impressive air forces, with at
least one hundred top-of-the-line aircraft each. Both countries could certainly
help provide patrols over their own airspace as defensive measures in a future
conflict. If they had already been directly attacked by Iran, they might also
be willing to carry out counterstrikes against Iranian land or sea targets. But
again there are limits. Neither country trains that intensively on a frequent
basis with the United States to the point where combined combat operations in
limited geographic spaces would be an entirely comfortable proposition. To put
it more bluntly, we might have a number of friendly-fire incidents and shoot
down each other's planes. Even more concerning, if Iran had not actually
attacked their territories, Saudi Arabia and the UAE might prefer to avoid
striking Iran themselves first -- since once the hostilities ended, they would
have to coexist in the same neighborhood again. For that and other reasons, it
is not completely clear that we could count on regional allies to do more than
the very important but still limited task of protecting their own airspace. We
could hope for more, but should not count on it for force-planning purposes. A
similar logic would apply to Japan in the event of any war against China over
Taiwan.

Britain can be counted on for a brigade
or two -- five thousand to ten thousand troops, perhaps -- for most major
operations that the United States might consider in the future. Some new NATO
allies like Poland and Romania, and some aspirants like Georgia, will try to
help where they can, largely to solidify ties to America that they consider crucial
for their security. The allies also may have enough collective capacity,
and political will, to share responsibility for humanitarian and peace
operations in the future, though here frankly the record of the entire Western
world including the United States is patchy at best. Numerous countries will
contribute modestly to limited and low-risk missions like the counterpiracy
patrols off the coast of Somalia. If future naval operations are needed perhaps
to monitor or enforce future sanctions on Iran, and if we are then lucky, we
may get a few allies to participate. Maybe. But that is about as far as it will
go.

The bottom line is that the United
States need not, and should not, accept primary responsibility for future
military operations of a humanitarian nature, and it should not have to play
the preponderant role in most future peace operations. But even if it will not
have to be the world's policeman, it will to an extent have to remain the world's
main security guarantor, or at least the lead player in future coalitions
designed to carry out that role -- providing heavy combat forces for the most
serious scenarios, largely on its own among the Western powers. In specific
cases, we can always hope for more help. But for planning purposes, we had best
not count on too much of it, beyond what a couple key allies like Britain and
South Korea could be expected to provide in substantial amounts for certain
scenarios.

Michael O'Hanlon is director of
research and a senior fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution,
where he specializes in U.S. defense strategy, the use of military force,
homeland security and American foreign policy. He is a visiting lecturer at
Princeton University and adjunct professor at John Hopkins University. O'Hanlon
is the author of several books, most recently A
Skeptic's Case for Nuclear Disarmament.
His writing has been published in The Washington Post, The New York Times, The
Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, among other publications, and he has
appeared on TV or radio almost 2,000 times since 9/11. Before joining
Brookings, O'Hanlon worked as a national security analyst at the Congressional
Budget Office and served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Congo/Kinshasa (the
former Zaire). He received his bachelor, masters, and doctoral degrees from Princeton, where he
studied public and international affairs.