U.S. Urged to Revise Security Plans for Future

While reaffirming the basic themes of U.S. policy, a blue-ribbon bipartisan panel of former officials called Sunday for major adjustments in American national security strategy to cope with the next 20 years, including many changes in Pentagon practices.

The commission, whose 13 members included former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, urged greater emphasis on development of precision guided, non-nuclear weapons as well as on increased attention to developing new operational tactics for new high-technology weaponry, such as stealth radar-evading aircraft.

“The commission tried to lay out a coherent and integrated strategy for the wide range of conflicts the nation might face, from the low-intensity conflicts that are most probable to the most extreme case of nuclear war which is the least probable,” said commission co-chairman Fred C. Ikle, undersecretary of defense for policy.

The 69-page report by the Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, to be followed by reports of four working groups and papers on eight separate topics, will be presented to President Reagan on Tuesday. The report was to have been released for publication at that time.

Embargo Lifted

But the Washington Post on Sunday carried an extensive story that was written, it said, on the basis of a non-embargoed copy of the report it had obtained. Ikle said Sunday that the Post had an early draft of the report, portions of which had been substantially changed later. But the Pentagon nonetheless lifted the embargo on the completed report as a result of the Post story.

Little in the report was new or startling, but the fact that the diverse group of experienced former officials from different past administrations agreed to common language on the wide range of contentious issues was remarkable. At the same time, appearance of the report during a presidential election year should stimulate debate that will help shape the new administration’s policies in key areas.

Aid to Guerrillas

In what may be its most controversial features, the report supported aid to anti-Communist guerrillas “in special cases” and called for a strong “strategic defense” effort, although it did not specifically endorse the Reagan Administration’s aid to the Nicaraguan Contras or its anti-missile space defense program.

While the political views of the members of the commission ranged from middle-road toward the conservative right, at least one commission member, Joshua Lederberg, winner of a 1958 Nobel Prize in medicine, has been associated with liberal arms control positions. Brzezinski served in the Democratic Carter Administration as did W. Graham Claytor Jr., who was deputy secretary of defense. Co-chairman of the commission was Albert Wohlstetter, a veteran and widely respected strategic analyst. The commission also included two retired generals and an admiral, along with William P. Clark, who was a national security adviser to Reagan several years ago.

‘Drastic Changes’ Seen

The commission said that the next two decades “are likely to bring drastic changes” in the world lineup of powerful nations, with China and perhaps Japan becoming major military powers and with lesser nations acquiring advanced weaponry.

At the same time, military technology will change dramatically, driven primarily by further exploitation of microelectronics and the development of directed energy, such as laser beams. These developments “could require major revisions in military doctrines and for structures,” it reported.

Among its major points, the commission also said:

--A wider range of contingencies in the two extreme threats now envisioned--an all-out nuclear war and a massive conventional Soviet invasion of Central Europe--should be emphasized. By focusing on these extremes, U.S. planners tend to neglect scenarios in which a discriminating military response is called for and the realistic possibility that some U.S. allies may “opt out” of providing support for the U.S. response.

--The United States should stop relying on threats that would provoke its own annihilation if carried out, such as threatening massive nuclear retaliation if the Soviets invade Europe. Instead, militarily effective responses that can limit destruction should be available.

--Control of space in wartime is becoming increasingly vital. At present the United States has satellites to monitor arms control treaties and to give warning of a nuclear attack, but it lacks survivable and replaceable satellites for communication, intelligence and control of forces in case of a conventional war.

--The arsenals of lesser powers will make it riskier and more difficult for the superpowers to intervene in regional wars. U.S. ability to help distant allies will be increasingly called into question, and when intervention is necessary, it will require far more cooperation with Third World countries.

‘Low-Intensity Conflicts’

To defend its interest, the report continued, the United States must take “low-intensity conflicts” much more seriously. “It is a form of warfare in which ‘the enemy’ is more or less omnipresent and unlikely ever to surrender,” the report said, so such conflicts should be viewed as “protracted war.”

Among the technological programs that are in need of particularly urgent priority, the commission said, is ballistic missile defenses, because Soviet missiles are now accurate enough to threaten many critical European targets with conventional or chemical warheads.