Military Unveils Modest Proposal for Ending Duplication of Forces : Defense: Powell, possibly anticipating criticism from Congress that plan is inadequate, downplays its significance.

The military Friday unveiled a series of modest proposals for eliminating some duplication in the armed forces, but almost immediately sought to distance itself from the document in anticipation of near-certain criticism from Congress that the plan is inadequate.

Key lawmakers had asked that the 118-page report, drafted by Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, make suggestions for revamping the roles and missions of each of the armed services to help reshape the U.S. military for the post-Cold War era.

President Clinton had endorsed the congressional demands during his campaign. In a speech last Aug. 13, for example, Clinton questioned why each of the services should have its own air wing and why both the Navy and Air Force should have fighters and tactical missiles.

But the report, drafts of which leaked out earlier this month and in January, either rebuffed or sidestepped these and other such fundamental questions, raising the possibility of a confrontation with Congress that Powell and Defense Secretary Les Aspin sought to avert.

Shortly after the report was issued, Aspin, who will have 30 days to add his own comments before sending it to Congress, hinted that the recommendations probably would be overtaken by his own review of the nation’s long-term defense strategy, to be completed in mid-summer.

And Powell himself told reporters that the report was “not an end in itself,” but “should be seen as a snapshot . . . of a continuous process of self-evaluation. We’ll start again tomorrow looking for other things . . . that might lead to greater savings,” he said.

The report Powell made public Friday was a watered-down version of a draft that he had written in late December. The initial document also had recommended consolidating the services’ various space programs, but was diluted after opposition from field commanders.

Powell declined to provide any estimates of how much money the government could save if the recommendations in the report were put into effect. He mentioned a few provisions that he estimated could save just under $1 billion but said no other figures were available.

Initial reaction to the document was cautious, both at the White House and in Congress. Presidential spokesman George Stephanopoulos said Clinton “stands by what he said before,” adding that the Administration was going to review the report, “and that’s all I can say.”

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who had pressed the military to take the issue more seriously, issued a cautious response Friday, saying through a spokesman that he wanted to study the report further before commenting on its contents.

Robert W. Gaskin, a former Pentagon official and now vice president of Business Executives for National Security, said Powell deserves “a lot of support” for shaping the document, but said he doubted that it would satisfy Congress.

The carefully worded document contains a series of recommendations for streamlining military operations, from creating a new all-service command to train U.S. troops for intervention overseas to standardizing procedures for maintaining aircraft inventories.

But the proposal either rejects or skirts a spate of more fundamental questions that Nunn had raised--and Clinton had embraced while he was a candidate--on how far Congress should go in realigning the roles and missions of the various services.

For example, it rejected suggestions that the services were duplicating one another’s efforts by maintaining their own air wings, by the Army and Marine Corps both having light infantry components and by the Navy and Air Force both having fighters and tactical missiles.

And it avoided entirely the question of whether the United States should rely more on the Air Force B-2 bomber or the Navy’s new AX attack plane for long-range “deep-strike” bombing, such as hitting Baghdad during Operation Desert Storm, which Nunn had included in a query last summer.

The most frequently offered reason in the report for rejecting some of the more sweeping proposals was that duplication, where it occurred, provided commanders with needed flexibility in battle situations.

Powell said that at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War, for example, he was grateful that carrier-based Navy planes were available to launch air strikes until Air Force aircraft arrived.

Besides the creation of a new all-service command, the report also proposes consolidating Navy and Air Force depot maintenance installations and reassigning the job of defending the United States from enemy air attack from the Air National Guard to active-duty forces.

But it rejects suggestions that the Pentagon consolidate Navy and Air Force electronic surveillance and jamming operations, and that one service be put in charge of conducting air strikes in support of ground troops.

It also turns down suggestions that the military should decide whether the Army or the Marine Corps should be given the major responsibility for quick intervention in regional crises.

Private defense analysts tended to side with Powell on many of the issues, arguing that in many cases the issues are more complex than they seem and that simply combining multi-service operations into one joint command would not be workable.

What Powell Would Change

Gen. Colin L. Powell, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Friday unveiled his plan for the evolving role of the U.S. armed forces:

PROPOSALS FOR THE PENTAGON

Have all U.S.-based forces report to one commander, so they could respond better to domestic crises like riots and natural disasters, as well as U.N. peacekeeping efforts.

Reorganize the depot maintenance organization, close some depots and cut capacity by up to 50%.

Open up maintenance to more outside contractors.

Eliminate or sharply cut forces dedicated to protecting the United States from foreign air attack.

Reduce the number of types of Marine Corps tactical aircraft from nine to four.

Consolidate some aspects of flight and aircraft maintenance for all services, as well as some aspects of basic training.

Cut and consolidate military defense operations.

Consolidate military construction engineers.

WHAT HE WOULD KEEP

Four separate air forces in the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marine Corps.

Each of the four services’ ability to perform combat search and rescue missions.

The amount of warning time needed before committing forces to action (Some had suggested that with the end of the Soviet military threat, this could be reduced).

Separate management by the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy of C-130 planes, which can ferry troops and refuel other aircraft.

Separate electronic surveillance planes for the Navy and Air Force.

Separate contingency and expeditionary forces for both the Army and Marine Corps.

Separate fleets of radar-jamming aircraft for the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

Source: Reuters