美国政要第5课
Transforming Defense
--Interview with Dr. Andrew F. Krepenevich, the Director of the Center of Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (May 4, 1998) 访国防小组委员会成员、战略与预算评估中心主任小安德鲁•克雷佩利维奇博士
MR. CHEN BOJIANG: Recently, I read some documents on future warfare and the national defense development of the United States from Defenselink (on the web). One of the most impressive documents I read was a national defense panelist report titled. “Transforming Defense-National Security in the 21st century.” I am very interested in interviewing its authors. And as the director of the National Defense Panel, I feel honored to have the opportunity to interview you today.
I’d like you to give me an introduction to the national defense panel. Could you please talk about issues such as the nature and the main roles of the institution, the selection of the panelists, and how the panel functions as a whole.
DR. ANDREW KREPENEVICH: The panel was formed by congressional legislation in the Defense Authorization Action1 1996, and it was the product of efforts by two senators, Senator Coats from Indiana and Senator Lieberman from Connecticut. And they were concerned that even though the Cold War was over, and different challengers were before the American military, that our armed forces were not changing very much from the way they were during the Cold War. And they wanted a different set of ideas to date. And so they were able to get the Congress to pass the legislation, and the panel was comprised of nine people. The people were selected by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Congress, and the nine panel members, then from February of 1997 until December, first reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review, Process, and Report. and then the panel produced its own report. Its job was to look at the security challenges the United States would face in the Year 2010, and beyond. And so the panel focused on the year 2010 to 2020, and submitted its report, as I said, in December of 1997.
MR. CHEN: What was the purpose and background of writing the report “Transforming Defense-National Security in the 21st century?” What was the response and impact of this report after its publication?
DR. KREPENEVICH: I think the response was generally favorable. Certainly the sponsors2 of the legislation and Congress were quite pleased, to the extent that they have introduced the proposal to extend the life of the National Defense Panel, so that they can call it back into session in the future.
In terms of the near-term effect, that I think is, in terms of steps taken to increase joint experimentation in the American military, there is legislation pending now that is designed to increase the American military’s resources and focus on experimenting with new technologies, new forces, designed to meet the challenges that will appear over the next 10 to 20 years.
Over the long term, I think the benefit of the panel will be in terms of having established an alternative3 to the administration’s defense program. It remains to be seen whether Congress will take the opportunity to use this alternative as the basis for a debate over the future of American national defense.
The congressional sponsors of the panel are hoping that this will happen, and so they are looking to take the results of the panel and educate their fellow members of Congress, so that there can be this kind of debate.
MR. CHEN: “Transforming Defense-National Security in the 21st century” focused on the long term issues facing U.S. defense and national security. Obviously this “transformation” could not take place over night. How long do you think it will take to for this “transformation” to be complete? Will there be several stages in this “transformation” that you can currently identity?
DR. KREPENEVICH: If you look back at earlier periods of military transformation, typically it takes 15 or 20 years, from beginning to end, and sometimes even longer. And so given that we are in the early period of transformation, I would think that we still have maybe another 15 years or so. But the time can be lengthened, the time can increase, if we move slowly.
Much depends upon the willingness of the military services, the leadership and the government. That will help determine how quickly you move through a transformation.
In terms of the stages, it’s difficult to say because you don’t undertake a transformation just for the sake of doing it, you do it because you see challenges that you have to respond to, or opportunities that you need to exploit. And so a great deal depends upon what other military organizations are doing.
And so I can give you an example of a stage in the transformation, and that might be a stage in which the United States military develops missile4 defenses, that for a period of time seem quite effective. But this would be-it’s my guess-only for a short period of time before large numbers of missiles begin to appear in other military establishments. Once that happens, I think it will be very difficult to maintain effective missile defenses. But it’s very difficult to say with great confidence that this is exactly how the future will come to be.
MR. CHEN: According to the analysis of this report, the transformation aimed at meeting all the U.S. security needs in 2020, covers all aspects of national defense. In your opinion, what is the most important aspect of the transformation? What are some of the difficulties one is likely to come across in this transformation process?
DR. KREPENEVICH: I think the most important aspect of the transformation is to have a clear understanding of how the challenges to our military forces are going to change, because your vision of what the competition will be like; that drives, that informs everything else that follows.
And so, for example, the National Defense Panel said a challenge will be to project power without having the ability to use forward bases5. That is a statement that will influence everything else; the kinds of equipment, the kinds of organization, the way you conduct battle6. So having the vision of what the competition will be like is probably the most important aspect.
In terms of the difficulties in the transformation process, there are many difficulties, which perhaps is one reason it takes 20 years to bring about. I think one difficulty will be to convince7 the American political leadership that this transformation is necessary, especially given that the United States military today is viewed as very capable and very successful in recent years, and therefore people will ask why-if we are successful, why do we need to change. And I think that will be one of the big challenges that we face.
MR. CHEN: Implementing8 a transformation like that described in the report expected to be complicated and will require a delicate balance between near-term challenges and long-term challenges. What do you think about this balance9? Or in other words, what do you think is the best way to deal with the near-term and long-term challenges?
DR. KREPENEVICH: Well, that’s a very good question, because the defense planner’s job is to minimize the danger to the nation’s security, not only today, but in the future. And so the planner must, with the resources he has, seek to minimize the overall risk to the national security.
It was the opinion of the National Defense Panel, and it’s my personal opinion, that we are not devoting sufficient resources to preparing for the very different kinds of challenges that will emerge in the next 10 to 20 years. And so given a fixed level of resources, I would put more resources into preparing for the long term, while sacrificing10 some resources in the near term.
WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS 词汇提示
1.the Defense Authorization Action 《国防授权法》
2.sponsor [] n. 支持者，发动者
3.alternative [] n.二中择一，可供选择的事物
4.missile [] n.导弹
5.forward bases 前沿基地
6.conduct battle 作战
7.convince [] v.使确信
8.implement [] v. 实施
9.balance [] n.平衡
10.sacrifice [] v.牺牲
QUESTIONS AFTER LISTENING 听后答题:
1. When was the National Defense Panel formed?
A.1995 B.1997 C.1996 D.1998
2. How many people are there in the Panel?
A.8 B.9 C.11 D.10
3. How were the members of the Panel selected?
A.They were selected by the President.
B.They were selected by the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff.
C.They were selected by the Secretary of State.
D.They were selected by the secretary of Defense in consultation with the Congress.
4. What was the Panel’s job?
A.It was to look at the security challenges the U.S. would face in the year 2010 and beyond.
B.It was to focus on the changes of environment in 2010.
C.It was to review the Report of National Defense.
D.It was to make weapon development plan.
5. What will be the benefit of the Panel in Dr. Krepenevich’s view?
A.To have an alternative to the administration’s defense program.
B.To have a better understanding on the administration’s defense program.
C.To have an alternative to administration’s education program.
D.To have an alternative to the administration’s weapon development program.
6. How long will it take for a military transformation in Dr. Krepenevich’s view?
A.15 or 20 years and sometimes even longer.
B.10 or 15 years.
C.8 or 10 years.
D.5 or 10 years.
7. How does Dr. Krepenevich comment on the missile defenses?
A.It will be very effective for a long time.
B.It will be unnecessary.
C.It will be effective for a short time before large numbers of missiles begin to appear in others military establishments.
D.It will be too expensive.
8. What is the most important aspect of the transformations?
A.It is to have a chance to expand the military forces.
B.It is to have a chance to increase the expenditure on the national defense.
C.It is to have a clear understanding of the trend of the world military development.
D.It is to have a clear understanding of how the challenges to the U.S. military forces are going to change.
9. What is one of the big challenges for the transformation?
A.It is to convince the American political leadership that the transformation is necessary.
B.It is to convince the congressmen that the transformation is necessary.
C.It is to convince the electorate that the transformation is necessary.
D.It is to convince the Secretary of Treasury that the transformation is necessary.
10. What is the defense planner’s job?
A.To strengthen cooperations with the allies.
B.To exchange views with the civil departments.
C.To expand the contract with foreign military forces.
D.To minimize the danger to the nation’s security.
【参考译文】
国防的转变
陈伯江：您是国防小组委员会成员，并参加该委员会就评审国防部《四年防务审查报告》所写的报告－《国防的转变——21世纪的国家安全》的起草工作。今天我很高兴能有机会采访您。
首先我想请你介绍一下国防小组委员会的情况。请你谈谈小组委员会的性质、主要任务、成员的选择及其作用等。
克雷佩利维奇（以下简为克）：国防小组委员会是根据国会1996年《国防授权法》成立的，也是两名参议员（来自印第安纳州的共和党参议员科茨和来自康涅狄格州的民主党参议员利伯曼）共同努力的结果。他们认为，尽管冷战已经结束，但美国军队仍面临着种种挑战而美国的武器力量与冷战期间的情况相比并没有多大改变。他们想要了解到目前为止对这一问题的各种不同观点。于是他们促使国会通过了成立国防小组委员会的提案。该小组委员会共由９名成员组成，他们由国防部长与国会协商选定。这９位成员从1997年2月至12月，先完成了对国防部《四年防务审查报告》的提出过程与报告内容的审查，然后提出了小组委员会自己的报告。
小组委员会在审查《四年防务审查报告》时，着眼于2010年及以后美国将要面临的安全挑战，其重点放在2010年到2020年，并于1997年12月提交了审查报告。
陈：提出《国防的转变－—21世纪的国家安全》报告的目的和背景是什么？该报告发表之后的反应和影响如何？
克：对报告的反应我认为从总体一看都是赞同的。要求立法成立国防小组委员会的支持者们和国会当然相当满意，他们已经同意了延长国防小组委员会期限的建议，以便今后能召回小组委员会成员继续工作。
从报告的近期影响来说，我认为它促使政府采取步骤在美军中增加美军用于试验新技术和亲部队结构的资源；以满足今后10～20年将会出现的挑战。
从报告的长远影响来说，我认为建立国防小组 委员会的好处是它可以提出与政府的防务规划不同的看法。国会是否利用这个机会将小组委员会用作对美国国防的未来进行辩论的基础，现在仍不清楚。
小组委员会的国会支持者们希望会是这样，因此，他们正在设法利用报告的结果说服国会的其他成员，以期发起这样的辩论。
陈：小组委员会的报告认为国防的转变将是一个长期的过程。您认为完成这一转变需要多少时间？将可能经历哪些阶段？
克：如果你回顾以往发生过的军事转变，从开始到结束，一般需要15～20年，有时甚至更长。由于我们正处在这场转变的开始，我认为可能还需要15年左右时间。但是，如果我们进展缓慢，时间可能会延长和增加。
转变所需时间的长短更多地取决于各军种、领导层和政府的意愿。他们有没有转变的意愿，将决定这场转变的过程会有多快。
就转变的阶段而言，这很难说。因为你不是为了转变的缘故才进行转变；进行转变是因为有了必须做出反应的挑战，或出现了可以利用的机会。因此它在很大程度上取决于其他国家的军事组织将做什么。
我可以给你举一个这场转变中的阶段的例子。这就是美军可能要发展导弹防御的阶段，在一段时间里导弹防御似乎相当 有效，但我猜这段时间会很短，导弹防御仅在其他国家的军队大量拥有了大量导弹，我认为保持有效的导弹防御将是非常困难的。但是，要想有把握地预测未来会发生什么情况是极其困难的。
陈：在您看来，这场国防转变最重要的内容是什么？转变过程中可能会遇到哪些困难？
克：我认为这场转变最重要的方面，是要对我们军队面临挑战的变化有一个清楚的认识。因为你对未来竞争的看法，将对其余的一切产生重要影响。
例如，国防小组委员会在报告中提到的一个挑战，是要在没有前沿基地的情况下投送兵力。这就是一个将对其余的一切都有影响的挑战，包括装备的类型、编制的类型、作战的方式。因此，对未来的竞争有一个正确的看法，大概是最重要的方面。
就转变过程中的困难来说，会有许许多多的困难，这也许是这场转变需要花费20年时间的一个原因。我认为困难之一是说服美国的政治领导人，使他们了解转变的必要性，尤其是人们认为今天的美国军队是近年最为能干、最为成功的，他们会提出这样的问题：如果我们是成功的，那么我们为什么需要转变？所以我认为这将是我们面临的最大挑战之一。
陈：国防小组委员会在考虑国防转变时，认为应当怎样处理好近期挑战与长远挑战的关系？
克：噢，这是一个很好的问题。因为防务计划人员工作就是要尽可能减少国家安全上的危险，不仅要减少今天的危险，而且包括未来。因此，计划人员必须利用他所拥有的资源，设法将国家安全所面临的威胁减到最低。
国防小组委员会认为（这也是我个人的意见），我们没有将足够的资源用于对付今后10～20年将要出现的与现在很不相同的挑战。因此，在资源水平不变的情况下，我主张拿出部分用于应付近期挑战的资源，将更多的资源用于准备对付长期挑战。
KEYS TO THE QUESTONS 参考答案：
1.c 2.b 3.d 4.a 5.a 6.a 7.c 8.d 9.a 10.d
- 频道推荐
- |
- 全站推荐
- 推荐下载
- 网站推荐
