THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, May 15, 1995 TAG: 9505150053
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: THE BALTIMORE SUN
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium: 69 lines
The armed services have fought each other to a standstill over how the nation should wage future wars, successfully defending their individual battlefield roles dating back half a century or more.
As a result, a panel of defense experts, charged by Congress to decide who should do what during 21st-century conflicts, is expected to recommend that the Army and the Marines continue to share the ground fighting, the Navy should still sail the oceans and each of the services should have its own air power.
The only battlefield changes expected are minor adjustments to make the business of war more efficient and effective.
The big losers are likely to be the offices of the civilian secretaries of the individual services and the Army National Guard, both likely to shrink or be re-organized.
For most of a year, the services have skirmished over military tradition, service pride and the power of the purse in an effort to defend or expand their own war fighting roles and missions.
The last major effort to sort out the roles of the armed services was in 1947. It led to the combining of the departments of the Army and Navy into the Department of Defense, and the creation of the Air Force as a separate military service from the Army Air Corps. The Marine Corps, although a separate service, historically has been part of the Department of the Navy.
The current commission, according to military officers familiar with its work, will not recommend any such radical changes when it presents its findings next week.
The commission is expected to make changes in the structure and process of defense operations, ranging from slimming down the offices of the secretaries of the individual services to improving the procurement of new weapons.
Commission officials refused to be interviewed for this story.
``Some people may be disappointed that the commission may not tackle head-on some of the more sound-bite type of things,'' said Brig. Gen. John Costello, the Army's roles and missions chief. ``When you get below (that) level of the debate, the services have done a lot of work that the American people don't know about, but would be proud of in terms of economies of scale, efficiency and effectiveness of operation.''
Marine Major Gen. Thomas L. Wilkerson said: ``What we have come down to is maybe this is a pretty damn good division of labor.''
Since their creation more than 200 years ago, the Marines, the smallest force, have lived in fear of being swallowed up by the Army.
But now, on the eve of the commission's report, the Marines are confident that their status as the premier rapid deployment service is safe and that they will continue to have their own pilots flying close support for their ground troops.
The Air Force, the youngest service, presented the commission with a new battle plan, emphasizing its own ability, in an era of technology, to project power far from home and deep behind enemy lines.
The Air Force wanted to divide future battlefields into specific areas to be controlled by individual services, with the Navy commanding the coastal fighting, the Army in charge of the central battle and the Air Force controlling the battle deep inside enemy territory. The Army saw it as a direct assault on its battlefield flexibility.
The Navy also took vehement exception to the Air Force claim that bombers were better than aircraft carriers at projecting military power over great distances. by CNB