Air Expeditionary Forces
"To bolster US presence in unstable regions and to reinforce
our diplomatic influence, the Air Force . . . developed a new
operational concept that we've executed twice in the last six
months. It's called the Air Expeditionary Force. This force consists
of a package of fighters stationed in the continental United
States that can pick up and deploy inside normal wartime deployment
time lines, to another part of the world, to augment or substitute
for other forces that have to rotate out of theater. They are
supported by tankers and backed up by long-range bombers that
remain in the United States.
"As our aircraft carriers become fewer, we're experiencing
carrier gaps in different regions of the world--so one of the
ways we can deal with that is by deploying an Air Expeditionary
Force. We were called upon by the commander in chief of US Central
Command to do that last October to Bahrain in the Persian Gulf,
and just last week we completed another Air Expeditionary Force
deployment to Jordan, where those forces will operate for the
next two months."
Gen. Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF Chief of Staff, in
an April 23, 1996, speech to the World Affairs Council, Orange
County, Calif.
Sword and Cyber
"My concern is that we are creating a force that ten years
from now [will have] a lot of headquarters and little combat
capability."
Gen. John J. Sheehan, USMC, commander in chief of
US Atlantic Command, in March 19, 1996, testimony to the Senate
Armed Services Committee about current DoD enthusiasm for the
tools of information warfare over more traditional weapons.
Give Us Helpful-Type Rhetoric
"Some Chinese lower-level officials told some visiting American
officials that we wouldn't dare defend Taiwan [against a Chinese
military attack] because they'd rain nuclear bombs on Los Angeles.
. . . This is unhelpful-type rhetoric."
Winston Lord, assistant secretary of state for East
Asian and Pacific Affairs, in a March 17, 1996, appearance on
C-SPAN's "Sunday Journal."
"Deep and Enduring" Commitment
"The [Russian] commitment to democracy seems to be a deep
one and an enduring one."
Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher, in a February
10, 1996, press conference in Helsinki, Finland, following his
meeting with the new Russian Foreign Minister, Yevgeni Primakov.
Meanwhile, One Month Later . . .
"Last week's vote in the Russian Duma to reconstitute the
Soviet Union was highly irresponsible. . . . It was as disturbing
to us as I know it was for Ukraine. Ukraine and other countries
of the former Soviet Union are independent, sovereign nations.
Any unilateral attempt to change their status will be rejected
by the international community."
Secretary Christopher, in a March 19, 1996, statement
in Kiev, Ukraine, on the Communist-dominated Russian parliament's
vote denouncing the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Spence Speaks
"The strain on our military personnel and their families
continues to grow as the services are being asked to do more
with less, while the perennial promise of adequate budgets continues
to be pushed further out into the future."
Rep. Floyd D. Spence (R-S. C.), chairman of the House
National Security Committee, in a March 4, 1996, statement on
the Fiscal 1997 defense budget presented by President Clinton.
US "Will Surely Respond"
"It is important for the [US], as a friend, to be clear
with the Taiwanese that they must not misjudge China on the question
of Taiwan independence. . . . It is also important for the Chinese
to understand that the United States values . . . its relationship
with the people on Taiwan. It is crucial that the Chinese understand
that, if China uses force to resolve the Taiwan issue, the United
States will not stand idly by but will surely respond."
Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), in a February 23, 1996, floor
speech on US foreign policy.
National Missile Defense
"Our [intention] is to position the US to respond [with
an active defense] to a strategic missile threat as it emerges.
We are not making a commitment to deploy the system today. What
we are doing . . . is shifting our emphasis from technology to
deployment readiness. . . . Within these three years of development,
what we would do is develop and begin testing of the elements
of an initial national missile defense system. If, after three
years, we saw a threat situation that warranted a deployment,
in another three years that system could be deployed. So, from
where we stand today, deployment would be six years away. If
a decision were made to deploy after the first three years, that
IOC could be achieved in 2003."
Paul G. Kaminski, under secretary of defense for
Acquisition and Technology, in a February 16, 1996, press briefing
on national missile defense and other topics.
"Living Off the Force"
"I'm in the position of having watched the Air Force procurement
accounts decrease by some sixty percent [since 1990]. We had
no fighter procurement in our '94 budget, none in our '95 budget.
There was a plus-up from the Hill in the '96 budget. We have
made these kinds of decisions in order to try to keep a balanced
force. We're living off of the force--[off] of the procurement
of the past. It's got to stop."
General Fogleman, in March 13, 1996, testimony to
the House National Security Committee.
Copyright by Air Force Association.
All rights reserved
|