National mobilization: an option in future conflicts?

Parameters, Autumn, 2004 by Nader Elhefnawy

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, some commentators drew a parallel between al Qaeda's strike and Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor, and between the ensuing struggle and the Second World War. There was sporadic talk of mobilization, which was easily enough dismissed as out of step with the realities of the War on Terror. Unconventional warfighters like terrorists are by definition immune to the massive concentrations of power that are the traditional object of a mobilization. At the same time, conventional war is generally regarded as oriented toward smaller, more professional, and high-tech forces fighting in "demassified" conflicts. (1) However, despite a great deal of hand-wringing on the part of social critics, the really difficult question was not asked: Would a World War II-scale mobilization even have been possible after 9/11 if it had been deemed an appropriate response?

With a much reduced emphasis on military competition between the great powers and far less talk of American "declinism" today than there was 15 years ago, the ability of major economies to bear drastically enlarged military burdens has been discussed far less of late. Even Paul Kennedy, who popularized the declinist thesis in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in 1987, recently backed away from it. (2) Nonetheless, two major developments have set the stage for a new debate on rises in military expenditures.

The first of these developments is a changed economic and fiscal outlook, specifically a return to the massive US budget deficits of the 1980s, and less exuberant economic expectations than was the case just a few years ago. The illusion of perfection at no cost has largely faded. The other development is the demands placed on US forces since 9/11, with talk of their being stretched too thin by commitments in Iraq and elsewhere becoming fairly widespread. While the possible emergence of a large peer competitor has never disappeared from consideration, other motivations for mobilization have emerged in recent years. One is the drive to "terrorist-proof" the United States, the final bill for which may run into the trillions. (3) Another is a more open embrace of an "imperial" position likely to involve more preventative and unilateral actions, as well as prolonged occupations and nation-building projects, and the extension of America's sphere of influence to new regions like sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia. These factors already have led to the post-9/11 expansion of the defense budget and the institution of the Department of Homeland Security, hailed as the biggest reshuffling of the executive branch since 1947. They also have brought renewed discussion of conscription and the expansion of the armed forces, with bills pending in Congress to increase the US armed forces by tens of thousands of personnel over the next five years.

American requirements, capacities, and investments aside, the question of military expansion also speaks to the capacities of other nations and the relationship of the United States with them, in terms of both the dangers of great power conflict and the international distribution of security responsibilities. The European Union and Japan, for instance, have been seeking to develop militaries capable of meeting enlarged international responsibilities since well before 9/11, efforts which have been extremely sluggish. Europe set for itself the relatively modest goal of being able to deploy a 60,000-strong force 3,000 miles away for one year by 2003. That target date has come and gone, and it seems unlikely that any such force will be made operational before 2012--if then. The Defense Capabilities Initiative, intended to close the growing technological gap between Europe and the United States, has been similarly disappointing. (4)

Observers looking to explain that sluggishness, like Robert Kagan in his recent book On Paradise and Power, have commonly focused on the relatively pacifistic political cultures of the EU's member states. However, these nations have been grappling with sluggish economies for a much longer time, and in many cases also with fiscal crises which dwarf what the United States now faces. Given the massive cost of a fundamental expansion or restructuring of their armed forces, this factor cannot be lightly dismissed. It also throws a light on what other states (i.e. China) might do if and when they gain the economic wherewithal to pose a challenge to the United States. To what degree would they be able to translate their new economic power into military power?

The question is not an easy one to answer. To date none of the "New Economies" has been forced to undertake a large-scale military mobilization. However, if a real need arose to do so, they would no doubt make the attempt. The issue then is just how far they can go in such a mobilization, and how long they might be able to sustain it. While this article cannot be the final word in such an argument, it also is not the first. Accordingly, it is appropriate to review some of the discussion of this issue in recent years.