BILL GERTZ THE WASHINGTON TIMES October 23

FUTURE WAR

The Pentagon's long-range thinker, Andrew Marshall, made a rare public appearance Thursday to discuss the future of warfare. Mr. Marshall, director of the nondescript but powerful Office of Net Assessment, said the nation's ability to project power over long distances will remain "the fundamental task." The drawback of America's long military reach is that it is driving more nations to seek nuclear weapons and long-range missiles capable of reaching U.S. soil. And Mr. Marshall believes they will succeed.

"The long-term trend is that nations are seeking new forms of strategic attack," Mr. Marshall told a small group of defense experts at the Brookings Institution. "More and more countries will have longer-range missiles that they can use to attack a capital or a society. We are going to live in a world where many more countries have the ability to attack from a distance."

Information warfare - the capability of attacking computer networks from afar - will be part of it, he said. So will space warfare. Attacks against communications satellites and other space assets are "inevitable," Mr. Marshall said.

Mr. Marshall, an iconoclast with a reputation for challenging conventional wisdom, said it has been very hard to get military and political leaders to talk about the changing nature of warfare. Most seem willing to look at future combat but are reluctant to talk about what future wars will be like, he said.

One prediction: exotic biological weapons that will be used to change the behavior of troops on the battlefield are "five years away, not 30," Mr. Marshall said. Instead of secretly learning about the capabilities of arms held by foreign troops, military intelligence will be after other data. "What people will want to know is what kind of drugs they are on," Mr. Marshall said.

Mr. Marshall also noted the work of Michael Pillsbury, a China military specialist, in revealing the "three schools of thought" among Chinese military thinkers. Some Chinese view the United States as "a major threat" and are developing weapons to confront it. Others see the United States as a declining power and look toward Japan as a future threat to China. Another part of the Chinese officer corps believes the People's Liberation Army has enough time to engage in high-technology weapons development over the long term and is engaged extensively in the using advanced technology to radically change future warfare.

WHAT SANCTIONS?

The Pentagon has given its blessing to a ballistics conference that will feature as one of its international speakers a specialist from the Baltic State Technical University - one of several Russian companies sanctioned last year for selling missile technology to Iran. President Clinton imposed U.S. economic sanctions on the university and several other Russian entities in July. The university in St. Petersburg was penalized for helping Iranian missile scientists learn rocket-motor technology and training.

Apparently, the mild sanctions prevent BSTU from buying or selling goods in the United States but do not keep the State Department from issuing visas to its officials. The university was once the Soviet Union's premier missile development and training center.

The National Defense Industrial Association, a private group hosting the conference next month, was surprised to learn from us yesterday that Baltic State's V.F. Zakhrenkov will speak Nov. 16 as part of a presentation on "interior ballistics."

The conference's agenda is full of missile-related topics. Among those to be discussed among representatives of 27 nations are "warhead mechanics and effects," "launch and propulsion" and "weapon systems." China also is sending three speakers to talk to the conference on specialty steel - which U.S. intelligence has determined have been transferred secretly to Iran.

The keynote speaker will be Hans Marks, the Pentagon's director of defense research and engineering, and the NDIA brochure promoting the meeting states that "the Department of Defense finds this event meets the minimum regulatory standards for attendance by DOD employees."

Charles Wilkins, an NDIA spokesman, said his organization was not aware that Baltic State Technical University is "under sanctions."

"Our organizational policy is to adhere to State Department sanctions," he said. If the university is still under sanction, "we wouldn't have him speak," Mr. Wilkins said of Mr. Zakhrenkov. The fact the Russian has not submitted his paper for the conference is a sign he probably will not attend, Mr. Wilkins said.

UNSPOKEN BUDGETS

In the Washington budget game, what the administration says in public is not always want it wants.

Take the Veterans Affairs budget, for example. Veterans Secretary Togo D. West Jr. vigorously defended President Clinton's budget. But in private, he waged a war with the White House over what he condemned as inadequate spending on health care.

Then there's the case of the LHD-8 amphibious assault ship built by Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi, home state of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.

Mr. Lott, a Republican, has felt the brunt of media criticism for pushing for $375 million in advance procurement money for an additional LHD-8. The Pentagon did not ask for the ship at this time, prompting critics to label the spending "pork."

But behind the scenes, some important Pentagon players lobbied for the new ship and said Mr. Lott's procurement plan actually saves money in the long term.

One was Gen. Charles Krulak, the recently retired Marine Corps commandant whose men rely heavily on LHDs as sea bases for launching land assaults.

"As for my view on the wisdom of procuring a new LHD versus refurbishing our oldest LHA, I believe procurement of a new LHD is a wiser investment for our nation," Gen. Krulak said in a letter to lawmakers. "The LHD is larger, has more carrying capability, and can better accommodate our new technology systems that have been fielded in recent years or will soon be added to our force.

"In short, it will carry more tanks, aircraft, amphibious assault vehicles and landing craft than its LHA predecessor. Early projections of the cost of an LHA service life extension program (SLEP) range from $800 million to $1.2 billion. For an additional 20 to 40 percent in cost, our nation would get a much more capable LHD that would complement our forward presence forces for 40 years, as opposed to the 15-20 years gained with a SLEP. . . . Big deck amphibious ships are at the heart of the Navy-Marine Corps team. Building a new LHD, capable of accommodating leaps in technology and expansion of equipment, would be a most welcome initiative."

NEW DEFENSE LEADERS

Some House Republicans are becoming increasingly gloomy about chances of retaining a majority in the 2000 election. Aides make several points:

* The retirement of 16 Republican House members creates too many vulnerable seats.

* Democrats are exploiting a five-seat Republican majority to woo centrists to their side on some key votes.

* The Washington media, which surveys show is dominated by liberal, anti-Republican reporters, repeat virtually all Democratic PR spins. The latest example: the Capitol Hill press reported that Republicans "suddenly" brought the nuclear test ban treaty to a vote last week. In fact, Democrats had threatened to disrupt the Senate unless there was a quick roll call.

House Democrats are confident. Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, is openly talking about running the Appropriations subcommittee on defense in 2001. Rep. Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat, is more discreet. But already he's done some thinking about what he sees as his impending chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee.

-- a (a@a.a), October 24, 1999

Answers

BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), October 24, 1999.