This file is copyright of Jens Schriver (c) It originates from the Evil House of Cheat More essays can always be found at: --- http://www.CheatHouse.com --- ... and contact can always be made to: Webmaster@cheathouse.com -------------------------------------------------------------- Essay Name : 1253.txt Uploader : Email Address : Language : English Subject : Politics Title : Action Plan on Military Spending Grade : B+ School System : Canadian University Country : Canada Author Comments : It was a long paper to write Teacher Comments : More personal views needed to be expressed Date : October 30, 1996 Site found at : A link from another site -------------------------------------------------------------- Military Spending Working Group ACTION PLAN ON MILITARY SPENDING This Action Plan outlines a coordinated, complementary program of work in pursuit of our shared goal: To shift decisively the center of public debate toward more substantial reductions in military spending and reorient current policy towards more effective and less costly common security investments. Over the next two years expanded activities will be required in seven inter-related fields: 1 - Analysis 2 - Public Outreach 3 - Media 4 - Global Initiative All seven components of our campaign stress both the "vertical" mobilization of leaders and membership, and the "horizontal" mobilization of a widening circle of constituencies. Our concept of operation on military spending envisions sequential mobilization of the peace and security community, other organized communities, and the general public. We will build on the reciprocal relationship between leaders and membership -- with opinion leaders in each sequentially mobilized community urging action, and the mobilization of their membership base encouraging leaders to take more visible stands. Our initial mobilization has focused on the traditional peace and security community, including both opinion leaders and membership organizations. The initial focus of this mobilization will not primarily seek to immediately impact the decision-making process. Our ongoing focus will be to mobilize other constituencies most seriously concerned about current budgetary priorities, including the organized religious community and environmental and other domestic organizations, including labor unions. These constituencies will be in turn be mobilized to reach out to the attentive and general public, which will have the greatest potential to impact the decision-making process. This sequential mobilization process will require significant, and focused, public opinion assessments. This will encompass a variety of techniques, including evaluating existing survey data, conducting "piggy-back" and dedicated national surveys, and conducting focus groups. The intent is not so much to demonstrate that the general public and opinion leaders support reduced military spending (which is the case) but rather to identify and refine themes and messages which resonate with public concerns and will increase the salience and level of mobilization on the military spending issue within the context of the broader debate over national priorities. These assessments will assist in developing more tightly focused strategies and in assigning priorities within each of the campaign components. Existing survey materials provide some guidance (e.g., support for reduced military spending is strongest when posed in the context of other national priorities). But additional efforts in this field are needed, both to clarify top-level thematic priorities (e.g., "waste" versus "perceived threats", etc) that could inform analytical and outreach priorities, as well as to identify specific word-choices (e.g., "defense budget" versus "military spending") that will be important for outreach and media message development. TIME LINE The Campaign naturally proceeds in four phases: 1. Coordinate Plan. The initial phase, from 1994 to 1995 will conduct planning sessions with participating organizations in the Military Spending Working Group. The group will develop integrated long-term strategies and coordinate plans for activities in each of the campaign components - Analysis, Outreach, Media, Information Systems, Coordination, Funding. During this phase organizations will secure funding. Short-term activities on immediate budget issues will also continue. 2. Begin Implementation. The second phase, from 1995 through mid-1997, will aim to develop and expand analysis and information availability for new national security perspectives and substantial reductions in military spending, both in aggregate and on individual programs. This will counter-balance those who want increased spending, and restore the center of the debate to one of increases versus reductions. Activities will increase media coverage, expand information distribution, develop interaction with grassroots, divide labor among groups, recruit Congressional allies, achieve substantial reductions in annual military spending (tens of billions of dollars) and encourage even greater reductions. The Military Spending Working Group is developing resources that will attempt to elevate our issues and perspectives in the debates during the congressional elections in 1996. We aim to target these resources for use by government, the media, and key grassroots constituencies that work with our respective organizations. 3. Reach Mid-Term Goal. The third phase will extend from mid-1997 through the end of the decade. The intent is to exploit the initial work to achieve further major reductions in military spending. Without intensification of effort in this third phase, the country would certainly witness much worse (higher) levels of expenditures than would otherwise be the case. Current plans call for an upswing in procurement of next generation weapons during this period to replace those purchased in large numbers in the 1980s. The defense modernization "bow wave" will start in FY 1998, when a substantial number of weapons systems are supposed to enter low level production, shifting from the R&D to procurement budgets. If we have learned nothing else over the last decade, we have learned that weapons buildups help drive defense budget buildups and the best time to kill a modernization plan is before substantial resources have been invested. These lessons support attempting to nip questionable parts of the modernization plan in the bud, rather than waiting for big increases in the modernization budget to materialize. 4. Reach Long-Term Goal. A fourth phase would begin around the turn of the millennium, by which time fundamentally new international security structures could conceivably be in place. Although these are not currently necessary for the defense of the United States, they may be necessary to create the political environment among the public required to reduce military spending drastically. If these new structures prove successful in preventing or quickly dealing with challenges to international security, the resulting sense of thoroughgoing security and stability should make realistic consideration of deep cuts in military spending - up to a couple of hundred billion dollars a year - feasible. The community has already embarked on the first phase, though substantially greater resources are needed immediately. Strategies and plans must be completed soon if the potential opportunities of the second phase are to be fully realized. The first step was taken in July 1994, with the initiation of the Military Spending Working Group, which over time has developed into a weekly meeting of representatives of over a dozen national security organizations. In the course of two dozen subsequent meetings, this core grouping has created a working process that shares information and ideas, develops joint products, and cooperates on activities and planning more systematically than before. The Group has identified in this document the elements required for a coordinated campaign, organizations that have different expertise in each component, and some new elements to be pursued. The next step is to complete the process of pulling together these initial outlines and initiatives into an integrated campaign. The plan will ultimately include realistic strategies for achieving change that include new approaches to avoid past pitfalls and unremunerative efforts. It will obtain agreement on objectives, priorities, target audiences, communications, tactics, and the division of responsibilities. The campaign will require, among other things:  a plan for impacting the elite debate - targeting national and regional opinion-shapers, former national security managers, other political leaders, and elite activists in world affairs councils;  a mechanism to enlist domestic organizations and lobbies to counter the political strength of military industry;  a blueprint to eductate members of Congress and the Administration;  and further refinement of an extensive - but targeted - communications plan, some elements of which are developed below. The strategies will be developed over the next few months through continuation and expansion of the working process. The groups most active in the Military Spending Working Group currently include: Campaign for New Priorities Center for Defense Information Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment Committee for National Security Common Agenda Council for a Livable World Council on Economic Priorities Economists Allied for Arms Reduction Federation of American Scientists Friends Committee on National Legislation Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies International Center for Technology Assessment Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament National Priorities Project National Security News Service Peace Action Physicians for Social Responsibility Project on Defense Alternatives Project on Demilitarization and Democracy 20/20 Vision Women's Action for New Directions The initial product of the Military Spending Working Group joint effort is a briefing book, which will be used in political leadership and public education efforts in 1995. The Guiding Principles on National Security thematic message development document, the Dirty Dozen and Top Ten lists, and the arguments of the Debating Points on Military Spending are currently under active development and a first edition was completed in April 1995. The Dirty Dozen and Top Ten lists have been circulated in Congress and distributed to the media at a press conference. The Common Agenda Coalition has put together a report tuned to grassroots audiences entitled Creating A Common Agenda, Strategies for Our Communities to be released around Tax Day. Other groups that could share materials and information produced during the campaign include (but are not limited to): Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now American Baptist Churches' Office of Governmental Relations Church of the Brethren Citizens Budget Campaign Common Cause Friends of the Earth Greenpeace Human Needs Coalition League of Women Voters Mennonite Central Committee Military Production Network Mobilization for Survival National Economic Conversion Alliance National Priorities Project Natural Resources Defense Council NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby Oxfam Presbyterian Church USA Project Bread Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations United Church of Christ Office for Church in Society and university-based peace studies programs and concerned labor organizations. TWO-YEAR TIME LINE The initial start-up period of the Military Spending Campaign entails identifying the need for and goals of a campaign, the unique talents of participating organizations, the tactical opportunities to catalyze a greater public debate and the assets required. While the goal is to establish a new trend line of reduced U.S. military spending before the turn of the century, the opportunity to accomplish this change must be seized quickly. Hence, the time line for this part of the campaign envisions a two year effort that culminates with the first budget plan of the presidential administration that will be in office in the year 2000. The time line is broken into two parts: a planning cycle time line and an implementation activities time line. Planning Cycle Time Line July 1994 Military Spending Working Group Formed Fall 1994 Weekly coordination and planning meetings of the Military Spending Working Group underway -- to continue indefinitely November 1994 Capitol Hill Conference of the Military Spending Working Group and experts conducts operational planning January 1995 Information Systems Working Group starts bi-weekly meeting March 1995 Media Working Group starts bi-weekly meetings April 1995 Internet Home Page Matrix of organization involved in the Military Spending Working Group and Information Systems Working Group established June 1995 Spring operational planning meeting Summer 1995 Summer strategic planning session for organizations participating in the military spending campaign Summer 1995 Military Spending Working Group set of integrated long-term strategies is finalized November 1995 Annual Capitol Hill operational planning meeting of military spending campaign January 1996 Tactical planning at Coolfont annual conference of the peace and security community April 1996 Spring operational planning meeting -- refine integrated strategies July 1996 Summer strategic planning session -- general political assessment November 1996 Annual Capitol Hill meeting for operational planning -- refine integrated strategies January 1997 Tactical planning at Coolfont annual conference of the peace and security community April 1997 Spring operational planning meeting -- refine integrated strategies July 1997 Summer strategic planning session -- general political assessment Implementation Activities Time Line February 1995 Press Briefing featuring Dr. Lawrence Korb, The Hon. William Colby and Mr. John Pike on the "Contract with America" and its implications for the military budget Information Systems Working Group formed to assist the efforts of the Military Spending Group Budget workshops around the country held by Citizens Budget Campaign, to be replicated by grassroots groups April 1995 10th: Common Agenda releases report, Creating a Common Agenda, Strategies for Our Communities, at press conference in Washington, D.C. 20th-22nd: International Citizens Assembly for connecting the U.N. Conference on the Extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the proliferation of conventional weapons May 1995 National Defense Industry Layoffs Analysis and Recommendations report by the National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament (ECD) released at press conference Common Agenda local Impact Tours follow up on Tax Day events June 1995 28th-30th: NECA/ECD/CEC conversion media event to highlight successes and hold accountable major prime contractors for resisting full-fledged conversion August 1995 Information and training for grassroots activists Local events commemorating events of 50 years ago incorporate military spending themes September 1995 Military Spending Group conducts Public Forums in three major regional media markets highlighting the military appropriations bills Continue local events Information Systems upgraded in the participating organizations October 1995 Military Spending Group arranges radio talk show interviews around the country focusing on the beginning of the next fiscal year and military spending Joint activities among a broad range of groups that may not normally coordinate their work, such as veterans and church groups 1996 January 1996 State of the Union events conducted in selected states. February 1996 Washington press briefing on the upcoming military budget April 15, 1996 Military Spending Group arranges Public Forums focusing on the amount of each tax dollar allocated to military spending Fall 1996 Implement strategy to influence elite opinion in favor of exploring new, cheaper national security strategies immediately after the new term begins, whether of an old or new Administration Winter 1996 Publish statement by establishment opinion leaders detailing scope of and need for a new national security strategy and deeper military spending cuts January 1997 State of the Union, first year of the new term February 1997 Washington press briefing on the upcoming military budget COMPONENTS OF THE INTEGRATED STRATEGY 1 - ANALYTICAL ACTIVITIES Opinion leaders remain more supportive than the general public to reductions in military spending, but elite support for further reductions has substantially declined in recent years. The post-Cold War elite consensus that military spending should be lowered appears to have been lost because of acceptance of the Bottom-Up Review two war strategy, and the sense that the budget is under-funded for that mission. Analytical materials will be produced to inspire and prepare opinion leaders to take up the case for lower spending again. The campaign will initiate production of reports, statements, and press releases, promote the establishment of authoritative panels, and coordinate press conferences and media events to disseminate their conclusions and get out the word that opinion-leaders are no longer content with the status quo. The strategy in performing new analytical activities will not just be to generate more studies pointing out why the two simultaneous unilateral war strategy is excessive. A significant new element will be to target the opinion-shaping elite audience, members of the foreign policy establishment, often former government practitioners, or perhaps a group of distinguished former senators, who continue to exert a substantial influence on the shaping of current policy. In the initial implementation phase analytical materials will be produced by organizations in the military spending campaign with core competence in research and analysis. These information products will be provided for use in the Outreach component and the Media component of the campaign. Participating groups specializing in those components will be responsible for distribution. All distribution efforts will also utilize methods identified and organized by the Information Systems component to actively disseminate all products electronically through the Internet. Outreach component analytical materials will have as target audiences: (1) other groups participating in the campaign, for use as input into their own products, (2) the memberships of these groups, (3) the memberships of domestic issues groups concerned with lack of funding for domestic needs, and (4) the public at large. Media component analytical materials will target: (1) print, radio, and TV media directly, and, indirectly through those media, (2) opinion-shapers, pundits, national security experts, and (3) political leaders and decision-makers. Longer and more in-depth analytical materials will be provided to experts and policy-makers to influence their thinking directly and to provide substantive research backup for proposals to lower military spending. The variety of target audiences for these materials requires that they be issued in different packages appropriate to the audience. Outreach groups will assist groups producing the materials in making the products appropriate for distribution to wider audiences. Products will include:  Major studies up to 100 pages. Major audiences: national security experts, academics.  Three to five major research reports (30-50 pages) a year with relevance to military spending issues. Major audiences: policy-makers, experts, other campaign groups, media.  10-page executive summaries of major studies and reports. Major audiences: other campaign groups, media, busy experts, Congressional staffers.  4- to 5-page rapid response memos. The research base will also constitute a capacity for quick reaction to media inquires. This requires in-house annotated data-bases of numerous military policy subject areas. Major audiences: defense media, opinion leaders, grassroots.  1-page factsheets - clear, stimulating, fact-filled, and visually interesting. Major audiences: media, grassroots, the public, Congressional staffers. Maintaining close liaison between activities in Washington and analytical support functions in other locales (particularly Boston) will require regular participation in weekly Working Group meetings and utilization of new electronic communication and conferencing capabilities provided through the information systems component of the campaign. Participating groups anticipate working in the following substantive priority areas: A - Military Strategy, Forces, and Budget A key element of substantively impacting the military budget is through engaging in the "big questions" debate about strategy and its subsidiary parts. The military spending issue will require capabilities to analyze current and emerging U.S. strategic and operational doctrine, force structure, armament and a number of other important issues such as threat analysis and lift capacity. This analysis must identify alternatives to current policy directions. Defense Budget Project (DBP), Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies (IDDS), the Project on Defense Alternatives (PDA), the Center for Defense Information (CDI), the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), and the National Commission for Economic Conversion and Disarmament (ECD) are developing substantive analytical products addressing force-level and top-line issues. B - Alternative Security Policies A longer-term effort will develop alternative scenarios for the post-2001 (i.e., post-FYDP) global security environment, and to consider the implications for military forces of these possible new international structures. In the past, exploration of alternative security policies could not hope to produce much change while the Cold War still loomed. Now, however, such examinations can have a major influence on national security strategies and the need for very large standing military forces. One component of this effort will be the identification and development of people in the academic community who can provide analytical backup and serve as resources or speakers for contemplated outreach events. IDDS is working to build consensus within the community on alternatives. C - International Institutions and United Nations The continued regional and ethnic conflicts around the globe highlight the inadequacy of current U.S. policy towards the United Nations and the need to build up the international capacity of U.N. and multilateral institutions to deal with conflicts outside the realm of traditional U.S. security interests. In addition, cooperative international restraint of the arms trade will go much further to lessening the regional rivalries and conflicts that the world faces today and stem the need for the next generation of U.S. weaponry. These and other security measures are answers to those calling for the maintenance of a huge and unnecessary military force that would have the nation pay dearly. PDA, ECD, FAS, IDDS and Council for a Livable World (CLW) are developing materials in these areas. D - Economic Conversion Conversion, in its broadest sense, requires reinvestment of defense savings into areas of vital public need that will generate new jobs in both non-defense and defense-dependent sectors. Pressures to reduce the deficit have blocked reinvestment of defense savings into the domestic economy. This fact, coupled with the threat of deep cuts in domestic programs, will create opportunities for broader mobilization against military spending increases, particularly if the congressional leadership moves to wall off defense from further cuts after the 1996 elections. On other fronts, conversion analysts must show how job blackmail is often used by defense contractors to oppose cuts in weapons programs and win congressional and public support. Yet, many major contractors have laid off workers in droves, while using public monies to pay for restructuring costs and plant closures. Greater public demand for corporate accountability represents a real opportunity for conversion advocates to make the case against Pentagon corporate welfare, especially policies that subsidize prime contractors while letting workers and communities bear the brunt of the adjustment burden. The National Economic Conversion Alliance (NECA), including ECD, Peace Action, and Jobs With Peace are the key contacts for this issue. E - -Secrecy & Intelligence One significant barrier to realizing savings in military spending is the excessive secrecy and great complexity of intelligence, military space and other high technology military programs, which together account for more than $50 billion each year (about one-fifth the current military budget). As long as these parts of the military budget remain bastions of secrecy, weeding out the unneeded programs will be difficult. The technical complexity of these programs, in contrast to the relatively straightforward matters of ships and tanks and airplanes, remains a further obstacle to savings. These programs will require particular analytical focus. A succession of scandals in intelligence and covert operations has made this a topic of opportunity that can be exploited to raise broader spending issues. DBP, FAS and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) are developing materials in these areas. 2 - OUTREACH AND PUBLIC EDUCATION ON MILITARY SPENDING A concerted series of public education activities will be implemented to confirm and strengthen existing public beliefs about the necessity and possibility of reducing military spending, and to mobilize citizens to act on these beliefs. This component of the campaign will target both concerned citizens at large, as well as constituencies most directly affected by excessive or misdirected military spending. These activities will mobilize an expanding circle of organizations in the peace and security community, religious networks, and other organized national constituencies. Based on our over-all message development activities, information prepared in the Analysis component of the campaign will initially be distributed to groups working on the military spending issue. These groups will distribute materials to their members, and to groups working on domestic needs. Groups with domestic concerns, such as religious and labor organizations, may not currently be focusing directly on military spending, but continued high military spending has a highly detrimental effect on their issues, principally by limiting the availability of resources to address those problems. They are natural allies who can be galvanized into action by exposure to the materials to be distributed in the Outreach component. As materials are disseminated to participating organizations' memberships and the memberships of other interested groups, the broader public too will increasingly become aware of the messages and information needed to shift the center of debate over the long run. The cost and time-lag of trying to coordinate with groups in other countries has made it heretofore almost prohibitive to conduct in-depth and sustained joint efforts across oceans and borders. The Information Systems component of this campaign, however, will greatly simplify communication and contact with groups in other countries working on these issues. Participating groups in the United States will be able to trade relevant information, analyses, experiences and strategies with other groups globally. Public Forums One of the coordination activities will be to orchestrate a series of public forums across the country run by groups with track records in putting together these events. The forums will be designed to give high visibility to the questions surrounding the military budget debate and to address the key issue of national priorities: how large a military budget does the United States need to guarantee our security from external threats and what are the domestic social and economic security implications of excessive military spending. To shift the national perception of the magnitude of military spending required in the post-Cold War era, it is critically important that credible speakers are engaged to speak out on behalf of these arguments. The public forum series will match defense budget experts with speakers engaged in analyzing the social and economic impact of excessive military spending, e.g., Marion Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund and John Kenneth Galbraith of Harvard University. We will strive to bring together the broadest coalition of local organizations to sponsor the public forum in a given area, to work the media for the event, and to organize the details of the day. Media efforts will include, when possible, press briefings, editorial board meetings, and radio talk show appearances. We will also seek to place opinion articles by the above experts and other members of the Military Spending Working Group placed in newspapers across the country, as well as longer articles in popular publications. And we will continue to work with these ad-hoc coalitions after the public forums, alerting them to valuable materials for use with the media, for their own newsletters, for study group sessions etc. Local Events In addition to the more broadly structured public forums, we will work with groups across the country to provide speakers and materials for town --------------------------------------------------------------