大国战略竞争背景下美国战备概念的演进

The Evolution of US Military Readiness in an Era of Great-Power Strategic Competition

美国的战备观念基于国家安全预判、直接关联国防战略并影响国防预算,但其核心概念并无国家层面的法律定义,在跨部门运用中出现内涵外延、层级划分及适用范围等领域的多重释义,这种动态的概念切换常常引发争议。自2011年时任国防部长盖茨提出“空心部队”警告论以来,美国官方和学界大肆渲染“战备危机”,热议话题此起彼伏。本文从美国国会研究服务局及国防部官方文件等资料入手,透过战备概念争议现象分析原因,探讨当前大国战略竞争背景下美国战备概念演进特征对我启示,形成了三点认识:一是战备概念争议的表象是战备配合国家战略调整的动态需求保持可塑性和开放性,通过国会立法和预算编制等途径完成资源运筹管理并实现服务国家安全的使命,其实质却是美国超前预置战备方略、争取防务资源、维持全球绝对军事优势的霸权惯性;二是战备概念演进呈现狭义化特征,运维与军事人员等典型狭义战备要素预算占比未受研发、测试和评估项目投入增长的影响,相反军事人员素养和权益保障投入逆势提升;三是美国应对“战略竞争对手”的战备观念所突显的危机意识和自我纠正驱动力、稳规模与高科技为核心的内涵式发展态势、突出对自然人作为原始战备因素投入等新思维逻辑,值得进一步关注和深究。

The US concept of military readiness,which is rooted in national security considerations,is directly related to both national defense strategy and defense budget.Since there is no statutory definition,multiple interpretations of the term exist in various government agencies' documents in terms of its intension,extension,conceptual tiers and scope of application.The definitional ambiguity has given rise to frequent controversy.Since the then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued the warning about a “hollow force” in 2011,“readiness crisis” has drawn great attention from both the government and the academia.Based on the research papers of US Congressional Research Service and official documents of the Department of Defense,this article unpacks the evolution of US understandings of military readiness and its implications for China by examining the causes of the controversies and latest developments in US readiness.It makes three arguments.First,the concept of military readiness is malleable and open-ended — as demonstrated by the debates surrounding it — in meeting the changing demands of US national security,and in practice it refers to the management and allocation of defense resources in the service of national security through congressional legislation and budget making.In essence it belies the habitual US practice of trying to maintain absolute military superiority by making advance plans in readiness and related efforts to secure the necessary defense resources.Second,there is a trend toward narrow definitions of the concept as the share in the military budget of their typical elements such as operations and management(O&M) and military personnel has not been diminished by the increase in expenditure for research,development,testing and evaluation(RDT&E).On the contrary,there has been an increase in the budget for training military personnel,and safeguarding and protecting their rights.Third,more attention and further analysis are called for in light of the features of US military readiness in dealing with strategic competitors.They include an acute crisis awareness,the ability to make self-corrections,a development model emphasizing a stable force size and structure and high-technology,and finally an emphasis on investment in people as the primary element in military readiness.