組織變革:美國軍事轉型之研究

The Organizational Change: A Study of U.S. Military Transformation

梁功凱(Kung-kai Liang)

指導教授 ： 柯承恩

共同指導教授 ： 劉順仁

國立臺灣大學/管理學院/高階公共管理組/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2009.02201

摘要

「冷戰」結束前，美國兵力計畫是以蘇聯軍事發展為依歸。由於蘇聯的軍力變化是循線性式發展，這種演化的、可預期的發展，是可量化且可管理的，因此對於威脅範圍及其變化速率均可掌握，提供建軍與兵力規劃一個穩定的模式。一旦原有的「威脅」消失，美國的敵人改以更多元的方式威脅美國及世界的和平與穩定。因此，美國的國家安全政策、國防安全策略及軍事安全策略等都必須調整，以因應國內外環境變化。
近年來美國的國防預算不斷膨脹，已達二次世界大戰後的最高點。根據瑞典斯德哥爾摩國際和平研究所(SIPRI)公布的「2009年年鑑」顯示，2008年全球軍費達1兆4640億美元，佔全球GDP的百分之2.4, 其中美國的軍費高達6070億美元，佔全球總軍費的41.5%。但同時，美國陸軍卻擁有較少的戰鬥旅，海軍的作戰艦艇及空軍的戰鬥機也更少。庫存的裝備既老舊又不足。也許有人認為「高科技」裝備的「先進能力」可以彌補數量上的不足。事實上，「高科技」通常指的是「高複雜性」，代表「高預算」和「高成本」。在「有效性」上，則往往低於預期的目標。所以，如何在國防經濟上達到「低成本」、「高效果」的管理目標，成為美國國防部的重要課題。
美國的「軍事轉型」為一個過程，一種新的戰爭方式，亦是一種策略。軍事組織的變革在正確的策略指導下，進行組織結構、人力資源及文化等的改造。它延續「軍事事務革命」的觀念，目的在建立一支「以能力為基礎」的武力，以「聯合作戰」概念為核心，面對來自各方面不同的威脅，能快速反應、精準打擊，不只要贏得戰爭，而且要有效嚇阻敵人，預防戰爭的發生。前國防部長倫斯斐(Donald Rumsfeld)積極推動的「軍事轉型」，為組織變革的一個案例。由於美國國防組織龐大，軍種各有其文化與傳統，推動組織變革，必然遭遇各種阻力。
事實上，「軍事組織變革」的概念在蘇聯瓦解前，在各種研討會和兵棋推演中，針對美國在不同場景，遂行各種非傳統戰爭的可能性，即已提出討論，並且產生共識。但是克林頓政府當局並未重視。直到2001年「911事件」後，戰略態勢頓時改觀，雖然「國土安全」及「全球反恐戰爭」成為最優先項目，但其戰略目標則希望達到「前進嚇阻」的效果。
美國「軍事轉型」的觀念在1997年克林頓總統公布的「願景2010」(Vision 2010)中即已提及，到了2000年時任國防部長倫斯斐開始大力推動。在倫斯斐的強勢領導下，一時間雷厲風行，但他個人的強勢領導受到軍種文化的抗拒。由於美國入侵伊拉克，戰爭拖延未決，使美國陷入困境，每年投入大量人力、物力及財力，且傷亡人數不斷增加，造成國際及國內環境不利的態勢，加上高估科技的能力，低估人事及軍種文化抗拒的力量，以及時間的急迫性等諸多的因素，均是導致「軍事轉型」一籌莫展的原因。
美國「軍事轉型」想要達到預期的目標，必須先檢討美國的全球「大戰略」(Grand Strategy)，改變政策，調整美國在世界舞台的角色及任務，減少軍事武力的介入，改以外交或其他手段解決。同時考慮國際安全環境及國內的政治、經濟、社會環境，以及科技、人力、軍隊文化等條件，與組織理論結合，並配合立法，打破軍種主義，設計規劃，有效管理，建構低成本、高效果的國防體系。

關鍵字

軍事轉型 ； 軍事事務革命 ； 聯合作戰 ； 以能力為基礎兵力 ； 前進嚇阻

並列摘要

Before the end of Cold War, the U.S. force planning was mainly developed in concert with the growth of the military forces of the Soviet Union. Since the military change of the Soviet Union is linear, this evolutionary, predictable development is measurable and manageable. It provided a stable model for the force planning given that controllable scope of threats and rates of changes. Once the original “threat” disappeared, the adversaries hazard the peace and the stability of the U.S. and the world in ways of varieties.
The U.S. military expenditure has been escalating in recent years. According to the “SIPRI 2009 yearbook” published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Global military expenditure in 2008 is estimated to have totalled $1464 billion. Military expenditure comprised approximately 2.4 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2008. US military expenditure increased to the highest level in real terms since World War II. It is estimated to $607 billion and 41.5% of world share as the No. 1 in the world.In a mean time, US Army’s “division equivalents” have declined over time to a post-World War II low. Navy’s combat ships and Air Force’s fighters have also dramatically declined. The inventories of all services have aged and are shrinking. Some advocates of high-cost weapon systems might claim that the reduced size of the military force structure is offset by “tremendous” advances in capabilities. In fact, the advances of technology mean the complexity of the weapon systems. It also means high budgets and high costs of the systems. For some systems, real improvements do occur. Other times the new, more expensive system brings no meaningful improvement. Therefore, how to meet the goals of “low cost” and “high effect” in the management of the economics of defense would be the major topics of the US Secretary of Defense.
U.S. military transformation is a process, a new way of war, and also a strategy. The change of military organization is conducting the change of the organizational structure, human resources and culture under the direction of strategic guidance. It continues the norm of RMA(Revolution of Military Affairs). Its purpose is to build a “capabilities-based” military force with core concepts of joint operations, to confront a variety of threats with quick reaction, and precise strike. It’s not only to win the war, but also to deter the adversaries in order to prevent war. Rumsfeld’s military transformation was a case of organizational change. Due to the gigantic organization of the U.S. Defense Department, and the individual tradition and culture of all services, there would definitely be impediments to the military transformation.
In fact, the concepts of military organizational change had been discussed in different scenarios with possibilities of untraditional wars in various seminars, and war-games, and had reached the consensus. But it had not been taken seriously by Clinton Administrative. Until the 911 incident in 2001, the whole strategic situation changed immediately. Although homeland security and global anti-terrorism had become higher priority, the goal would be “forward deterrence”.
The concept of military transformation had been mentioned in “Vision 2010” by President Clinton. But its only conceptual. Not until Donald Rumsfeld came to the office as the Secretary of Defense, and actually took actions to enforce the military transformation. He chose the “Few Big Jumps” approach which needed the Secretary to exercise strong, and at times, “bully pulpit” leadership. It was his personal style of leadership causing the resistance of the services. The unresolved Afghanistan and Iraqi war make the U.S. in a dilemma. Every year they have to pour a lot of money, materiel and human resources. Also the casualty has been increasing. In general, the international and domestic environments had been deteriorating; with overestimated capability of technology, and underestimated resistance of the human resource and service cultures, also with limited time. Those all are the factors influencing the military transformation.
To meet the goal of the military transformation, U.S. needs to review the global Grand Strategy and adjust the role and mission on the world stage, to implement diplomatic or other approaches rather than military intervention to resolve the problem. Meanwhile, it combine the organizational theories with technology, human resources, and the military cultures, while considering the international and domestic security environments of political, economical and social conditions. It is necessary to break the parochialism of the military service with the legislative process to design and manage effectively a defense system with low cost and high effect.

並列關鍵字

military transformation ； revolution of military affairs ； joint operations ； capability based force ； forward deterrence

參考文獻

Barry R. Posen, The Source of Military Doctrine: France Britain, and Germany Between the World wars (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986)

Department of Defense, Transformation Planning Guidance (Department of Defense, Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC: 2003)

Hans Binnendijk(ed.), Transforming America’s Military (NDU, 2002)

Michael A. Beitler, Strategic Organizational Change (Greensboro, NC: Practitioner Press International, 2006)

U.S. Department of the Defense, Transformation Planning Guidance (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, April 2003)