WASHINGTON \u2015 Expect artificial intelligence, command-and-control and survivability to be watchwords in the House Armed Services Committee going forward. Chairman Adam Smith says those topics will be his focus as he supports \u201csmart\u201d investments in national defense in the new Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an Oct. 14 interview, the often outspoken Smith, D-Wash., had more to add about a looming defense budget battle among Democrats<\/a> and why he\u2019s not worried about primary challenges from the left \u2015 as well as national security plans<\/a> under a possible Biden administration, and Smith\u2019s own thoughts on retiring old weapons systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The comment came while former Vice President Joe Biden was leading President Donald Trump in the polls, and as the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act<\/a> was being quietly negotiated in Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You\u2019ve said you want to engage Democrats in a \u201ca rational, Democratic, progressive national security strategy.\u201d What are the differences among Democrats?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n In general, the Republican approach to defense has been: no matter what you\u2019re spending, you are not spending enough, and that whatever threats you think are out there, they\u2019re bigger and we\u2019re less prepared for them. We went through this on missile defense and continue to \u2015 and a missile defense program just last year got canceled<\/a>. We spent a whole bunch of money<\/a> on it because it didn\u2019t work. [Strategic Forces Subcommittee ranking member and Ohio Republican Rep.] Michael Turner<\/a> has unique way of putting this: Basically, any weapons program that we decided not to pursue amounts to unilateral disarmament because of the Russians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [Note: Turner, in <\/i>floor remarks<\/i><\/a> this summer, characterized a proposed ban on nuclear weapons testing as \u201canother one of these unilateral disarmament movement provisions.” On the RKV, he and subcommittee chairman Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., probed the cancellation of the $1.2 billion program.]<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n They\u2019re maximalists?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n I view it as more political: We want to use national security to bludgeon Democrats, to make it appear that Democrats are not sufficiently pro-defense. Certainly, things go the other way in politics, but then that\u2019s not a particularly helpful approach. I think we have to be smart about the money, smart about what our national security strategy is going forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the Democratic side, we have, I think, rightfully resisted the idea that you can\u2019t possibly spend enough money on DoD. I mean, number one, you have to balance needs within a finite budget. You have infrastructure, health care, education needs, and you\u2019ve got to balance that against size of the deficit. So I think that\u2019s the overwhelming majority opinion within the Democratic Party, and it\u2019s reflected by Joe Biden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The approach we would like to take is a center-left, pragmatic approach that recognizes, yes, we absolutely have threats. Part of beating those threats is having a strong military to deter our adversaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [Under Democratic leadership] there\u2019s going to see a big pivot in three directions: one, embracing alliances, trying to expand those alliances, trying and expand our ability to use international agreements and organizations to achieve our ends. Two, you\u2019re going to see a greater emphasis on diplomacy and development, and three, even an smarter defense budget, it\u2019s going to focus not just on building a lot of stuff, but on building the things that are most crucial to meet our national security needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That has a lot to do with the [HASC] Future of Defense Task Force<\/a>, which looked at what systems do we really need to deal with pure potential peer competitors, like China and Russia, Iran and North Korea \u2015 and that\u2019s where artificial intelligence, command and control technology come in. The easiest way to sum it up is that in modern warfare, you need to be able to see the enemy before they see you. If they see you first, and you can\u2019t see them, no matter how big your platform is, no matter how many you have, you lose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s where the Democratic Party would be headed under a Biden administration, and it\u2019s certainly what I\u2019d like to try to do if I\u2019m lucky enough to get another term as chair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Future of Defense Task Force, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and all the services are saying that legacy platforms are going to have to be retired\u2015<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s the wrong way to look at it. It\u2019s not necessarily about whether it\u2019s a legacy platform or it\u2019s a new platform, it\u2019s about seeing it within the dynamic of what I said earlier. Survivability and command-and-control are going to become crucial. If you make 25 massive, impressive ships that can\u2019t survive in a contested environment, then that\u2019s a waste of money. If you make systems that can survive, that\u2019s what we\u2019re looking for. Are some legacy systems going to be able to fit into that new framework? Undoubtedly. And others will need to be changed or upgraded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And the entire focus is on the survivability of your network. If all your platforms depended upon one satellite, then you\u2019re in a lot of trouble. Can we build redundancy into that? If it\u2019s all centered around one command-and-control center that is an above-ground target that any enemy could find, that too is a problem. So you want to be able to move that around.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And then AI becomes crucial: how can you process information to find an enemy\u2019s vulnerability or find your own vulnerability before an enemy finds it? The Future of Defense Task Force is really focusing on this as a technological advantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It would be premature at this point to point toward one system [for retirement.] We have to do the analysis, figure it out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The task force concluded there needs to be a new panel made up of lawmakers, DoD and industry that would make recommendations on platform retirements to Congress. Does Congress really need that process or is that kind of a cop out?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n I don\u2019t know if we need a panel to do that, and \u2015 what a panel does or doesn\u2019t do will inform us, but the decisions need to be made by the lawmakers and by the executive branch. If a panel recommends those changes, you have a better chance to win the fight that will inevitably come because somebody will like whatever system it is that you\u2019re talking about and will fight to keep it. You need to marshal your forces and marshal your argument to win.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To your point earlier, how much money is in the DoD budget is going to be a matter of some debate. With $741 billion right now, I am 100 percent convinced that we can meet our national security needs. We\u2019re not going to see massive increases in the defense budget going forward. We\u2019re going to have to live with a flat budget given the debt and the deficit and other priorities, and given that fact, we have to spend the money smarter. Think of all the money we\u2019ve spent over the last 20 years on programs that have completely crapped out or didn\u2019t work in the way we intended, like the [Littoral Combat Ship<\/a>]. If we do the job we\u2019re supposed to do, we can absolutely get by with less money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recently you\u2019ve said there are progressives who want a 20 percent defense budget cut, and you\u2019ve rejected that, but a <\/b>10 percent cut<\/b><\/a> was what was voted on earlier this year. Are you against a 10 percent cut as much as a 20 percent cut, or is there an opening?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n I voted against the 10 percent cut when it was on the floor. I\u2019d be surprised if I could support a 10 percent cut, but I\u2019m not going to prejudge until I\u2019m sure what 10 percent you\u2019re cutting. The details matter \u2015 what are we paying for, what\u2019s the strategy to support it \u2015 and some [lawmakers] have really stepped up their understanding: what should be cut and why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I think that\u2019s where we\u2019re going to have a big discussion within the Democratic Party. I\u2019m not going to kid you. There\u2019s no way that becomes an unanimous opinion within the Democratic Party. It\u2019s a major issue. But you can see the strength of the Biden campaign. The odds are we coalesce around where he\u2019s at<\/a>, and frankly that\u2019s where the party\u2019s at.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What about the primary defeat of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., who is fairly hawkish to moderate, to a more progressive Democrat? A few days later Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., voted for the proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to cut 10 percent from the national defense authorization bill. Will members be under any pressure from the left on defense issues?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n And 95 percent of the time those [primary] challenges have been spectacularly unsuccessful, including the one against me. That happened two years ago, where I got 68 percent of the vote. They went after [House Minority Leader] Steny Hoyer, they went after [Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Chair] Don Norcross, a long, long list. They went after [House Ways and Means Committee Chair] Ritchie Neal. And they lost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Triangulating between you, and let\u2019s assume a President Biden, and let\u2019s just assume Democrats take the Senate as some project, a SASC Chairman Jack Reed, are there some obvious cuts, maybe on the nuclear side? Is there some overlap between you and a Biden administration on nukes?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n We are just now having those discussions. I have a loose idea of what the Biden people are talking about. I have a better idea of what [SASC ranking member] Jack Reed\u2019s been thinking about because we\u2019ve been working together. We\u2019re just now starting to have those conversations. So yeah, there is going to be quite a bit of overlap. And from what Vice President Biden has said, I think we are closely aligned on how much to spend on defense and the fact the nuclear enterprise is something we can can probably spend less on, and still meet our needs, and thus free up money to do other things. I think there\u2019ll be good synergy there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Biden administration seems to be signaling that the new warheads ordered by the president are not going to happen. Is that something that Democrats will pursue? Do you reopen a fight on on the <\/b>Long-Range Standoff Weapon<\/b><\/a> or push more on <\/b>Ground Based Strategic Deterrent<\/b><\/a>?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n The simplest way of looking program by program is I think the Biden administration will revisit the Nuclear Posture Review. At the end of the day that\u2019s the headline here. He was vice president when the [previous] nuclear posture review was put out the way it was put out, and I think there\u2019s a very strong consensus in Biden world that the nuclear posture review needs to be redone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Does a Biden administration revisit the National Defense Strategy that gave us great power competition? Would they do their own review?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n I think we get an updated national security strategy, absolutely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n