WASHINGTON — Comparing a missile defense program to the Manhattan Project, senior-level leaders of the joint force testified Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the proposed program and border enforcement operations.
President Donald Trump asked lawmakers during his joint address to Congress last week to appropriate funds for a “Golden Dome” missile defense shield.
“It is a very bold vision that’s going to have a lot of complexity to it,” said Space Force Gen. Michael A. Guetlein, vice chief of space operations.
Guetlein said the project would be of such magnitude that he finds it comparable to the World War II-era Manhattan Project.
Despite the scale of development and level of cooperation between government, the defense industrial base, allies and other stakeholders that would be required to bring the “Golden Dome” online, senior leaders are optimistic of the project’s success.
“In 2008, we shot down a satellite that was deorbiting (and) full of fuel in six weeks,” said Navy Adm. James W. Kilby, vice chief of naval operations. “The whole-of-government got together with agencies, the science community and industry; and we made it happen.
“So, we can do this. We just need to do the things that were outlined … provide clear lines of (command and control) … solid, consistent budgeting, and I’m convinced that we can deliver.”
On the topic of border enforcement, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James J. Mingus said troop readiness is taken into account more now than it was during the previous border deployment.
“The lessons we learned from 2019 is the troop-to-task was one for one … and so there was no time (for service members) to come offline to continue to train and do their mission,” Mingus said.
“(Now), we’re going to make sure that the troop-to-task allows for rotations, so that the degradation in readiness is not as substantial as what we saw in 2019,” he explained.
Regarding the value of having service members on the border, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Christopher J. Mahoney said the current mission to execute engineering and intelligence gathering tasks can be beneficial.
“In both of those, there is training value — especially for the intelligence analysts to collect and analyze (information), which is a very complex situation,” Mahoney said.
When pressed further on whether the joint force’s ability to train is being negatively overshadowed by tasks on the border, Mingus said the services need to be able to multitask.
“The joint force has to be able to execute offense, defense and stability operations simultaneously,” he said, adding the current border operation is defensive and there is a certain value associated with that.
“Is it going to be the same as if (service members) went to the National Training Center? Absolutely not,” Mingus said. “But there’s still value to be had if the leadership takes the right approach to it.”
Don’t miss out!  Subscribe to our email newsletter to have all our smart stories delivered to your inbox.
