# Quadrennial Defense Review 2010: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41250 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** May 17, 2010 - **Citation:** R41250 ## Text Quadrennial Defense Review 2010: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning -name redactedSpecialist in International Security -name redactedSpecialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget May 17, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R41250 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning Summary On February 1, 2010, the Defense Department released a report on the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a legislatively mandated assessment of defense strategy and priorities. The review is the sixth full scale assessment of U.S. defense policy since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the 1990 Base Force analysis and the 1993 Bottom-Up Review and continuing with QDRs completed in 1997, 2001, 2006, and 2010. These official reviews have been supplemented by assessments of independently chartered panels. The four QDRs reflect an ongoing evolution of strategic thinking away from planning for smaller versions of Cold War-era conventional conflicts, on the model of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and toward planning to cope with a much more diverse array of challenges. By the time of the 2006 and 2010 QDRs, the basic strategic assumptions guiding military planning had shifted dramatically. One premise is that no future adversary is likely to confront U.S. conventional, Cold War-era military capabilities directly. Instead, any foe, ranging from violent, radical non-state terrorist groups to a technologically advanced near-peer competitor, will try to exploit weaknesses in U.S. defenses through asymmetric means. A related premise is that the notion of a spectrum of conflict, ranging from unsophisticated insurgents or terrorists at the low end to sophisticated national armies at the high end, is becoming blurred, with “low-end” terrorist groups using advanced technologies and near-peer competitors likely to use indirect means of attack. The 2010 QDR concludes that changes in the global security environment require some adjustments in the balance of investments among elements of the U.S. military force posture. It argues for an emphasis, first of all, on prevailing in current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda elsewhere. It revises force planning to put diverse, overlapping scenarios, including long-duration stability operations and defense of the homeland, on a par with major regional conflicts in assessing the size and composition of the force. And, it calls for new investments in critical joint missions, including countering “anti-access strategies” aimed at defeating U.S. power projection forces; building the capacity of partner states; and ensuring access to cyberspace. The 2010 report also proposes measures to reform institutional procedures that it sometimes describes as “relics of the Cold War,” including acquisition, security assistance, and export control processes. Critiques of the current and earlier QDRs raise a number of issues: Is the review overly constrained by budget limitations? Does it make sufficiently disciplined choices among the many priorities it cites? Does the focus on current conflicts come too much at the expense of preparations for future conflicts? Does the review realistically assess threats from Russia and China? A fundamental issue is whether the quite radical reassessment of global security challenges in recent QDRs has been matched by sufficiently far-reaching changes in the composition of the force. A question for future QDRs may be whether the reviews should be tasked to address broader security policy issues as a means of assessing defense plans in a more complete context. Potential policy issues to address include when to use military force, the effects of global financial trends on U.S. defense plans, the effects of domestic economic and budget trends on defense resources, the evolution of alliances to reflect post-Cold War era challenges, the prospects for more cooperative global security rules and institutions to enhance security, and the integration of U.S. defense planning with broader, interagency policies to address global trends. Congressional Research Service Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Preview of Key Issues ............................................................................................................... 1 Changing Perspectives on the Global Security Environment.............................................. 2 Key Questions ..................................................................................................................... 3 Outline of this Report .......................................................................................................... 4 II. Legislative Mandate for the QDR ............................................................................................... 5 Additional Reports Related to the QDR .................................................................................... 7 Associated Reports Required by QDR Legislation ............................................................. 8 National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and National Defense Strategy Reports ............................................................................................................... 9 Nuclear Posture, Missile Defense Policy, and Space Posture Reports .............................. 11 III. Overview of the 2010 QDR ..................................................................................................... 13 Rebalancing Defense Priorities ............................................................................................... 13 Reforming Defense Business Practices That Are “Relics of the Cold War” ........................... 14 “Strengthening Relationships” with Regional and Intra-Governmental Partners.................... 16 Risk Management Framework................................................................................................. 17 Risk Assessment in Recent Defense Planning .................................................................. 18 Risk Assessment in the 2010 QDR.................................................................................... 19 IV. What’s New in the 2010 QDR.................................................................................................. 21 Deemphasizing Two Major Regional Conflicts in Force Planning ......................................... 21 Capabilities for Key Missions ................................................................................................. 23 Defeating Anti-Access Strategies ............................................................................................ 23 Counterinsurgency, Stability, and Counterterrorism Operations ............................................. 25 Building the Capacity of Partner States ................................................................................... 28 Shaping the Choices of “Nations at a Strategic Crossroads”................................................... 30 Cyberwar ................................................................................................................................. 31 Homeland Defense .................................................................................................................. 31 WMD Countermeasures .......................................................................................................... 32 V. Common Criticisms of the QDR ............................................................................................... 33 Planning Based on Budget Constraints Rather than Strategy .................................................. 34 Failure to Establish Realistic Priorities ................................................................................... 38 A Diminished Focus on Future Challenges ............................................................................. 39 Downplaying Threats from Russia and China ......................................................................... 41 Lack of a National Security Strategy, Unclear Connection Between Strategy and Plans, Absence of Long-Term Planning ............................................................................... 42 Delay in release of National Security Strategy report ....................................................... 42 Unclear connection of strategy and force structure ........................................................... 43 Lack of long-term planning ............................................................................................... 44 VI. Are QDRs Far-Reaching Enough?........................................................................................... 47 The Evolution of Strategic Thinking in QDRs ........................................................................ 47 Changes in Service Organization from 1998 to 2003 .............................................................. 48 More Far-Reaching Changes in Posture to Reflect QDR Strategy .......................................... 50 Additional measures to bolster homeland defense ............................................................ 50 Implications of anti-access strategies for forward deployed forces .................................. 50 The balance between heavy ground forces and other capabilities..................................... 51 Congressional Research Service Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning Specialized forces for foreign internal defense ................................................................. 52 The case for adding capabilities to meet new challenges .................................................. 53 VII. Should the QDR Address Broader Security Issues? ............................................................... 54 When to Use Military Force .................................................................................................... 55 The Effect of Global Financial Trends on Security ................................................................. 58 The Effect of Domestic Economic and Budget Trends on Defense Planning ......................... 59 Cost Growth in Elements of the Defense Budget .................................................................... 61 The Evolution of Cold-War Era Alliances ............................................................................... 62 Global Security Cooperation and Global Rules of Behavior................................................... 64 The Integration of Defense and Non-Defense Responsibilities in National Security Policy .................................................................................................................................... 65 Concluding Observations............................................................................................................... 66 Figures Figure 1. 2006 QDR Four Challenges Framework for Setting Priorities ...................................... 37 Figure 2. DOD Base Budget with No Real Growth: FY2010-FY2020 ......................................... 61 Appendixes Appendix A. Current QDR Legislation as Amended Through the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act.......................................................................................................... 67 Appendix B. Bibliography of Official Strategy Reports................................................................ 74 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 76 Congressional Research Service Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning I. Introduction On February 1, 2010, the Defense Department released a report on the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review,1 a legislatively mandated assessment of defense strategy, force structure, weapons programs, and operations designed to guide defense programming, operational planning, and budgets projected as far as twenty years ahead. The 2009-20102 exercise is the fourth Quadrennial Defense Review carried out under that name and the sixth comprehensive reexamination of U.S. defense policy since the end of the Cold War. It was preceded by earlier QDRs completed in February 2006, September 2001, and May 1997; by the Bottom-Up Review conducted at the beginning of the Clinton Administration and completed in May 1993; and by the Base Force analysis carried out by the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the George H.W. Bush Administration in 1990 and described in congressional testimony in 1991.3 These official reassessments have been supplemented by reviews conducted by independently chartered panels, including the 1995 Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces, the 1997 National Defense Panel that followed the 1997 QDR, and the 1998-1999 Commission on National Security/21st Century. The 2010 QDR was formally conducted from April 2009, when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued guidance on the main tasks of the exercise,4 through the writing and release of the report on the review on February 1. The QDR report, though quite extensive, is not the main result of the process. Officials who have participated in the review say, rather, that its value lies in having the senior leadership of the Department systematically assess defense strategy, force planning, and programs with a relatively long view ahead. Ultimately, the review resulted in concrete decisions on a broad range of program and policy matters. Much of the 2010 QDR report is devoted to listing initiatives intended to improve capabilities to accomplish critical missions. The QDR also resolved a number of policy matters that have been ongoing topics of discussion within the Defense Department. This CRS report provides an overview of the 2010 QDR, partly with a view toward putting matters the QDR addresses into the context of the ongoing evolution of defense policy, and partly in an effort to identify issues for future QDRs or for a broader review of national security strategy. Preview of Key Issues A recurring question in assessments of the QDR process is to what extent successive QDRs have helped the Defense Department to keep up with changes in the international security environment. Previous QDRs have often been criticized because it has been difficult to trace significant changes in defense policy to the results of each review. If, the critics argue, one of 1 U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 2010, online at http://www.defense.gov/ qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf. 2 The current QDR is often referred to, particularly in legislation, as the “2009 QDR,” since it was carried out mainly in calendar year 2009. QDRs are more commonly identified by the date on which the final report was released, and this CRS report follows that precedent. 3 See the Bibliography appended to this report for citations and links. 4 Department of Defense Press Release, “DOD Begins QDR, NPR Processes,” April 23, 2009, online at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12627; and Department of Defense, “2010 QDR Terms of Reference Fact Sheet,” April 27, 2009, online at http://www.defense.gov/news/d20090429qdr.pdf. Congressional Research Service 1 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning Congress’s goals in mandating quadrennial reviews was to encourage a more radical rethinking of defense policy, it is hard to see it in the results of each successive QDR. A contrary view is that, to the extent successive QDRs have redefined global security challenges, changes in force planning in the future may eventually catch up with the evolution of defense strategy. In describing trends in global security, the new QDR differs quite significantly from QDRs prior to 2006, and the 2010 QDR breaks some new ground even compared to its immediate predecessor. As a guide to force programming, however, the outcome of the 2010 QDR appears rather conservative. Through FY2015, the QDR anticipates only minimal changes in force structure, and it does not lay out a force structure beyond the end of the current six-year defense planning period at all. Changing Perspectives on the Global Security Environment Looking at the cumulative results of post-Cold War defense reviews, beginning with the 1990 Base Force analysis and the 1993 Bottom-Up Review and culminating in the 2010 QDR, the net effect has been a substantial change in the conceptual underpinnings of U.S. defense strategy. In retrospect, the outcome of the 1990 and 1993 reviews was mainly to provide a rationale for not dismantling U.S. military capabilities after the Cold War, as the nation had done following World War I and World War II, and, many argue, after the Vietnam conflict. Both the Base Force analysis and the Bottom-Up Review argued for maintaining essentially a scaled down version of Cold War-era forces. Following the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Bottom-Up Review differed from the Base Force analysis in that it did not identify a requirement to be able to reconstitute forces in the event of a renewed threat. Neither provided a basis for substantially redirecting priorities or for making major changes in the organization of the military services. Reviews at least since the 1995 report of the Commission on Roles and Missions, however, have progressively expanded the range of challenges for which planners see a need to prepare. The four QDRs, in 1997, 2001, 2006, and 2010, can perhaps best be seen as snapshots of an ongoing evolution of strategic thinking away from planning for smaller versions of Cold War-era conventional conflicts, on the model of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and toward planning to cope with a much more diverse array of challenges and responsibilities. By the time of the 2006 and 2010 QDRs, the basic strategic assumptions guiding military planning had shifted dramatically. One premise is that no future adversary is likely to confront U.S. conventional, Cold War-era military capabilities directly. Instead, any foe, ranging from violent, radical non-state terrorist groups to a technologically advanced near-peer competitor, will try to exploit weaknesses in U.S. defenses through asymmetric means. Moreover, even terrorist groups may use advanced technology to carry out attacks, and competing nations might use irregular means to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities. So the notion of a spectrum of conflict, ranging from unsophisticated insurgents or terrorists at the low end to sophisticated national armies at the high end, is becoming blurred. As Secretary Gates explained, the black-and-white distinction between irregular war and conventional war is an outdated model. We must understand that we face a more complex future than that, a future where all conflict will range along a broad spectrum of operations and lethality. Where near-peers will use irregular or asymmetric tactics and non-state actors may have weapons of mass destruction or sophisticated missiles as well as AK-47s and RPGs. This kind of warfare will Congressional Research Service 2 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning require capabilities with the maximum possible flexibility to deal with the widest possible range of conflict.5 Planners now discuss “hybrid threats” that combine means of attack across the whole spectrum of conflict in almost any confrontation.6 The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the spread of cyberwar capabilities further complicate, and, perhaps, multiply the dangers. A key conclusion of the new QDR is that operations short of a major regional conflict may be at least as demanding, and therefore at least as important in determining the size and composition of the force, as requirements for short-duration, high intensity wars. Operations short of a major regional conflict include what one QDR briefing refers to as “foundational activities,” such as permanent and rotational forward deployments and engagement with other nations to prevent and deter conflict. Homeland defense missions, small-scale peacekeeping operations abroad, and foreign military training activities may also cumulatively require the assignment of a substantial number of troops. The QDR report particularly emphasizes the point that long-duration stability or counter-insurgency operations, even if they involve fewer troops than a major conflict, can be especially demanding. Operations such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan require a very large standing force to provide a sufficient rotation base for deploying forces abroad without overly straining combat units and personnel. The 2010 QDR concludes that changes in the global security environment require some adjustments in the balance of investments among elements of the U.S. military force posture. It argues for an emphasis, first of all, on prevailing in current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda elsewhere. It also elevates maintaining the quality of the all volunteer force to the level of a strategic objective in itself. It puts particular emphasis on managing the impact on military personnel and their families of a long-duration conflict, with repeated rotations of forces abroad. For future planning, it calls for new initiatives in a number of joint mission areas, including homeland defense, countering weapons of mass destruction, the ability to project power into key regions of the globe in the face of challenges to U.S. access, building the capacity of partner nations to defeat terrorism, and means of ensuring access to cyberspace. Key Questions At least two key questions follow, however, from the rather radical reassessment of the global security environment in the last two QDRs. The obvious issue is whether new security challenges require not only marginal shifts in the balance among defense programs, but more far-reaching changes in the composition of the force. The 2010 QDR endorses no such major changes in force posture, though it hints that some may become matters of discussion in the future. A second and perhaps even more fundamental issue is to what extent the QDR should address broader trends in the international security environment that affect the role of military power in 5 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, “Remarks by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.,” April 15, 2009, online at http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4403. Secretary Gates made similar remarks on April 16 at the Army War College, and on April 17 at the Naval War College. 6 The concept of hybrid threats was initially discussed by retired Marine Lt. Col. Frank Hoffman and has since been referred to repeatedly by senior defense officials, including Secretary of Defense Gates. For a discussion, see Frank G. Hoffman, “Hybrid Threats: Reconceptualizing the Evolving Character of Modern Conflict,” Strategic Forum, Institute for National Security Studies, National Defense University, No.240, April 2009. Congressional Research Service 3 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning global affairs and the relationship of military power to other means of U.S. influence. As the QDR report acknowledges, global security relations are being reshaped not just by novel threats, but by many other developments, including the shift of global financial resources to Asia; the growing influence of new powers including the BRIC states, Brazil, Russia, India, and China; the global reach of non-state actors; the further weakening of already fragile states; lowered barriers to acquisition of dangerous technologies, particularly weapons of mass destruction; potential resource scarcity; climate change; demographic trends; and the rapidity with which new diseases can spread. The QDR report discusses how some of these developments may affect defense planning, but it does not generally explain defense planning in the context of broader policies needed to adapt to these trends. Moreover, the QDR report affirms that many global security challenges, including proliferation and terrorism, can only be addressed through multilateral cooperation, but the report discusses collective security largely by reaffirming the value of current regional relationships rather than by discussing the potential value of expanded cooperative security arrangements. Even if the latest QDR ultimately leads to significant changes in the U.S. defense posture, a key question is whether the QDR fully reflects the implications of the global environment that it identifies or whether a more comprehensive assessment of national security policy is necessary. Outline of this Report This CRS report (1) cites the legislative mandate for the QDR and reviews legislative requirements for a number of related reports; (2) outlines the results of the 2010 QDR; (3) identifies what is new in the 2010 review and discusses how thinking on key matters has evolved; (4) reviews some common criticisms of the 2010 QDR and of the QDR process; (5) discusses whether the quite radical changes in the nature of conflict that the 2006 and 2010 QDRs describe have been reflected in sufficiently far-reaching changes in defense plans and programs, and (6) concludes with a discussion of matters that future QDRs—or a more extensive interagency study—might address more fully as a means of putting defense planning into the context of a broader perspective on U.S. national security. Readers interested only in a substantive discussion of the QDR, or who are already familiar with the legislative background of the QDR and with the statutory requirements for related reports on nuclear, missile defense, and space policy, may want to skip over Section II, that provides a detailed discussion of statutory requirements, and begin with Section III, that provides an overview of the QDR. Those familiar with the QDR report may want to skim Section III and focus more on Sections IV, V, VI, and VII, that together constitute a more substantive discussion of policy issues, beginning with an assessment of what is new in the 2010 QDR. This CRS report sometimes restates certain key points in order to allow readers with extensive background on the QDR to focus on sections of most interest to them without having to review matters with which they are familiar. Congressional Research Service 4 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning II. Legislative Mandate for the QDR Under current law,7 the Secretary of Defense is required every four years, in the year following a presidential election, and in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to “conduct a comprehensive examination … of … national defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense program and policies of the United States with a view toward determining and expressing the defense strategy of the United States and establishing a defense program for the next 20 years.” This exercise, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), is required (1) to delineate a national defense strategy consistent with the most recent National Security Strategy prescribed by the President pursuant to section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a); (2) to define sufficient force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense program … required to execute successfully the full range of missions called for in that national defense strategy; (3) to identify (A) the budget plan that would be required to provide sufficient resources to execute successfully the full range of missions called for in that national defense strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk, and (B) any additional resources (beyond those programmed in the current future-years defense program) required to achieve such a level of risk; and (4) to make recommendations that are not constrained to comply with the budget submitted to Congress by the President pursuant to section 1105 of title 31. The statute further requires that the Secretary provide a report on the QDR to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees no later than the following February, when the President’s annual budget is due to be delivered to Congress.8 The report is required to address 16 specific topics, plus “any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate.” The topics required to be addressed, quoted in full, include: 9 7 The current QDR requirement is in Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 118. Congress originally required a QDR in the FY1997 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 104-201, and made the requirement permanent as a part of Title 10 in the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 106-65. For the current full text of the requirement, see Appendix A. 8 The FY1997 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), P.L. 104-201, required that a QDR be conducted in 1997 and that the Secretary provide a report by May 15, 1997, unless the Presidential election in 1996 results in the selection of a new President, in which case the deadline, and other deadlines in the legislation, would be extended by three months. The FY2000 NDAA, P.L. 106-65, required a report on the QDR “not later than September 30 of the year in which the review is conducted.” The FY2003 NDAA, P.L. 107-314, amended the statute to require a report “in the year following the year in which the review is conducted, but not later than the date on which the President submits the budget for the next fiscal year to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31.” 31 USC 1105(a) requires the budget to be submitted by the first Monday in February. 9 The FY1997 NDAA, P.L. 104-201, specified most of these topics to be addressed in the original 1997 QDR. The FY2000 NDAA, P.L. 106-65 added topic 2 , requiring a definition of U.S. national security interests, and expanded what is now topic 4 to include statements regarding force readiness and regarding levels of engagement in operations other than war and smaller-scale contingencies. The FY2003 NDAA, P.L. 107-314, added what is now topic 15, regarding the role of the Coast Guard. The FY2007NDAA, P.L. 109-364 added what is now topic 9, regarding the type and number of specific platforms, and topic, 16 regarding homeland defense and civil support missions. Congressional Research Service 5 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning (1) The results of the review, including a comprehensive discussion of the national defense strategy of the United States, the strategic planning guidance, and the force structure best suited to implement that strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk. (2) The assumed or defined national security interests of the United States that inform the national defense strategy defined in the review. (3) The threats to the assumed or defined national security interests of the United States that were examined for the purposes of the review and the scenarios developed in the examination of those threats. (4) The assumptions used in the review, including assumptions relating to— (A) the status of readiness of United States forces; (B) the cooperation of allies, mission-sharing and additional benefits to and burdens on United States forces resulting from coalition operations; (C) warning times; (D) levels of engagement in operations other than war and smaller-scale contingencies and withdrawal from such operations and contingencies; and (E) the intensity, duration, and military and political end-states of conflicts and smallerscale contingencies. (5) The effect on the force structure and on readiness for high-intensity combat of preparations for and participation in operations other than war and smaller-scale contingencies. (6) The manpower and sustainment policies required under the national defense strategy to support engagement in conflicts lasting longer than 120 days. (7) The anticipated roles and missions of the reserve components in the national defense strategy and the strength, capabilities, and equipment necessary to assure that the reserve components can capably discharge those roles and missions. (8) The appropriate ratio of combat forces to support forces (commonly referred to as the “tooth-to-tail” ratio) under the national defense strategy, including, in particular, the appropriate number and size of headquarters units and Defense Agencies for that purpose. (9) The specific capabilities, including the general number and type of specific military platforms, needed to achieve the strategic and warfighting objectives identified in the review. (10) The strategic and tactical air-lift, sea-lift, and ground transportation capabilities required to support the national defense strategy. (11) The forward presence, pre-positioning, and other anticipatory deployments necessary under the national defense strategy for conflict deterrence and adequate military response to anticipated conflicts. (12) The extent to which resources must be shifted among two or more theaters under the national defense strategy in the event of conflict in such theaters. Congressional Research Service 6 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning (13) The advisability of revisions to the Unified Command Plan as a result of the national defense strategy. (14) The effect on force structure of the use by the armed forces of technologies anticipated to be available for the ensuing 20 years. (15) The national defense mission of the Coast Guard. (16) The homeland defense and support to civil authority missions of the active and reserve components, including the organization and capabilities required for the active and reserve components to discharge each such mission. (17) Any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate. The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 110-181, enacted in January, 2008, also requires the next QDR, i.e., the one due in February 2010, to examine the capabilities of the armed forces to respond to the consequences of climate change, in particular, preparedness for natural disasters from extreme weather events and other missions the armed forces may be asked to support inside the United States and overseas. The same provision requires the national defense strategy and the national security strategy completed after January 2008 (A) to assess the risks of projected climate change to current and future missions of the armed forces; (B) to update defense plans based on these assessments, including working with allies and partners to incorporate climate mitigation strategies, capacity building, and relevant research and development; and (C) to develop the capabilities needed to reduce future impacts. The national security strategy that the law refers to is required to be prepared annually by the White House. The national defense strategy that the law refers to is required by the original Quadrennial Defense Review statute as part of each QDR (see below for a further discussion). Additional Reports Related to the QDR In addition to the QDR, Congress has established a substantial number of other reporting requirements on national security policy for the Defense Department and for other agencies. Amendments to the QDR statute require an assessment of the QDR by an independent panel, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of the extent to which the QDR fulfills some aspects of its statutory guidance, and additional DOD reports on the force structure analysis carried out during the QDR and on overseas basing plans. Other legislation requires that the White House prepare a National Security Strategy report on which the QDR is to base a statement of national defense strategy—in practice, the Defense Department released separate National Defense Strategy documents in 2005 and 2008. Congress has added additional requirements for separate reports on missile defense, nuclear weapons, and space policy, and it has required the Department of Homeland Security to carry out a Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and the Department of State to conduct a Quadrennial Development and Diplomacy Review. Congressional Research Service 7 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning Associated Reports Required by QDR Legislation In addition to the report on the QDR, the QDR statute has been amended to require four associated reports. • Concurrent with delivery of the QDR report, the Secretary of Defense is required to provided the congressional defense committees with a classified annex describing the analyses used to determine the military force structure needed to carry out the defense strategy and any changes from the previous quadrennial defense review in minimum requirements for major military capabilities. This annex has been delivered to the appropriate congressional committees. • Within 90 days of the report’s release, the Government Accountability Office is tasked to deliver a report on the extent to which the QDR complies with the statutory requirement in 10 U.S. Code 118, subsection (d) that directs the QDR to address 16 specific topics (the legislative language identifying these topics is quoted in full in the following section of this CRS report). GAO released the required report on April 30, 2010.10 • Also within 90 days of delivery of the QDR report, the Secretary of Defense is required to provide the congressional defense committees with a report detailing how the review will affect the status of overseas base closure and realignment plans, the development and execution of master plans for overseas military deployments, and any recommendations for additional closures or realignments of military installations outside of the United States. • In addition, an independent panel, with members selected by the Secretary of Defense and by the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, is established to carry out an assessment of the QDR, with an interim report due within 90 days of the release of the QDR— i.e., by May 1, 2010—and a final report due by July 15. The independent commission is tasked to assess “assumptions, strategy, findings, and risks” in the report on the QDR; to conduct an independent review of alternative force structures; and to compare the cost of alternative forces with the cost of the defense program recommended by the QDR.11 The statute specifically directs the independent panel to “include analyses of the trends, asymmetries, and concepts of operations that characterize the military balance with potential adversaries, focusing on the strategic approaches of possible opposing forces.” 10 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Quadrennial Defense Review: 2010 Report Addressed Many but Not All Required Items, GAO Report GAO-10-575R, April 30, 2010, online at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10575r.pdf. 11 The appointment of an independent panel following each QDR was required by the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 109-364. The FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 111-84, revised the composition and tasks of the independent panel following the 2009-2010 QDR to include congressionally appointed members and to address additional matters. These changes apply to the 2009-2010 QDR only. Congressional Research Service 8 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and National Defense Strategy Reports White House National Security Strategy Report The QDR statute stipulates that “each quadrennial defense review shall be conducted so as—(1) to delineate a national defense strategy consistent with the most recent National Security Strategy prescribed by the President pursuant to section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a).” The requirement for the President to issue a National Security Strategy report was established by the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, P.L. 99-433.12 The statute requires the White House to issue a report within 150 days of the beginning of a new Administration and annually thereafter. In practice, except for the first National Security Strategy report, which was published in 1987, no Administration has met the deadline for issuing an initial report, and the requirement for annual reports has not always been followed. From 1987 to 2000, the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton Administrations submitted reports in each year except 1989 and 1992. During the George W. Bush Administration, the White House produced two national security strategy statements, one in September 2002 and a second in March 2006.13 The Obama Administration has not yet completed its initial report, though preparation of the National Security Strategy was carried out in parallel with the QDR, and a report is expected to be released soon. National Military Strategy Report Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, prepared reports on the National Military Strategy of the United States in 1995 and again in 1997, though there was no legislative requirement for it.14 Subsequently, the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act established a permanent requirement for the Chairman of Joint Chiefs to prepare a biennial report, due on February 15 of each even-numbered year, “containing the results of a comprehensive examination of the national military strategy.”15 The report is required to delineate a national military strategy consistent with the most recent National Security Strategy and Quadrennial Defense Review, and to include a description of the strategic environment; regional threats; threats posed by terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and asymmetric challenges; U.S. military 12 For the full text of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, see http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2& ved=0CA8QFjAB&url= https%3A%2F%2Facquisition.navy.mil%2Fcontent%2Fdownload%2F5326%2F24165%2Ffile%2Fpubl%252099433%2520Goldwater-Nichols01Oct1986.pdf&ei=1z-eS5LEMIP78AbA-fS7Cg&usg= AFQjCNF6rXMFZkKAarDxB8_71wLpNNZT3Q&sig2=V0kToaR1PiIjsKBojxoDYQ. 13 The White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002 online at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/nss.pdf; and The White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, March 16, 2006, online at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/ nss/2006/nss2006.pdf. 14 General John M. Shalikashvili, National Military Strategy: A Strategy of Flexible and Selective Engagement, Department of Defense, February 1995, online at http://www.fas.org/man/docs/nms_feb95.htm; General John M. Shalikashvili, National Military Strategy, 1997: Shape, Respond, Prepare Now—A Military Strategy for a New Era, Department of Defense, 1997, online at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nms/. 15 FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 108-136, November 24, 2003, Section 903. The requirement is codified as Subsection 153(d) of Title 10 U.S. Code. Section 153 delineates the responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Congressional Research Service 9 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning objectives; strategy that contributes to meeting the objectives; an assessment of the adequacy of forces to successfully execute the strategy; and an assessment of allied contributions. As part of the review, the Chairman is also required to assess the risks in executing the strategy, and to report the assessment, through the Secretary of Defense, to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. The first subsequent report, dated 2004, was publicly released in March 2005, along with a National Defense Strategy report prepared by the Secretary of Defense.16 National Defense Strategy Required as Part of the QDR A statement of U.S. national defense strategy is not required as a separate document. The only statutory requirement is the mandate that the QDR “delineate a national defense strategy” and that the report on the QDR include “a comprehensive discussion of the national defense strategy of the United States.” The first two QDR reports contained statements of defense strategy. In 2005, however, the Defense Department released a separate National Defense Strategy document, which served as a basis for the 2006 QDR.17 DOD has since continued the practice, releasing a revised National Security Strategy statement in June 2008 in advance of the 2009 review process that concluded with the 2010 QDR report. Though it was prepared during the Bush Administration, the 2008 National Defense Strategy (NDS) articulated themes that were reflected in the strategic priorities of the 2009-2010 QDR, though with some significant changes in emphasis. DOD officials have said that the absence of a new National Security Strategy statement was not a significant constraint in preparing the 2010 QDR, in part because the reappointment of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense provided continuity in defense planning and in part because the White House, through the National Security Staff, was consulted at every stage of the review process. In the absence of a new National Security Strategy document, guidance in carrying out the QDR was drawn from DOD’s National Defense Strategy, which was published in June 2008.18 The extent to which the 2010 QDR breaks new ground in defining strategic objectives and in identifying critical missions is discussed later in this report. This report also discusses at some length whether future QDRs might benefit from a broader discussion of global security policy as a means of putting defense policy into a more complete context. One question is whether the National Security Strategy, though cited in law as a foundation for the QDR, is timely enough, or detailed enough as a statement of policy to provide a full perspective on the role of military power as an element of national security policy. 16 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Richard B. Myers, The National Military Strategy of the United States of America: A Strategy for Today, A Vision for Tomorrow, 2004, Department of Defense, March, 2005, online at http://www.defense.gov/news/Mar2005/d20050318nms.pdf. For an announcement of the release, see Department of Defense News Release, “Department of Defense Releases the National Defense and the National Military Strategies,” March 18, 2005, online at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=8318. 17 For the 2005 document, see U.S. Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy, March 2005, online at http://www.defense.gov/news/mar2005/d20050318nds1.pdf. 18 U.S. Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy, June 2008, online at http://www.defense.gov/news/ 2008%20National%20Defense%20Strategy.pdf. Congressional Research Service 10 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning Nuclear Posture, Missile Defense Policy, and Space Posture Reports In addition to the national security strategy report and to the four reports that are directly associated with the QDR, separate statutes require the Defense Department and other agencies to prepare three additional reports addressing specific aspects of U.S. defense and security policy in more depth, including— • A Nuclear Posture Review, which is required to discuss the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. military strategy, the number and composition of nuclear delivery systems required to implement U.S. strategy, and the nuclear weapons production capabilities and warhead stockpiles needed to support U.S. policy. The report was required to be delivered concurrently with the report on the QDR, was then delayed until March 1, and was finally released on April 6, 2010.19 • A Ballistic Missile Defense Review, which is mandated to assess missile defense strategy and objectives, missile threats, the process for determining missile defense requirements, and standards for assessing the military utility, operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of U.S. missile defense systems. A report on the review was required by January 31, 2010, and was released along with the QDR report on February 1.20 • A Space Posture Review, which is required, first, to define requirements and objectives for space situational awareness, space control, space superiority, force enhancement, space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and the integration of space- and ground-based equipment; second, to describe planned acquisition programs related to these objectives; third, address future systems required to meet requirements; and, fourth, to assess the effect of the space policy on proliferation of weapons capable of targeting objects in space or objects on Earth from space. The report was due by December 1, 2009, but has been delayed, and officials now expect to complete it in the fall of 2010.21 While DOD addresses the results of these studies in separate reports, DOD carried out its work on them in parallel with work on the QDR, and officials say that work on each is reflected in the results of the QDR and that the QDR, in turn, informed each of them. The fact that the Nuclear Posture Review and the Space Posture Review were delayed is reflected in the QDR as well. The QDR report, for example, discusses the Administration’s intent to consult with allies about “tailored, regional deterrence architectures” combining forward presence, conventional military capabilities, missile defense, and a “continued commitment to extend our nuclear deterrent.” The QDR report asserts that this tailored deterrence will “make possible a reduced role 19 Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 6, 2010; available online at http://www.defense.gov/ npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review was required by Section 1070 of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 110-181, January 28, 2008. Previous NPRs were conducted in 1994 and 2002. 20 The BMD Review was required by Section 234 of the FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 110-417, October 14, 2008. The BMD report was released along with the report on the QDR on February 1, 2010. Links to the report on the review and associated material are available online at http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/. The report on the review, U.S. Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, February 2010, is online at http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/BMDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200630_for%20web.pdf. 21 The space posture review is required by Section 913 of the FY2009 Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 110-417, October 14, 2008. Congressional Research Service 11 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning for nuclear weapons in our national security strategy.”22 But it defers any detailed discussion of the rationale for that conclusion to the Ballistic Missile Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review. 22 2010 QDR Report, p. 14. Congressional Research Service 12 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning III. Overview of the 2010 QDR The 2010 QDR report begins with a forceful assertion that has become almost a mantra in statements by Secretary of Defense Gates and other senior defense officials for the past couple of years. “[W]e must recognize” says the opening of the Executive Summary, “that first and foremost, the United States is a nation at war.” That precept is echoed throughout the report and it is reflected in the two central themes of the review. First, the report says, the Defense Department must rebalance its priorities to put more emphasis on support for forces engaged in current operations; to institutionalize capabilities for counterinsurgency, stability, and counter-terrorism operations; and to counter emerging challenges to U.S. military capabilities. Second, the report asserts, the Defense Department must reform its ways of doing business to be more agile, innovative, and streamlined in adapting to the diverse challenges of a rapidly changing international security environment and in using limited resources efficiently. Rebalancing Defense Priorities On the theme of rebalancing priorities, the report discusses the need to allocate resources and manage risk among four strategic objectives: • Prevail in today’s wars; • Prevent and deter conflict; • Prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies; and • Preserve and enhance the all-volunteer force. Ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, says the report, will continue to determine the size and composition of major elements of the force for several years. Preventing and deterring conflict, and thus avoiding the need to resort to arms, the report says, is a hallmark of U.S. policy, which requires the integrated use of diplomacy and development assistance as well as the maintenance of military forces sufficient to discourage challenges to peace and security. If threats materialize, the report says, U.S. forces must be able prevail in a varying types of operations in multiple theaters in overlapping time frames and against efforts to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities. Through war games and simulations designed to stress planned capabilities, the QDR tested the ability of U.S. forces to succeed in a wide range of operations occurring nearly simultaneously. The emphasis on sustaining the all volunteer force by managing overseas rotations, by ensuring adequate health care, and by expanding family support, is identified in the QDR report as a critical objective in itself. The most extensive discussion in the QDR report is devoted to measures to improve capabilities in six joint mission areas that officials conclude should be the focus of particular attention: • Defend the United States and support civil authorities at home; • Conduct counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorism operations; • Build the capacity of partner states; Congressional Research Service 13 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning • Deter and defeat aggression in anti-access environments; • Prevent the proliferation of and counter weapons of mass destruction; and • Operate effectively in cyberspace. The identification of such a diverse array of key missions reflects the breadth of challenges that the Defense Department now recognizes as a basis for planning. These mission areas have evolved from similar lists in the 2006 QDR and 2008 National Defense Strategy, but with some key differences that are discussed later in this report. Reforming Defense Business Practices That Are “Relics of the Cold War” On a par with the theme of rebalancing investments, the QDR report discusses the need to reform DOD’s ways of doing business. The report identifies six specific areas of reform: • Reforming Security Assistance • Reforming How We Buy • Institutionalizing Rapid Acquisition Capability • Strengthening the Industrial Base • Reforming the U.S. Export Control System • Crafting a Strategic Approach to Climate and Energy The report’s discussion of reform echoes to a considerable degree its treatment of the need for forces to be flexible enough to adapt to a new and rapidly evolving variety of threats. Similarly, the report says, DOD’s business practices need to be redesigned to adapt more quickly and flexibly to rapidly changing requirements. Security Assistance: In providing security assistance to foreign partners, the report says, current processes reflect a Cold War-era framework in which the goal was to assist allies in modernizing their long-term military capabilities in a manner that would reinforce cooperative planning and encourage the adoption of common technologies. Officials complain that a Cold War-era programming and budgeting cycle, that takes two years or more to reallocate resources, is not responsive enough to keep up with the pace of global change or flexible enough to provide tools needed to give timely support to allies in combating highly adaptive, immediate threats.23 The National Security Council has initiated a comprehensive review of security assistance, the report says, and the Administration expects to propose significant statutory revisions when the review is completed. In the mean time, the Defense Department is streamlining its internal processes for managing foreign military sales, and DOD is working with the State Department and the Agency for International Development (USAID) to integrate defense and development assistance and to 23 Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy, Interview on the Charlie Rose Show, PBS, March 27, 2010: “The mechanisms we use to actually build that capacity are all from the Cold War. They’re slow. They’re bureaucratic. They’re unresponsive. They’re meant to deliver large numbers of big platforms over many years, not near term equipment that somebody who’s under attack needs tomorrow.” Congressional Research Service 14 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning use available flexible funding, such as global “train and equip” authorities granted to the Defense Department, to support critical initiatives. Acquisition: Similarly, the weapons acquisition process, the report says, still largely follows Cold War-era practices in which the goal was to maintain an advantage over a technologically advanced enemy that was always assumed to be pursuing new capabilities and that could be overmatched only by remaining at the cutting edge of new technology. New challenges require, instead, a more selective process of establishing requirements based on a more realistic assessment of evolving threats. Moreover, the report says, the acquisition process should ensure that new technology is mature enough to warrant proceeding ahead at each milestone of weapons development. And the process also should be able to respond much more rapidly to new requirements evolving from unexpected developments. Rapid Acquisition: As to rapid acquisition, the Defense Department, the report says, has been able to acquire new capabilities required in current conflicts quickly—counter IED systems, for example, and mine resistant, ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles—only by by-passing the regular budgeting and procurement process. Now, says the report, DOD needs to institutionalize the flexibility to identify new threats, establish requirements for systems able to respond, allocate resources to the new programs, and carry out procurement and fielding of new capabilities rapidly and efficiently. Export Controls: The U.S. system of export controls, the report says, is also “a relic of the Cold War.” It was designed largely to limit Soviet access to advanced technologies with potential military applications at a time when such technologies could be segregated, so some degree at least, from commercial developments. Now, however, the system has become overly complicated, and it “impedes cooperation, technology sharing, and interoperability with allies and partners.” It has become, says the report, “an impediment to U.S. security.” The report says that the Administration will, at some point, propose not just incremental changes in laws and regulations governing high technology exports, but a comprehensive reform of the system with a view toward making necessary limits enforceable without hindering U.S. international competitiveness and cooperation with allies. Industrial Base: This is the first QDR to discuss at any great length measures to strengthen the defense industrial base. Notably, the QDR discussion focuses more on second and third tier producers than on large prime contractors. The discussion also identifies a need to ensure that critical suppliers, including small technologically innovative start-up firms and the large traditional systems integrators, can get access to adequate sources of capital from financial markets. Climate Change and Energy Policy: Finally, the report discusses a strategic approach to climate change and energy policy as part of a defense reform agenda, though both matters have implications that go well beyond means of improving DOD business practices. A discussion of the impact of climate change on the Defense Department is required by law. The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision requiring the next White House National Security Strategy report and the next National Defense Strategy, to include a comprehensive discussion of the effects of climate change on DOD facilities, capabilities, and Congressional Research Service 15 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning missions.24 The 2010 QDR report includes an extensive discussion of climate change that appears to be intended to meet the requirements of the statute.25 Intelligence assessments, the report says, conclude that climate change could deepen global poverty, exacerbate water and other resource shortages, further weaken already fragile governments, accelerate the spread of disease, and create more demands for humanitarian and disaster assistance. Climate change, the report says, may multiply the burdens on already fragile societies because regions of the globe likely to be most adversely affected overlap to a large degree with regions that are already resource poor and suffer from poor governance. These likely effects, the report concludes, do not require any fundamental changes in defense planning but, rather, reemphasize the need to be able to respond flexibly to a wide variety of unplanned and to some degree unexpected developments. The report also says that climate change may also affect DOD bases and other facilities, particularly because rising sea levels could threaten a number of major installations. Energy security is a high priority for the Defense Department, says the report, in part because energy, particularly fuel, is a significant and growing budget cost and, in part because energy supply is a potential source of vulnerability to asymmetric attack. The report says that the Defense Department will focus more effort on improved energy efficiency as a means of increasing the range and endurance of forces in the field and of reducing the need to divert combat forces to protect energy supply lines. The report also points to measures designed to improve the security of energy supplies for key facilities and missions, and the report identifies several efforts to diversify the sources of energy available for military forces. “Strengthening Relationships” with Regional and IntraGovernmental Partners An extensive section of the QDR report is devoted to a discussion of U.S. security relationships with foreign nations and of Defense Department cooperation with other U.S. agencies. It includes a region-by-region assessment of shared security interests with other nations, a somewhat more specific region-by-region overview of the U.S. military presence abroad, and a brief discussion of cooperation with other U.S. agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Agency for International Development. The region by region discussion of shared security interests mainly reaffirms the importance of existing alliances and also includes brief, generally positive statements about relations with Russia and China. For the most part, the discussion is quite cursory, and it does not address problematic matters, such as the burden-sharing issues that Secretary Gates and others have raised in NATO or negotiations over bases in Japan. With regard to Russia, the report cites shared U.S. and Russian interests in countering proliferation and terrorism, mentions arms control negotiations, and promises continued 24 See Section 951 of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 110-181, January 28, 2008. As discussed earlier in this report, a statement of national defense strategy is required by the QDR statute as part of each QDR report. In 2005 and 2008, however, the Defense Department published national defense strategy reports in advance of the 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 QDRs. Since the law require a national defense strategy statement as part of each QDR report, the requirement that the next national defense strategy include a discussion of climate change should probably be seen as requiring that it be addressed in the 2009-2010 QDR. 25 Congressional Research Service 16 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning discussions on missile defense and about the Arctic. The report also affirms, though without providing any context, that the United States “will continue to engage with Russia’s neighbors as fully independent and sovereign states,” a clear, though not overtly confrontational statement to the effect that Russia should not expect U.S. acquiescence to a separate sphere of influence in what Russians often call the “near abroad.” With regard to China, the report notes that China’s rising global influence is “one of the most consequential aspects of the evolving strategic landscape;” says that China’s growing military capabilities “could enable it to play a more substantial and constructive role in international affairs;” and affirms, in language similar to that in many official U.S. statements for many years, that “The United States welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater global role.” The statement also criticizes China for a lack of transparency about its military development plans and decision-making processes and concludes that this raises “legitimate questions” about China’s future conduct and intentions. It concludes that relations with China must be “multidimensional,” which is as close as the discussion comes to treating China’s growing military capabilities as a potential threat. The report does not mention Taiwan. In general, the QDR report does not identify particular nations as posing threats to security, nor does it specifically refer to “Islamic” terrorism. The Administration’s approach, rather, is to discuss potential threats in abstract terms, choosing not to say anything—even in a report on defense planning—that could alienate potential support or undermine efforts to ameliorate conflicts and build cooperation. In similarly general terms, the QDR report also says that defense plans must be coordinated with measures to build multilateral regional security systems. “The presence of U.S. military forces overseas,” says the report, “can be a powerful catalyst for promoting multilateral approaches and regional security architectures that serve both U.S. and partner states’ interests.” Similarly, within the U.S. government, the report says, defense planning must be part of a collaborative policymaking process. “Global defense posture,” the report says, “is a key means of communicating U.S. foreign and security policy and thus must be closely coordinated throughout the national security community.” In discussing collaboration with other U.S. agencies, the report reaffirms DOD support for greater investments in the capabilities of the State Department and U.S. AID, saying that civilian agencies need to develop the ability to operate alongside military forces in operations abroad. The report agrees that the Defense Department is not the most appropriate agency to build the civilian institutional governance capabilities of foreign partner nations, but also says that it will take more time for U.S. civilian agencies to develop their capacity to take the lead. Similarly, the report says, the Defense Department should generally play a supporting role in responding to domestic security challenges, with the Department of Homeland Security in the lead. Risk Management Framework The QDR statute requires the report on the QDR to identify the budget plan required to “provide sufficient resources to execute successfully the full range of missions” called for in the defense strategy at a “low-to-moderate level of risk.” It also directs the Secretary of Defense to assess risk in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and it and requires that “That assessment shall define the nature and magnitude of the political, strategic, and military risks associated with executing the missions called for under the national defense strategy.” The statute further requires that the QDR report to Congress include “a comprehensive discussion of the national defense Congressional Research Service 17 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning strategy of the United States, the strategic planning guidance, and the force structure best suited to implement that strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk.” And it requires that, “Upon the completion of each review …, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall prepare and submit to the Secretary of Defense the Chairman’s assessment of the review, including the Chairman’s assessment of risk and a description of the capabilities needed to address such risk.” Risk Assessment in Recent Defense Planning The concept of assessing and balancing risks has a long pedigree in defense planning. By its very nature, from the most basic tactical level to the realm of global grand strategy, military planning involves assessing risks. To the extent that resources are not sufficient to provide certainty of success, military plans and operations involve accepting varying degrees risk and deciding whether one course of action is, in view of what is at stake, worth the likely cost in blood and treasure, or is too risky to undertake, or whether another course of action would entail more or less risk. In setting overall priorities, the Defense Department has long attributed varying degrees of risk to its global plans. For many years until the mid-1980s, the Joint Chiefs appended to each year’s defense program an assessment of what was called the “minimum risk force,” meaning a force large enough and well-equipped enough to be able to accomplish all the mission objectives identified in current defense plans with a minimum risk of failure. Even in the mid-1980s, however, after defense spending had climbed by about 40% above inflation over a five year period, the minimum risk force remained about half again as large, and easily half again as expensive, as the force that was being planned. At that point, the Defense Department stopped assessing the minimum risk force. Under current law, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is required to submit to the Secretary of Defense an annual assessment of “the nature and magnitude of the strategic and military risks associated with executing the missions called for under the current National Military Strategy.” The Secretary is then required to forward the assessment, with or without comments, to the congressional defense committees.26 Conclusions of the report, known as the “Chairman’s Risk Assessment,” are often reflected in subsequent congressional testimony by the JCS Chairman and other senior officers, and the report is often reflected in comments by Members of Congress.27 The Chairman’s Risk Assessment generally focuses on short-term military readiness. In recent years, a recurring theme, reportedly, has been that ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan entail an increased risk in responding to major regional conflicts. Increased risk does not mean that U.S. efforts would fail, but that operations would take longer and casualties would likely be higher than otherwise would be the case.28 26 The “Chairman’s Risk Assessment” is required by Section 153(b) of Title 10 U.S. Code. The requirement was established by Section 1033 of the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 106-65, October 5, 1999. 27 See, for example, Jason Sherman, “Mullen Sees ‘Elevated Risk’ in Executing National Military Strategy,” Inside the Navy, September 29, 2009. 28 For a recent discussion, see Department of Defense New Transcript, “Media Availability with Secretary Gates en route to Kansas City, Missouri,” May 7, 2010, online at http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx? transcriptid=4621: “… one of the things I go back and forth with on the services is their assessment of risk. The risk isn't in terms of whether you can accomplish the mission; the risk is in terms of whether you can accomplish the mission in the timeline that the plan calls for. So the risk is to the plan, not getting the job done. And so—but when somebody says there is significant risk, or high risk, if we don't buy all of these or all of those, what that means is there is risk in achieving the planned mission within the time frame and at a cost that's been laid out.” Congressional Research Service 18 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning Risk Assessment in the 2010 QDR To the extent that forces invariably fall short of a the level needed to keep risks to a minimum, DOD planners have to determine where to accept relatively greater risk of failure and where to invest more to reduce unacceptable risks. The 2010 QDR report includes a quite extensive discussion of risk management, following a framework that was first articulated in the 2001 QDR. The report identifies matters that may pose relatively high risks to the Defense Department’s ability to accomplish its objectives in four categories: • Operational risk, which assesses the ability of the force to execute current, planned, and contingency operations successfully with acceptable human and material costs; • Force management risk, which examines DOD’s ability to recruit, retain, train, and equip the All-Volunteer Force in the near term, midterm, and long term; • Institutional risk, which measures the capacity of DOD management and business practices to plan for, enable, and support the execution of key missions; and • Future challenges risk, which judges the capacity to execute future missions successfully, and to hedge against shocks, with particular attention given to the ability to field superior capabilities and to deter or defeat emerging threats in the mid- and long-term. In each of these areas, the report highlights matters that could worsen risks, and it identifies improvements in DOD capabilities and processes that, it says, may be needed to mitigate shortcomings. Current operational risk: To mange current operational risks, the report says, the Department must provide more “enabling” capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, more vertical lift aircraft, better electronic warfare capabilities, and better cultural and language skills. Limitations on support from allies, the report says, may impose higher risks on U.S. forces, and the United States must build the capacity of indigenous partner states to manage their own security. The report also cites cyberspace is an area of growing danger. Notably, the report does not discuss the extent to which current large-scale operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may limit the availability of forces for other missions and, accordingly, increase risks if a new conflict should arise. Force management risk: To contain force management risk, the report says, DOD must manage the strain on forces imposed by ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the quality of DOD health care is good at present, increasing costs pose a risk in the future. The extensive use of reserve forces as part of the operational rotation base in current operations requires a thorough reexamination of the role of reserve components. Institutional risk: Institutional risk includes the prospect that the acquisition process may be unable to deliver capabilities when needed and at acceptable cost. The acquisition process appears to be especially poorly suited to keep pace with rapid advances in information technology. And the current industrial base, the report says, is focused too narrowly on 20th century weapons platforms and may be ill-suited to meet future requirements for competition, innovation, and the rapid acquisition of new capabilities. Congressional Research Service 19 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning Future challenges risk: To address the risk associated with future challenges, the report says, the Department must follow through on improvements in capabilities to accomplish key missions identified throughout the QDR report. In addition, the report says, the difficulty of anticipating future threats poses a risk that forces may be unprepared for suddenly appearing new dangers, so the Defense Department must improve the analytic capabilities of the intelligence community and hedge against uncertainty in its force planning. The report notes that developments in science and technology may also make it more difficult for the United States to maintain a competitive advantage across the whole spectrum of defense capabilities. To mitigate such risks, the report says, requires a planning process that addresses not only traditional defense capabilities, but also areas of technology not unique to defense requirements but that may have major effects on security. Along with this brief, though quite blunt analysis of the four categories of risk identified in the 2001 QDR, the 2010 report adds a discussion of “strategic, military, and political” risk, which the QDR statute specifically mentions. As the report puts it, strategic risk constitutes the Department’s ability to execute the defense priority objectives in the near term, midterm, and long term in support of national security. Military risk encompasses the ability of U.S. forces to adequately resource, execute, and sustain military operations in the near- to midterm, and the mid- to longer term. In the international context, political risk derives from the perceived legitimacy of our actions and the resulting impact on the ability and will of allies and partners to support shared goals. In the domestic context, political risk relates to public support of national strategic priorities and the associated resource requirements in the near term, midterm, and long term. The risk management discussion closes by briefly noting that the QDR addressed these matters and concludes that “the Department is positioned to successfully balance overarching strategic, military, and political risk between the near to midterm and the mid- to long term, as well as across the full range of military missions required to protect and advance national interests.” Congressional Research Service 20 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning IV. What’s New in the 2010 QDR The 2010 QDR does not represent a stark break with earlier defense strategy and plans, and it reflects, in particular, a considerable degree of continuity with the 2005 National Defense Strategy, the 2006 QDR, and the 2008 National Defense Strategy, all prepared after the attacks of 9/11 and the beginning of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 2010 QDR is new in some important ways, however. Most apparently, it reflects Secretary Gates’ insistence that prevailing in current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the first priority in military planning. It also puts an emphasis on support for military personnel and their families, on the premise that the quality of the AllVolunteer Force is an essential pillar of long-term military strength. Deemphasizing Two Major Regional Conflicts in Force Planning To the extent the new QDR differs from its predecessors in other ways, the changes mainly reflect the continuing evolution of official strategic thinking away from a focus on smaller, regional versions of a conventional, armor-heavy, high-tech, force-on-force conflict on the model of Cold War conceptions of a war in Europe, and toward planning for a much more varied array of challenges. The QDR does not abandon the requirement, originally laid out in the 1993 BottomUp Review, that forces should be able to defeat aggression by conventionally-armed regional powers in two geographically separate theaters occurring nearly simultaneously. The 2010 QDR, however, no longer treats the two-war requirement as the fundamental factor in determining the composition of the force. Rather, as the report explains, U.S. forces today and in the years to come can be plausibly challenged by a range of threats that extend far beyond the familiar “major regional conflicts” that have dominated U.S. planning since the end of the Cold War. We have learned through painful experience that the wars we fight are seldom the wars that we would have planned…. Because America’s adversaries have been adopting a wide range of strategies and capabilities that can be brought to bear against the United States and its forces, allies, and interests, it is no longer appropriate to speak of “major regional conflicts” as the sole or even the primary template for sizing, shaping, and evaluating U.S. forces. Rather, U.S. forces must be prepared to conduct a wide variety of missions under a range of different circumstances. Secretary Gates explained the decision to deemphasize the two war requirement as a matter of capturing the real-world complexity of current defense planning. As he put it, [O]ne of the steers that I gave to the folks working on the QDR was that I felt that, for some time, the two-major-theater-of-operations construct was out of date, that we are already in two major operations. What if we should have a homeland disaster? What if we have another encounter? What if we have a Haiti? The world is very much more complex than when the two-MCO concept came together in the early 1990s. And what I wanted to convey was a much more complex environment, in which you may have to do not just two major conflicts, but a broad range of other things, as well, or, perhaps in the future, one of those conflicts and then a number of other contingencies. So I just felt that construct was too confining and did not represent the real world that our country and our military forces are going to face in the future.29 29 Department of Defense Transcript, “DoD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon,” (continued...) Congressional Research Service 21 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning To be sure, the two major war requirement never reflected an assumption that conventional regional conflicts were the only threats for which forces needed to be prepared. Rather, the premise of the 1993 Bottom-Up Review was that forces sufficiently strong and deployable enough to prevail in two nearly simultaneous wars would also generally be capable of responding to what were regarded as less demanding challenges. Moreover, the 1997 and 2001 QDRs put considerable emphasis on identifying and correcting shortfalls in capabilities to sustain other kinds of operations. The 1997 QDR articulated a strategy that was quite broad. It recognized that military forces were normally deployed to “shape” the international security environment, and it said that forces should also be able to “respond” quickly in a wide range of missions, including multiple smaller scale contingency operations, such as peacekeeping in the Balkans. The third element of the strategy was to “prepare” for future, more demanding conflicts that could reflect revolutionary changes in military technology. The two war requirement remained, the QDR report said, the “sine qua non” of defense planning.30 But the review also specifically recognized the strain that long-duration smaller operations could impose on the force, and it identified a number of “low density, high demand” capabilities as a focus of increased investment. For its part, the 2001 QDR announced a new “force sizing construct” that went considerably beyond the two-war requirement. The new construct, said the QDR report, explicitly calls for the force to be sized for defending the homeland, forward deterrence, warfighting missions, and the conduct of smaller-scale contingency operations. As a result, the construct should better account for force requirements driven by forward presence and rotational issues. It will also better address requirements for low-density/high-demand (LD/HD) assets, enabling forces (e.g., transport aircraft), and active and reserve force-mix issues. The shorthand for the new construct was the “1-4-2-1 strategy”: 1, defend the homeland; 4, deter conflicts with forward deployed forces in four major regions; 2, halt aggression in two regions simultaneously; and the other 1, decisively defeat an adversary in one of those theaters. The 2010 QDR pointedly does not endorse any easily summarized set of metrics for determining the size and makeup of the force. Rather, the review tested the ability of planned forces to respond flexibly and effectively when confronted with “several scenario combinations” that were intended to stress capabilities. Examples of scenarios with overlapping operations include, • A major stabilization operation, deterring and defeating a highly capable regional aggressor, and extending support to civil authorities in response to a catastrophic event in the United States. • Deterring and defeating two regional aggressors while maintaining a heightened alert posture for U.S. forces in and around the United States. (...continued) February 1, 2010, online at http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4549. 30 “A force sized and equipped for deterring and defeating aggression in more than one theater,” said the report, “... is the sine qua non of a superpower and is essential to the credibility of our overall national security strategy.” U.S. Department of Defense, Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, May, 1997, p. 12. An on-line version of the 1997 report, divided into sections without pagination, is available at http://www.fas.org/man/docs/qdr/. Congressional Research Service 22 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning • A major stabilization operation, a long-duration deterrence operation in a separate theater, a medium-sized counterinsurgency mission, and extended support to civil authorities in the United States. Planning for two major wars remains as an element of the new process, but the Defense Department now sees other requirements as equally important in shaping the force. Capabilities for Key Missions Much of what is new in the 2010 QDR is in recommendations for improvements in six joint mission areas: • Defend the United States and support civil authorities at home; • Succeed in counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorism operations • Build the capacity of partner states; • Deter and defeat aggression in anti-access environments; • Prevent proliferation and counter weapons of mass destruction; and • Operate effectively in cyberspace. By comparison, the 2006 QDR focused its recommendations for improvements on four priority areas: • Defeating terrorist networks. • Defending the homeland in depth. • Shaping the choices of countries at strategic crossroads. • Preventing hostile states and non-state actors from acquiring or using WMD. Changes that most stand out include, in the 2010 QDR, a new focus on defeating efforts by potential foes to prevent U.S. access to key regions, a new focus on cyberspace, and a new focus on building the capacity of partner states. The 2006 QDR discussion of shaping the choices of “countries at a strategic crossroads” is dropped. The 2006 QDR focus on defeating terrorist networks is replaced by a somewhat broader mandate to institutionalize capabilities for counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorism operations. Also, the 2010 QDR report does not describe such missions as elements of a “long war” against terrorism, or against violent Islamic extremism. And there are also some changes in the ways in which homeland defense and measures to counter weapons of mass destruction are discussed. Defeating Anti-Access Strategies For those who have followed debates over defense strategy since the end of the Cold War, the 2010 QDR discussion of measures to defeat anti-access threats is one of the most significant new themes in the review. The current U.S. ability to project substantial military power far around the globe is unique. Few other nations can deploy any significant amount of force at a distance at all, no others can project enough power to defeat a major regional power except over fairly short land routes, and none can independently sustain the deployment of large numbers of forces to noncontiguous regions over a long period of time. The U.S. ability to project power is the bedrock of Congressional Research Service 23 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning U.S. alliances in Europe and Asia, and it is the key to U.S. efforts to bolster stability in other important regions as well. Such capabilities are also expensive. The cost of power projection capabilities is the main reason why U.S. defense spending dramatically exceeds that of any other nation. Following the end of the Cold War, regional conflicts became a focus of U.S. strategic planning, and a number of serious and well-regarded American strategists warned that the U.S. ability to project power to key areas—particularly East Asia and the Persian Gulf—could be put at risk by a determined regional power. Andrew Marshall, the Director of Net Assessment in the Defense Department, and retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Krepinevich, an alumnus of the Net Assessment Office who has directed the Center Strategic and Budgetary Assessments since the early 1990s, have long argued that “anti-access” or “area denial” strategies could pose a major asymmetric challenge to the critical U.S. ability to operate effectively in distant regions.31 Their argument is that nations such as China or Iran could use a variety of simple and sophisticated technologies to target U.S. forward bases in nearby nations and naval forces operating relatively close to shore. Overseas ground bases may be increasingly vulnerable to ballistic missile, cruise missile, and bomber attacks. Naval forces, particularly aircraft carriers and other service combatants, may be increasingly vulnerable to anti-ship cruise missiles; modern, quiet diesel electric submarines; smart mines that can be activated on command and maneuvered into place; small, fast boats laden with explosives; or, at the high end of the technological spectrum, ballistic missiles with maneuverable warheads that can be redirected in flight to strike moving ships. Anti-access threats have been highlighted more and more frequently in recent years. In 1997, the National Defense Panel, which was appointed to review the first QDR, and on which Krepinevich served, identified anti-access strategies as one of a number of asymmetric challenges which, the panel recommended, should be accorded much more attention in defense planning.32 During the 2006 review process, a QDR “red team” headed by Marshall and assigned to prepare an independent assessment, also addressed anti-access threats and reportedly recommended a cut of as much as one-third in short-range fighter aircraft.33 In 2002, in a major war game, called “Millennium Challenge,” that modeled a conflict in the Persian Gulf, the “Opposing Force” (OPFOR) commander, retired Marine Lieutenant General Paul van Riper, succeeded in doing extensive damage to notional U.S. naval forces in the region by launching attacks from swarming, explosives-laden small boats and anti-ship cruise missiles. The Office of Naval Intelligence has recently released unclassified reports on Iranian and Chinese naval capabilities that point to considerable investments by each nation in anti-access capabilities.34 31 For a discussion of the evolution of the concept, starting in the Office of Net Assessment, see Andrew Krepinevich, Why AirSea Battle?, Washington: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, February 19, 2010, online at http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20100219.Why_AirSea_Battle/ R.20100219.Why_AirSea_Battle.pdf. 32 National Defense Panel, Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century, Report of the National Defense Panel, December, 2007, online at http://www.dtic.mil/ndp/FullDoc2.pdf, pp. 12-13. 33 See Jason Sherman, “QDR Spares Fighter Cuts, but Pentagon Still Considering Tactical Aircraft Consolidation,” InisdeDefense.com, January 31, 2006. 34 Office of Naval Intelligence, The People’s Liberation Army Navy: A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics, August, 2009, online at http://www.nmic.navy.mil/Intelligence_Community/docs/china_army_navy.pdf and Office of Naval Intelligence, Iran’s Naval Forces: From Guerilla Warfare to a Modern Naval Strategy, Fall 2009, online at http://www.nmic.navy.mil/Intelligence_Community/docs/iran_navy_forces.pdf. Congressional Research Service 24 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning The 2010 QDR makes a number of recommendations for improving capabilities to counter antiaccess strategies, including • Develop a joint air-sea battle concept; • Expand future long-range strike capabilities; • Exploit advantages in subsurface operations; • Increase the resiliency of U.S. forward posture and base infrastructure; • Assure access to space and the use of space assets; • Enhance the robustness of key ISR capabilities; • Defeat enemy sensors and engagement systems; and • Enhance the presence and responsiveness of U.S. forces abroad. These initiatives may, over time, entail some substantial new investments. Long-range strike forces might include a new manned or unmanned bomber, perhaps armed with long-range cruise missiles for stand-off attacks. It is likely to be a major new investment in future years. To exploit advantages in subsurface operations, the QDR report says, “The Navy is increasing funding for the development of an unmanned underwater vehicle that will be capable of a wide range of tasks.” How significant a new program this might become is as yet unclear. Measures to defeat enemy sensors and engagement systems include development of offensive “electronic attack” capabilities, which remain highly classified. The Defense Department has not specifically discussed what is being considered in developing a new air-sea battle concept, but it also might involve new investments in, for example, such systems as carrier-based, long-range, unmanned strike systems. Conversely, it is conceivable that studies of the concept could be used as a rationale for limiting Air Force and Navy spending on the grounds that better optimized joint planning will reduce some requirements. Missile defense may be a major and expensive part of measures to protect forward deployed forces. All told, the anti-access measures addressed in the 2010 QDR appear likely to entail some major new initiatives. Counterinsurgency, Stability, and Counterterrorism Operations The 2010 QDR’s treatment of counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorism operations (COIN, Stability, CT) reflects a number of significant shifts in emphasis compared to earlier strategic assessments. The 2010 QDR report does not refer to the “Global War on Terrorism,” which was the last Administration’s term. Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are now referred to rather drily as “Overseas Contingency Operations” rather than parts of a single global war. The 2010 QDR report also does not refer to the “long war,” also a staple of the prior Administration’s analysis, and though it frequently identifies “extremism” or “violent extremism” as a source of instability, it does not specifically mention “violent Islamic extremism” as a threat. It is particularly notable that the 2010 QDR report does not refer to “irregular warfare,” which was discussed in the 2005 National Defense Strategy and in later strategy documents as one of four kinds of security challenges facing the United States—the others being “traditional,” Congressional Research Service 25 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning “disruptive,” and “catastrophic” challenges.35 This by now familiar “four challenges” framework for classifying dangers to U.S. security has, at least in this 2010 QDR report, been replaced by a discussion of more specific kinds of missions, with an emphasis on the broad range of operations that U.S. forces might be called upon to carry out. In part these changes appear to reflect Secretary Gates’ judgment that distinctions between irregular warfare and other kinds of challenges do not capture the complexity of a security environment in which “near-peers will use irregular or asymmetric tactics and non-state actors may have weapons of mass destruction or sophisticated missiles.”36 In a January 2009 Foreign Affairs article, Secretary Gates wrote: When thinking about the range of threats, it is common to divide the “high end” from the “low end,” the conventional from the irregular ... In reality ... the categories of warfare are blurring and no longer fit into neat, tidy boxes. One can expect to see more tools and tactics of destruction—from the sophisticated to the simple—being employed simultaneously in 37 hybrid and more complex forms of warfare. The QDR analysis of overlapping scenarios reflects the premise that all four kinds of challenges may have to be confronted simultaneously, and might even be dimensions of a single conflict.38 In addition, the terminology used in the 2010 QDR appears to reflect the outcome of quite extensive efforts by military strategists to develop new doctrine for counterinsurgency, stability, counterterrorism, and related operations. In 2005, the Defense Department issued a formal instruction that defined stability operations as “a core U.S. military mission that the Department of Defense shall be prepared to conduct with proficiency equivalent to combat operations.” In 2006, the Army and Marine Corps jointly published a new counterinsurgency Field Manual that subsequently contributed to revised strategic approaches in Iraq in 2007 and now in Afghanistan. In October 2008, the Army produced a new Field Manual on stability operations.39 Subsequently, 35 The “four challenges” framework was first briefly mentioned publicly in March 2004 in a congressionally mandated report on base closures, entitled, “Report Required by Section 2912 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as Amended through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,” (March 2004), available online at http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/docs/04_0_body032403.pdf. The framework was later discussed in March 2005 in Joint Chiefs of Staff, The National Military Strategy of the United States of America, 2004, (March, 2005), available online at http://www.defense.gov/news/Mar2005/d20050318nms.pdf. The presentation that initially drew some public attention to the concepts was in a briefing for the Department of Defense “Senior Level Review Group,” entitled “A Framework for Strategic Thinking,” (August 2004), not released publicly by the Defense Department and restricted as “For Official Use Only,” but available online at http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/framework.pdf. The briefing was first discussed in Thomas E. Ricks, “Shift from Traditional War Seen at Pentagon,” Washington Post, September 3, 2004, p. 1. 36 See Secretary Gates’ speech at the Air Warfare College on April 15, 2009, cited above. 37 Robert M. Gates, “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age,” Foreign Affairs, January 2009, pp. 28-40. 38 Disruptive threats, in particular, may be elements of an anti-access strategy in an otherwise quite “traditional” regional conflict, or could be reflected in cyber war, in anti-satellite attacks, in sabotage of transportation or communications systems even in the U.S. homeland in the event of almost any violent confrontation. Dangers to the homeland could span the range from disruptive to catastrophic threats. 39 Department of Defense Instruction DODI 3000.05, “Stability Operations,” initially issued in November 2005 and reissued on September 16, 2009, online at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/300005p.pdf; Headquarters, Department of the Army, Counterinsurgency: FM 3-24, December 2006, online at http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/coin/ repository/FM_3-24.pdf; Headquarters, Department of the Army, Stability Operations: FM 3-07, October 2008, online at http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Repository/FM307/FM3-07.pdf. Congressional Research Service 26 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning a December 2008 DOD directive defined irregular warfare in a manner that encompassed counterinsurgency, stability and other activities: IW can include a variety of steady-state and surge DoD activities and operations: counterterrorism; unconventional warfare; foreign internal defense; counterinsurgency; and stability operations that, in the context of IW, involve establishing or re-establishing order in a fragile state.”40 Collectively, the outcome of the Defense Department’s effort to articulate doctrine for each of these kinds of operations is a means of institutionalizing the lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other post-9/11 military activities. By discussing COIN, stability, and CT operations separately, the 2010 QDR appears to be drawing attention to the evolution of DOD doctrinal thinking about these issues. A change that may be far more politically controversial is the Administration’s rejection of the “war on terrorism” terminology. Substantively, it appears to reflect the Administration’s premise that defeating global terrorist groups requires not only military, intelligence, and law enforcement measures to destroy their leadership and infrastructure, but also and perhaps mainly other means of weakening their appeal. As John Brennan, the senior counterterrorism advisor in the National Security Staff commented last year, It needs to be much more than a kinetic effort, an intelligence, law enforcement effort. It has to be much more comprehensive. This is not a 'war on terror.' ... We cannot let the terror prism guide how we're going to interact and be involved in different parts of the world.41 This may be an area in which the QDR could have benefited from a broader discussion of policy. It might have been valuable not only to address counterterrorism policy in general, but also to have discussed in some depth the role of military power in addressing evolving security challenges relative to the role of other instruments of influence. Programmatically, most of the specific initiatives in the QDR to bolster the COIN, stability, CT mission involve an increase in resources to “enhance” current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such measures include increases in helicopters, UAVs, intelligence and analysis capabilities, counter IED technologies, and AC-130 aircraft gunships.42 This is a direct reflection of Secretary Gates’ emphasis on prevailing in current wars. The QDR report also identifies some longer-term initiatives, including the conversion of one heavy Army brigade combat team (BCT) into a Stryker brigade—such brigades use wheeled Stryker armored vehicles for mobility. The report says that “several more BCTs” may be converted “as resources become available and future global demands become clearer.” This is one 40 Department of Defense Directive 3000.07, “Irregular Warfare (IW)”, December 1, 2008, online at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/300007p.pdf. It also defined IW as “A violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population(s). Irregular warfare favors indirect and asymmetric approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capacities, in order to erode an adversary’s power, influence, and will.” This is a refinement of earlier definitions—the 2006 QDR report defined irregular warfare as simply as “conflicts in which enemy combatants are not regular military forces of nation-states.” 41 Quoted in Spencer S. Hsu and Joby Warrick, “Obama's Battle Against Terrorism to Go Beyond Bombs and Bullets,” Washington Post, August 6, 2008, p. 3. 42 “UAVs” refers to unmanned or unpiloted aerial vehicles, particularly used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. IEDs are improvised explosive devices, including roadside, car, and truck bombs. Congressional Research Service 27 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning of a number of areas in which the relatively radical reassessment of the strategic environment in this and previous QDRs may be interpreted as a rationale for more sweeping changes in force structure than any QDR to date has ventured to propose. The report also discusses very generally measures to improve strategic communications, which refers to efforts to gain support for U.S. security goals by appealing to critical foreign audiences effectively. The report adds that DOD initiatives to “improve language and cultural capabilities and to increase educational and training programs that prepare our people to work in and among foreign populations,” are critical elements of a strategic communications capability. This is an area in which a broader, inter-agency oriented assessment of policy may be of value. Collectively, these measures do not appear to reflect a diminished effort to “defeat terrorist networks” or to prevail in what had been called the “long war” against terrorism. On the contrary, the 2010 QDR appears determined to bolster capabilities for the kinds of operations the Defense Department has been engaged in since 9/11, including COIN, stability, CT, and related activities such as foreign internal defense (i.e., direct support to foreign militaries). The 2010 QDR reflects both the Secretary’s emphasis on current conflicts and the considerable evolution of doctrinal thinking in the military. What were once regarded as less demanding missions are now seen as core responsibilities with major implications for force planning and investments. Building the Capacity of Partner States The QDR report’s discussion of capacity building is closely related to the evolution of military planning for COIN, stability, and CT operations. The discussion is by no means entirely new. Much of the terminology and many of the programmatic measures that the 2010 QDR report discusses were initiated in the last Administration and addressed in the 2006 QDR. Moreover, the 2006 QDR identified “building partnership capacity” as one of five areas in which the Defense Department would develop follow-on “road maps” to refine policy.43 It is new, however, to elevate the discussion of capacity building to the level of a critical mission and to assert as forcefully that it will become progressively more important in the future. The 2010 report says that “As U.S. forces draw down in Iraq and make progress toward building stability in Afghanistan, more capacity will be available for training, advising, and assisting foreign security forces in other parts of the globe.” The extent of the requirement is so great, the report concludes, that it cannot be met by special operations forces, some of which have long been assigned to train foreign militaries, but must also be assigned to general purpose forces: Many governments facing active or latent threats from violent extremist groups would welcome tailored advisory assistance from the United States…. Although special operations forces will be able to meet some of this demand, especially in politically sensitive situations, U.S. general purpose forces will need to be engaged in these efforts as well. The deploying units will require specialized training and preparation for these operations. In addition to measures to strengthen the ability of general purpose forces to provide support to foreign militaries, other initiatives include the reform of security assistance to be much more flexible and responsive, including measures to facilitate more rapid transfers of materiel to other 43 The other areas were Department institutional reform and governance, irregular warfare, strategic communications, and intelligence. Congressional Research Service 28 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning countries, more language and cultural training for military personnel in general, and additional steps to support UN and other multilateral peacekeeping efforts. The report also calls for the expansion of DOD programs established in the past two years to strengthen “ministerial-level” governance in key nations. This is a potential matter of discussion in Congress, since it appears to expand further the Defense Department’s role in areas of foreign policy that have traditionally been mainly the State Department’s responsibility. The requirement that general purpose forces—particularly in the Army—be prepared for foreign military assistance missions as well as for the full range of combat missions and for stability, counterinsurgency and related activities, may, again, draw into question whether changing perceptions of the security environment should entail more far-reaching changes in defense posture than the QDR has proposed. In situations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where large numbers of U.S. combat troops are deployed, and where training of large numbers of foreign military forces is an urgent task, it might be necessary to assign training responsibilities to deployed regular combat units. Moreover, in those cases, partnering of U.S. combat units with indigenous forces may be of significant value. To the extent U.S. forces are not so heavily, directly engaged in combat operations, however, the case for assigning foreign assistance missions to general purpose forces may be more debatable. In a number of hearings, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton has expressed doubts about the ability of troops to retain the specialized skills needed for stability and counterinsurgency operations, for training and support of foreign militaries, and for high intensity combat without much more training that Army plans for.44 A number of strategists, including some of the Army’s leading thinkers about counterinsurgency and stability operations, have called for the Army to create either specialized advisory and assistance brigades specifically organized and trained to support foreign militaries or, “constabulary” units for large scale stability operations.45 Unless the Army was larger, however, this would require reducing capabilities for more traditional missions. For its part, the Army has, instead, adopted a plan to augment selected, deploying infantry brigades with additional personnel for training, security, and economic infrastructure development.46 It has also used contractors extensively for foreign military training. 44 See, for example, Representative Skelton’s questions in a House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the Quadrennial Defense Review with the co-chairs of the QDR Independent Panel on April 15, 2010: “The question I put to you about being able to do the full- spectrum really bothers me, and I know you think that a soldier can be trained to do something other than his main occupation in the military in three weeks or so. We should explore that a little bit more in your final determination. It really does worry me that we've found ourselves in the horns of a dilemma with fantastically trained troops to do one thing, and they be thrown into another situation where they would be very, very unfamiliar.” 45 John A. Nagl, Institutionalizing Adaptation: It’s Time for a Permanent Army Advisor Corps, Washington: Center for a New American Security, June 2007, online at http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/ Nagl_AdvisoryCorp_June07.pdf. Nagl was one of the authors of the Army-Marine Corps counterinsurgency Field Manual. See also Don M. Snider, “Let the Debate Begin: The Case for a Constabulary Force,” Army Magazine, June 1998; Andrew Krepinevich, Transforming the Legions: The Army and the Future of Land Warfare, Washington: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2004, online at http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/ R.20040114.Transforming_the_L/R.20040114.Transforming_the_L.pdf; and Andrew Krepinevich, An Army at the Crossroads, Washington: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, November, 2008, online at http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20081117.An_Army_At_The_Cro/ R.20081117.An_Army_At_The_Cro.pdf. 46 Kris Osborn, “New U.S. Army Unit Adds Stability-Ops Troops,” Defense News, March 10, 2009. Congressional Research Service 29 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning Shaping the Choices of “Nations at a Strategic Crossroads” A review of what’s new in the 2010 QDR involves not only what has been added, but also what themes in earlier QDRs have been, to some degree at least, deemphasized. The 2006 QDR report included an extensive discussion of measures to “shape the choices of nations at a strategic crossroads,” which the 2010 QDR report drops. In general, the 2006 QDR discussion encompassed measures to dissuade other nations, particularly “major and emerging powers” from challenging U.S. security interests, and it proposed engaging in cooperative endeavors instead. Among nations at a strategic crossroads, the report mentioned nations in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Latin America. It discussed in particular, what it saw as progress in extending democracy in the Middle East, and it pointed to Libya’s announcement that it would abandon its nuclear weapons program as a success. It also identified India, Russia, and China as the key major and emerging powers. With regard to Russia, like the 2010 QDR report, the 2006 report mainly focused on shared U.S. and Russian interests, but, unlike the 2010 QDR, it also expressed concern about “the erosion of democracy in Russia, the curtailment of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and freedom of the press, the centralization of political power and limits on economic freedom.” An extensive discussion in the 2006 report was devoted to concerns about China’s military buildup, which explicitly concluded that Chinese military modernization has accelerated since the mid-to-late 1990s in response to central leadership demands to develop military options against Taiwan scenarios. The pace and scope of China’s military build-up already puts regional military balances at risk. In response, the 2006 report says, the United States must take a balanced approach that integrates new powers into the international system as constructive partners, but that also seeks “to dissuade major and emerging powers from developing capabilities that could threaten regional stability, to deter conflict, and to defeat aggression should deterrence fail.” It specifically highlights measures to defeat anti-access strategies and it identifies as critical a number of capabilities that the 2010 report says should be improved in order to defeat anti-access challenges, including “undersea warfare capabilities,” though there is no mention of a new, unmanned underwater vehicle; “prompt and high-volume global strike;” and integrated short- and intermediate-range ballistic missile defense. “The aim,” says the 2006 report, “is to possess sufficient capability to convince any potential adversary that it cannot prevail in a conflict and that engaging in conflict entails substantial strategic risks beyond military defeat.” Some analysts read into the analysis in the 2006 QDR an argument that the United States should maintain a sufficient degree of strategic predominance to convince potential competitors that it is of no use to make big investments in military capabilities, since the United States will retain the ability to overmatch any buildup. The 2006 report does not explicitly make such an argument, however. Rather, for the most part, the 2006 report discusses investments in key capabilities as “prudent hedges against the possibility that cooperative approaches by themselves may fail to preclude future conflict.” Substantively, the 2010 QDR differs from the 2006 report in focusing somewhat less on acrossthe-board military capabilities to maintain a military advantage and more on specific measures to counter efforts by potential competitors to challenge U.S. capabilities through asymmetric means. The anti-access challenge is seen as one of a number of areas in which U.S. forces might be Congressional Research Service 30 Quadrennial Defense Review: Overview and Implications for National Security Planning vulnerable, and which even an enemy without the ability to compete directly with the United States might seek to exploit as a means of evening the odds. The 2010 report does not discuss potential threats from specific nations in as much detail as earlier reports on strategy, but it is somewhat more specific in identifying the technological nature of potential challenges and measures to counter them. Cyberwar The 2010 report identifies the ability to operate successfully in cyberspace as one of six critical mission areas in which it proposes efforts to bolster capabilities. Moreover, the 2010 report identifies cyberspace as a critical part of the “global commons” on a par with air, sea, and space realms of interchange. It cites secure and open access to the global commons as a critical interest of the United States that is shared with other responsible actors around the globe. Defending against disruptive cyber attacks has been discussed in earlier strategy documents for many years—the 1997 QDR report mentioned “attacks via information warfare” as one of several asymmetric threats that would receive increased attention and the 1997 National Defense Panel report mentioned cyber-attacks as a danger to U.S. information dominance, proposed greater efforts to defense access to cyberspace, and even warned against cyberterrorism as a specific threat. The 2010 QDR puts greater emphasis on cyberwar, however, than any review in the past. It reflects a growing awareness of the dependence of military forces on cyberspace for the management of information even in wartime, an awareness of the vulnerability of military and civilian information systems to disruption, and the exponential growth of assaults on cyber systems.47 It also reflects experience with efforts by a number of nations to experiment with cyberwar. The 2010 QDR treats cyberspace, in effect, as a new theater of warfare, and elevates the importance of planning to cope in it. Homeland Defense The 2010 QDR report agrees wit [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41250. Public record. Not legal advice.