USA — Panel Suggests Changes in Long-Term Defense Planning

WASHINGTON, July 29, 2010 — A con­gres­sion­al­ly man­dat­ed pan­el has rec­om­mend­ed broad changes to long-term Defense Depart­ment strate­gies and pri­or­i­ties, includ­ing fund­ing a major recap­i­tal­iza­tion of equip­ment, revamp­ing the per­son­nel sys­tem and expand­ing the num­ber of peo­ple serv­ing in the Navy.

For­mer Defense Sec­re­tary William J. Per­ry and for­mer Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Advi­sor Stephen J. Hadley gave their final report as co-chairs of the Inde­pen­dent Panel’s Assess­ment of the Qua­dren­ni­al Defense Review to the House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee today. The QDR is a leg­isla­tive­ly man­dat­ed review of Depart­ment of Defense strat­e­gy and pri­or­i­ties.

Defense Sec­re­tary Robert M. Gates appoint­ed 12 of the 20-mem­bers on the pan­el in 2009 to assess the 2010 QDR, which was released in Feb­ru­ary. The oth­er eight pan­el mem­bers were select­ed by Con­gress. The panel’s report is called “The QDR in Per­spec­tive: Meet­ing America’s Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Needs in the 21st Cen­tu­ry.”

The pan­el found that the QDR did not project out far enough to pre­pare the mil­i­tary for the long term, Per­ry said. Rather, he said, the QDR focused pri­mar­i­ly on the next four to five years around the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “If I were sec­re­tary of defense today, I would have done the same thing,” said Per­ry, who served from 1993 to 1997.

Per­ry, who served in Pres­i­dent Bill Clinton’s admin­is­tra­tion, and Hadley, who served under Pres­i­dent George W. Bush, said the pan­el showed remark­able non­par­ti­san­ship and was unan­i­mous in its find­ings.

The pan­el iden­ti­fied America’s four “endur­ing nation­al inter­ests that tran­scend pol­i­tics” as, defense of the home­land; assured access to sea, air, space and cyber­space; a favor­able bal­ance of pow­er in west­ern Asia; and over­all human­i­tar­i­an good.

Among the poten­tial threats to U.S. nation­al inter­ests, accord­ing to the pan­el, are rad­i­cal Islam­ic extrem­ism and ter­ror­ism, the rise of great pow­ers in the East, ten­sions in the Mid­dle East and com­pe­ti­tion for resources.

While “soft pow­er” capa­bil­i­ties of diplo­ma­cy and civil­ian sup­port are impor­tant, Hadley said, “the world’s first order of con­cern will con­tin­ue to be secu­ri­ty con­cerns.”

Because of that, the pan­el rec­om­mends a recap­i­tal­iza­tion of mil­i­tary hard­ware to replace the wear and tear of nine years of war, Per­ry said. “This will be expen­sive,” he said. “But defer­ring recap­i­tal­iza­tion will require even more expens­es in the future.”

The pan­el also rec­om­mends a restruc­tur­ing of forces to build up Navy end-strength and improve the Air Force’s long-range strike capa­bil­i­ties. Cur­rent Army and Marine Corps ground forces are suf­fi­cient for the long term, the pan­el said.

Today’s forces are ful­ly capa­ble of han­dling any threat that may emerge today, Per­ry said, but the pan­el believes a buildup of Navy forces in the west­ern Pacif­ic is nec­es­sary to counter emerg­ing threats there, notably Chi­nese mil­i­ta­riza­tion.

U.S. allies in the East “are wor­ried about Chi­na and they want us there work­ing with Chi­na, and we are,” Per­ry said. He added, “I do not antic­i­pate any mil­i­tary con­flict with Chi­na, and if it were to hap­pen it would be a huge fail­ure of diplo­ma­cy.”

To avoid a poten­tial arms race in Asia, Per­ry said, the U.S. mil­i­tary needs to main­tain a con­sis­tent­ly strong force in the region.

The panel’s assess­ment also calls for a recon­sid­er­a­tion of man­ag­ing resources. Gates’ acqui­si­tion reform plans are “a good start,” Per­ry said, but they don’t go far enough.

Defense offi­cials should require dual com­pe­ti­tion in all pro­duc­tion pro­grams, and set a lim­it of five to sev­en years for the deliv­ery of all defined pro­grams, Per­ry said.

His­tor­i­cal­ly, he said, all suc­cess­ful pro­grams are deliv­ered in four to five years, and pro­grams that drag on beyond 10 years “are guar­an­teed to cost too much.”

Also, Pen­ta­gon offi­cials need to clar­i­fy roles with­in the department’s acqui­si­tions work force as to who is respon­si­ble for the deliv­ery of pro­grams, Hadley said. “It’s a mud­dy pic­ture, with lots of lay­er­ing and lots of review with­out clear author­i­ty,” he said.

In its review, Per­ry said, the pan­el was firm­ly sup­port­ive of con­tin­u­ing with an all-vol­un­teer force, but found that changes are need­ed to reduce per­son­nel costs in main­tain­ing pay and ben­e­fits that have become increas­ing­ly gen­er­ous since con­scrip­tion end­ed in the 1970s. Specif­i­cal­ly, the pan­el rec­om­mends estab­lish­ing a com­mis­sion to con­sid­er cost sav­ings in pay and ben­e­fits and the panel’s sug­ges­tion to increase length of ser­vice for retire­ment eli­gi­bil­i­ty from 20 years to as long as 40 years.

“I don’t need to tell this com­mit­tee that this is polit­i­cal­ly charged,” Per­ry said. He added that extend­ing ser­vice is impor­tant to retain peo­ple in whom the mil­i­tary has invest­ed much edu­ca­tion and train­ing.

The pan­el also rec­om­mends a re-eval­u­a­tion of how the mil­i­tary uses Nation­al Guard and reserve forces.

“Our pan­el thinks we real­ly need to re-think our rela­tion­ship between the active force and the Guard and reserves, and if we need a mobi­liza­tion capa­bil­i­ty beyond our cur­rent mobi­liza­tion force,” Hadley said. “How much of the Guard and reserve is an oper­a­tional reserve? How much of it is a strate­gic reserve? How much of it is for home­land secu­ri­ty? All this needs to be re-thought.”

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →