Reviews of the Penagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review are pouring in. Here’s a sample…
Slate: “The document envisions a world where the U.S. military’s main missions are homeland defense, the war on terrorism, and ‘irregular’ or ‘asymmetric’ warfare… Much ink is spilled in discussing these new kinds of wars and the new kinds of soldier and command structures that they require. But look at what the Pentagon is really doing, how it’s spending its vast sums of money (close to $500 billion next year, not including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). With a few notable exceptions (most of them inexpensive), you’d think that we were still fighting the Soviet Union and that the Cold War were still raging on.“
LAT: “The review does not endorse a large increase in U.S. ground forces. But after three years of a war that has been longer and more lethal than most in the Pentagon had envisioned, the document places a new importance on getting help from other nations to fight wars and keep peace.“
WaPo: “The review’s key assumptions betray what Pentagon leaders acknowledge is a certain humility regarding the Defense Department’s uncertainty about what the world will look like over the next five, 10 or 20 years, as well as its realization that the U.S. military cannot attain victory alone.”
Meanwhile, Homeland Security Watch looks at the section of the QDR’s promises of “defending the homeland in depth.” And here’s the extended version of the interview I did last week with The World on the Defense Department’s new master plan.
Ralph Peters: “If you found your hilltop house on fire, would you (A) put out the flames, or (B) buy flood insurance? If your answer is ‘B,’ you’re suited for a job in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). At a time when our Army and Marines bear by far the heaviest load of our nation’s security burdens, OSD proposes reducing the number of soldiers to free up funds for wasteful Cold-War-era weapons systems.“
UPDATE 1:36 PM: I haven’t made it all the way through, yet. But this “alternative QDR” has some good stuff in it.
The Department of Defense must direct its resources to areas likely to reap the largest security gains. The administrations current so-called capabilities approach, which focuses more on how an adversary might fight than who the adversary might be and where a war might occur, fails to assign levels of risk and importance to the various threats this nation faces. The Pentagon must reintroduce elements of a threat-based model that guided its thinking in the immediate post-Cold War period. Weapons procurement policies must also change dramatically, so that they are attuned to actual needs rather than political interests. The administration and Congress should eliminate outdated weapons, cut losses on systems that do not work but are kept alive because of political interests, and increase funding for systems that reflect changing threats to U.S. national security. Only through the assignment of risks and priorities can the Pentagon produce programs and budgets that are affordable and cost effective.
It also calls for boosting the Army by 86,000 troops, and for dropping the Raptor, DD(X), Osprey, and Virginia-class sub.
UPDATE 02/06/06 8:16 AM: Joe Katzman “looked for articles that were positive as well as critical” of the QDR. “Unfortunately, that proved something of a Diogenesian search — the 2006 QDR’s early ‘buzz meter’ is distinctly unfavourable, even among entities usually supportive of the military.“
For example, here’s Tom Barnett, who’s generally a pretty big fan of Rumsfeld et. al.:
Bush sets the right course. He just does it a way thats completely unsustainable, and to me, in the end, thats bad grand strategy. Bush begins the Long War but he and his crew need to exit stage right before we can get seriously prepared to win it.
The Army is serious about moving in this direction, as is Special Operations Command and the Marines. For now, because the White House indulges them, neither the Air Force or the Navy has gotten with the program. When the Navy brags how its huge destroyers are justified because they can also insert SEALs, you know strategic logic has left the building.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
OK, let’s wipe out our sub-building, for starters. We won’t need sub construction lines in 20 years when most of the current fleet gets AARP invites.
Better yet, let’s cancel the Virginia class and start building a new, cheaper sub design that we can build in large numbers some day later on!
Oh, wait, that was the idea for the Virginia class, to throw away the fixed costs for the Seawolf and start over. The Virginia looked cheap, on paper, as long as we built a bunch of them. At current predicted rates, they’re not that much less than SSN-21.
Let’s also assume that we will face no other enemy but irregular infantry for the next 20 years, even if we throw away most of the stuff designed to fight those enemies.
Look, I might disagree with specific things like spending $3B in NON-R&D costs on each DD(X), but this whole “let’s change everything to light infantry to fight the current fight” is rather short-sighted.
Even though I’am Navy, I gotta think that the DDX has to go, the Burke Class will be just fine in he future.
I wonder how long the DoD & its contractors can carry on before the whole “system” collapses completely?
Ok, the only thing I agree with is dropping the DD(X) system, since it’s still in the R&D stage. But the Raptor, Osprey and Virginia class are already operational, so by canceling them all you are doing is throwing more money down the toilet, not to mention eliminating thousands of jobs that were created by these programs. I live just south of Dobbins AF base/Lockheed’s Marietta plant, where they make the F-22, and I know that if it wasn’t for the F-22 program, that plant would have most likely been shut down, and thousands of people would have been out of a job.
Actually, I rather strongly disagree with the notion of getting rid of DDX. It is a good replacement for the BBs in fire support. Its 155mm guns will be very long ranged and they should be fairly survivable. If hitting power comparable to a 16 inch shell is needed it can launch a tomahawk or TACM. It looks to be a useful and fairly versitile complement to the fleet.
CGX and the LCS are actually using the tech developed for it, which is why their costs seem lower.
Note that the US must be capable of fighting wars of “all temperatures”. If we get rid of the capability to wage a stand up-fight we virtually ensure that someone else will exploit that.
A development/ replacement of the A-10 some bombers, mabey just millitarized 747s and a shift to a good medium cartridge like the 7mm Enfield or 6.5mm Grendel would be high priorities if this third-class-part-time-enlisted-puke ever got his way.
The V-22 is a suicide boondogle and continuing the program is throwing good money after bad.
whereas the dd(x)is well based on good engineering and operational needs for the future.
re: the House on fire post, That’s because rumsfeld and cadre are the ones who keep setting the fire!