Introduction. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) faced two challenging tasks. First, it had to address significant concerns regarding the near-term ability of the force to protect and advance U.S. interests worldwide in a dangerous and evolving security environment. Second, it had to implement the President's goal of transforming the Armed Forces to meet future security challenges. In my view, the defense strategy and program recommendations contained in the QDR report are a major step toward accomplishing these two tasks, while balancing the associated near-, mid-, and long-term risks.
Over the past decade, our response to the strategic environment has placed a wide range of demands on the U.S. military. Increases in missions and requirements coupled with decreases in structure and procurement have stretched elements of the force and resulted in imbalance between strategy, force structure, and resources. Against this backdrop, on September 11, 2001, enemies of the U.S. demonstrated the capability to carry out large-scale, non-conventional attacks against the U.S. homeland; asymmetric attack against the sovereignty of the U.S. became a reality. While the QDR sets the broad direction for transforming to meet the defense demands of the future, there remains a need for a more comprehensive roadmap that will sustain the tenuous balance between strategy and resources.
Assessment of the QDR. In my view the defense strategy outlined in the QDR 2001 - if matched with resources over time - will adequately address the current and emerging challenges of the strategic environment. The goals of the strategy recognize that the military will continue to generate forces to conduct a wide range of missions for the foreseeable future. Particularly noteworthy, the QDR calls for the capability to respond to overlapping major crises and defeat adversaries or their efforts in more than one region. In my view, maintaining a credible military capacity to respond to multiple crises worldwide is absolutely fundamental to America's global leadership role.
The broad range of military requirements identified in the QDR lays the foundation for determining the size and structure of the force. The recommendations of the review are the starting point for determining how best to organize, man, train and equip the Total Force. An initial look at the force structure indicates the current force is capable of executing the new defense strategy with moderate risk. Considerably more warfighting analysis on a range of scenarios must be done, however, to confirm this initial assessment.
First and foremost, end strength sufficient to meet strategic requirements at a sustainable OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO must be maintained, or our greatest military asset - quality people - will be placed at risk. I believe that sustaining an end strength and force structure capable of executing the new defense strategy at moderate risk will be a significant challenge. The Services must balance limited resources between the significant QDR transformation and quality of life priorities and the competing requirements for operations and maintenance, recapitalization, and modernization beginning with their FY03 budgets. Of particular concern are rapidly aging weapon systems. While we have successfully raised annual procurement spending to the $60 billion level, some estimates point to spending $100 to $110 billion per year to sustain today's force structure and arrest the aging problem. If this requirement is met by diverting resources from current operations accounts, then near-term and, eventually mid-term, military risk will increase.
The QDR set priorities and identifies major goals for transforming the Armed Forces of the United States to meet future challenges. It calls for new operational concepts, advanced technological capabilities, and an increased emphasis on joint organizations, experimentation, and training. If truly dramatic improvement in future joint operational effectiveness is to be achieved; however, more is required. First, a DOD-wide transformation strategy, a joint organizing vision, and a joint transformation roadmap are essential to guide, integrate, and synchronize the efforts of the Services. Second, we need DOD-wide reform of key institutional planning, programming, budgeting, and acquisition processes. These two requirements are interdependent; no real progress will be made in one without the other. Further, throughout the transformation period, we still require forces to meet the needs of the Nation; for this we will continue to rely on the current force, as we are today as we begin the campaign against terrorism. We must acknowledge and plan for the impact that aggressive transformation and experimentation could have on the near- and mid-term ability of the force to execute actual peacetime and warfighting missions. Units undergoing transformation, and those involved in experimentation, may not be available or ready to respond to crises within required operational timelines. None of this is to suggest that transformation should be slowed; we must not let the demands of today overwhelm the necessity to prepare for the future.
The QDR states that defense of the U.S. homeland is the highest priority for the U.S. military; this was painfully reinforced on September 11th. The U.S. must deter, preempt, and defend against aggression targeted at U.S. territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and critical infrastructure, as well as manage the consequences of such aggression and other domestic emergencies. Defending the U.S. homeland requires a comprehensive strategy beginning with fixing responsibility for integrating all related activities. President Bush's establishment of the Office of Homeland Security is being paralleled within DOD. As a start, an integrated DOD Homeland Security working group can identify HLS roles and mission for DOD and examine resource implications. Further analysis and interaction with the Office of Homeland Security is required to strengthen ties between federal, state and local agencies to combat terrorism in the United States. This analysis is leading to important changes in the Unified Command Plan.
Additional work beyond the QDR is required in several areas. First, the role of the Reserve Components - critical to the execution of the strategy - demands attention and will lead to decisions on Reserve and Guard readiness, transformation, and civilian employer support, as well as the basics of end strength and structure.
Logistics capabilities - including strategic mobility, sustainment, and the repair and reengineering of our infrastructure - remain immediate concerns. A comprehensive analysis of all requirements must be completed and appropriate priority of resources established. As for strategic lift, we must aggressively achieve the capabilities called for in the Mobility Requirements Study 2005, as a minimum. Further, we must accelerate the restoration, modernization, and replacement of our mission-essential and quality-of-life facilities, even as we seek authority to eliminate excess infrastructure. These near-, mid-, and long-term logistics needs have significant implications for all levels of risk and must be given appropriate attention.
People remain our most critical asset. The QDR is a good starting point for the transformation of the Department's human resource systems. Although we have a highly trained professional military and civilian workforce today, we need to continue to fund quality of life initiatives, such as health care, pay parity and improved housing, to sustain the quality force required in the future. More analysis is required to determine how we will continue to recruit and retain the force.
Assessment of Risk. Analytical tools such as Dynamic Commitment and Positive Match wargames indicate that the QDR reduces the strategy-to- structure imbalance and results in moderate near-term risk for the current force executing the revised strategy. This assessment includes the most demanding scenario where U.S. forces respond to two overlapping major crises in different regions, decisively defeating one adversary while defeating the efforts of the other.
Over time the full implications of the QDR will emerge. The ability of the force to field transformed capabilities, while continuing to protect and advance U.S. world-wide interests in the near- and mid-term, will be more accurately assessed as joint and Service transformation roadmaps are developed. Finally, force structure, budget, and infrastructure impacts will become clearer as the Services complete their FY03 budgets and Program Objective Memoranda.
Summary. The Services, Combatant Commanders and Joint Staff have worked with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to ensure that this QDR is founded on strategic requirements. The QDR provides a vision for how our forces will be employed now and into the future. Further, the QDR moves DOD toward balance in two key dimensions: between strategy and force structure, and between the demands of today and those of the future. Sustaining this balance is essential to ensuring that U.S. Armed Forces remain preeminent now and well into the 21st Century.
Henry H. Shelton
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
 |
 |
 |