Today the congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Defense
Review independent panel released its report, The QDR in Perspective: Meeting America's National Security Needs in
the 21st Century. The 20-member panel, chaired by
former Clinton administration Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former Bush
administration National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, included former senior
officials from Democratic and Republican administrations as well as retired
senior officers. I served on the staff of the panel and will therefore confine
my observations to the report's findings and recommendations as well as its
overall significance.
The Independent Panel's report represents a striking bipartisan
consensus that the United States must do more when it comes to national defense
if we are to continue to play the international role we have and pursue the
interests that have animated American grand strategy since the end of World War
II. These include the need to defend the
American homeland; assure access to the sea, air, space, and cyberspace;
preserve a favorable balance of power across Eurasia that prevents authoritarian
domination of the region and providing for the common good globally. The panel's report stands in stark contrast
with the recent report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, which sought to curtail America's
global role to fit a shrinking defense budget.
While commending Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for his focus on
winning America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the report notes "a significant and
growing gap between the ‘force structure' of the military -- its size and its
inventory of equipment -- and the missions it will be called on to perform in
the future." The panel's members were particularly
concerned that the force
structure outlined in the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review "may not be sufficient to assure others that the United
States can meet its treaty commitments in the face of China's increased
military capabilities." The report calls
for an increase in U.S. force structure in the Pacific to counter Chinese
military modernization, noting, "A robust US force structure, largely
rooted in maritime strategy but including other necessary capabilities, will be
essential."
It is powerful statement that a group of 20 senior officials
who have served Democratic and Republican presidents agreed that "The [U.S.] force
structure needs to be increased in a number of areas, including the need to
counter anti-access challenges; strengthen homeland defense, including cyber
threats; and conduct post-conflict stabilization missions. It must also be
modernized." They call for an increase
in the size of the U.S. Navy, the acquisition of a next-generation bomber, and
new long-range strike systems. They also
acknowledge that although the Defense Department must do everything it can to
achieve cost savings on acquisition and overhead, "substantial additional
resources will be required to modernize the force. Although there is a cost to recapitalizing
the military, there is also a price to be paid for not re-capitalizing, one that
in the long run would be much greater."
The report also tackles the sensitive issue of the Defense Department's
rising personnel costs, noting that "A
failure to address the increasing costs of the all-volunteer force will likely
result in a reduction in the force structure, a reduction in benefits or a
compromised all-volunteer force."
The QDR independent panel's report lays out a cogent bipartisan argument that the
United States must do more, not less, in defense of American interests if we
are to continue to play an active international role. It should generate a debate over America's
role in the world and the value of maintaining it. It is a debate that Americans should welcome.
Read More
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE