|
|
||
|
| ||
 Bibliography0 wallclock secs ( 0.19 usr + 0.01 sys = 0.20 CPU) 25 hits
Budget Request Begins Shift Toward Balanced Defense Posture
05/07/2009 Today’s release of the Obama Administration’s FY 2010 budget request signals a new direction for the Department of Defense. While the top-line budget figures and many of the programmatic decisions have already been released, the detailed budget unveiled today provides some clues as to how the new administration plans to remake the Defense Department. It begins the process of rebalancing the DoD’s portfolio of programs and activities to align them better with the national defense strategy.
Gates Submits Reform Budget for FY2010
05/07/2009 Secretary Gates termed the FY 2010 defense budget a “reform budget.” With today’s release of the detailed budget request, we begin to see what shape that reform will take and where he intends to lead the Department. This budget is a departure from the previous administration’s budgets.
The Project on National Security Reform: Challenges and Requirements
03/19/2009 Testimony Before the U.S. House of Representatives House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation 
Integrating Disruptive Technologies in DoD
09/04/2008
Language and Cultural Awareness Transformation
07/09/2008 Prepared testimony for the record
A New Global Defense Posture for the Second Transoceanic Era
04/20/2007 Whenever the nation contemplates making a major shift in its global defense posture, planned changes should be seriously and broadly debated, because these changes will shape and constrain US strategic options for some time. While the broad outlines for the ongoing shift in the US defense posture appear to be headed in the right direction, the changes have generally been made without much public or even internal governmental debate. Several important questions remain to be fully answered, and further changes will likely be required to address several existing or looming 21st century strategic challenges.
A New Transformation Plan for the Navy's Surface Battle Line
04/19/2007 This report is an expansion of a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Backgrounder entitled Know When to Hold ’Em: Modernizing the Navy’s Surface Battle Line, dated September 20, 2006. It provides a broader, historical-based analysis of the Navy’s current plans to modernize and recapitalize its fleet of guided-missile cruisers, guided-missile destroyers, and general-purpose destroyers, and proposes a different transformation approach than the one now being pursued.
A New Global Defense Posture for the Second Transoceanic Era
04/13/2007 Slides from Future Defense PLanning Needs seminar for Senior Congressional Staff
Modernizing the Navys Surface Battle Line
09/20/2006 The 84 guided missile cruiser and destroyers soon to be in commissioned service in the Navy's surface battle line, all equipped with the superb AEGIS anti-air warfare combat system and the flexible vertical launch (missile) system (VSL), will represent pe
Evolving Military Affairs
05/22/2006 Significant change in the security environment is under way. However, the Pentagon is yet to catch up with these changes in the way wars are conducted.
The Quadrennial Defense Review: Rethinking the US Military Posture
03/14/2006 Executive Director, Andrew Krepinevich, testifies before the House Armed Services Committee on March 14th, 2006.
QDR Does Little to Improve Affordability of Long-Term Defense Plans
2/03/2006 An initial look at the Quadrennial Defense Review from an affordablility perspective.
To Take and Keep The Lead:"A Naval Fleet Platform Architecture for Enduring Maritime Supremacy
12/01/2005 This monograph attempts to define the future maritime competitive environment and to design a naval fleet platform architecture attuned to its emerging requirements.
Long-Range Strike: Imperatives, Urgency and Options
04/06/2005 Long-range precision strike (LRPS) is a core strategic capability of the United States in the post-Cold War era, and the US Air Force. Is the Defense Department doing enough to sustain sufficient US capability and dominance in long-range strike? What should be done in the short, medium and long term to capitalize on long-range strike?
Winning the Race: A Naval Fleet Platform Architecture for Enduring Maritime Supremacy
03/01/2005 Slides from Robert Work's presentation on alternative fleet architecture study.
The Revolution in War
12/01/2004 Michael Vickers and Robert Martinage offer an insight of a decade-long assessment on the changing nature of conflict and the Revolution in Military Affairs.
Moving Forward On Long-Range Strike
09/27/2004 This backgrounder analyzes the US Air Forces ability to deliver long-range strike, now and in the long term.
The War in Iraq: A Thin Green Line
08/14/2004 This backgrounder is the third in a series analyzing the War in Iraq, as well as the Army force structure and personnel requirements for a protracted and counterinsurgency operation.
Intelligence Reform and the Next CIA Director
08/07/2004 A historical review of CIA directors and their influence on operations and policy. What does the next CIA director need to have?
Matching Resources With Requirements: Options for Modernizing the US Air Force
08/01/2004 Can the Air Force afford its modernization plan? Steven Kosiak finds it unlikely and provides four alternate models for maintaining air superiority.
Analysis of the FY 2005 Defense Budget Request
04/11/2004 The $423.1 billion funding request for FY 2005 is about 5 percent higher in real terms than the FY 2004 enacted budget, without including supplemental spending for the War on Terror. Whether the requested increase in defense spending is necessary to meet US security requirements adequately is unclear. Fully implementing the administration’s defense plan would likely require spending substantially more on defense than proposed by the administration.
Naval Transformation and the Littoral Combat Ship
02/25/2004 Three slide presentations featuring the report Naval Transformation and Littoral Combat Ship.
Naval Transformation and the Littoral Combat Ship
02/18/2004 A report examining the Littoral Combat Ship, its requirements, necessity, design and recommendations for testing and acquistion.
Future Warfare 20XX Lessons Learned Final Report
12/01/2001 A final report on Future Warfare 20XX Wargame Series
Restructuring for a New Era: Framing the Roles & Missions Debate
04/01/1995 Today, the United States faces a major challenge: restructuring its defense establishment to function efficiently and effectively in a new, dynamic security environment. This paper offers a framework for meeting that challenge. |
Competitive/Grand StrategiesWhat is the structure of international power and challenges within which the United States will have to develop its grand strategies over the next generation? During the first 90 years of the twentieth century, the general nature of the problem facing the United States was clear. The preponderance of national economic and military power capable of threatening the United States appeared to be located in western Eurasia. Preventing first Germany and then the Soviet Union from dominating western Eurasia was the dominant task of the United States, and a variety of wartime and peacetime strategies were developed in order to defeat Nazi Germany and contain and deter the Soviet Union, as well as to democratize West Europe. Eastern Eurasia was not irrelevant, as the wars with Japan, China and North Korea, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam demonstrated, but it was secondary in American World War II planning (Germany first) and in Cold War military preparations. The democratization of West Europe, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic stagnation of Russia thereafter, and the rapid economic growth of Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, China and India have transformed the structure of international relations in ways that call into question the basic focus of American grand strategy on western Eurasia. West Europe is rich, but unlikely to generate a unified force that will pose a military threat to the United States. Russia has persistent problems of national political organization and economic growth. The “rise of Asia” and the “rise of China” within Asia create a new set of power relations, the implications of which we have yet fully to understand. Before September 11, 2001, the United States was hoping that the spread of wealth in Asia would lead to democratization in those countries not yet fully democratic, and that this would ameliorate the challenges to the United States from China that might otherwise arise. September 11 indicated that there were centers of radical Islamist activity in Asia and elsewhere hostile to the United States that had to be managed successfully in the near term. In addition, the assumption that the relationship between China and the United States would steadily improve as the Chinese economy grew appeared open to question, as Chinese national tensions with Taiwan, Japan and other Asian countries persisted and in some cases worsened. The dilemma for those responsible for the formulation and execution of American grand strategy is in balancing the near-term requirements to deal with Islamist threats to the United States against the longer-term requirements created by the shift in power globally to Asia, and the shift in power within Asia towards China. The United States remains the world’s only superpower and enjoys a position of primacy, but that primacy will be challenged by near-term and long-term issues. How can the United States understand those challenges and develop responses? |