|
|
||
|
| ||
|
“Elevating the public debate on national security and thinking smarter about defense is CSBA’s core mission. ” RELATED LINKS |
Message from the President
Dear Friends: When the new administration takes charge of the White House in 2009, one of the staggering and demanding tasks it will have to tackle will be the fifth major defense review. The tradition of reviews undertaken every four years (hence the label “quadrennial”) originated after the collapse of the Soviet Union with the view to adjust the U.S. defense posture to reflect the new global strategic environment. The record of the review efforts is mixed: the growing need for a major shift in the US military’s force posture and capabilities and the absence of such a shift are reflected in the 2006 QDR. However, the actual changes affected by such need are marginal, and the adjustments to the defense posture have been driven by stiffer budget, rather than strategic imperatives. Today, the United States finds itself at war with radical Islamists, and faces an increasingly assertive China and a rash of nuclear proliferation from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Japan. We cannot afford to “stay the course” with respect to our defense posture. Nor can the next administration enter office without a clear blueprint for national defense, and risk suffering the fate of its predecessors, -- surrendering control of the US strategic posture, to the parochial interests of the Pentagon bureaucracy, the rivaling military branches, Congress or the defense industrial base. The coming months offer the opportunity to develop an independent, comprehensive defense strategy that can build upon the encouraging aspects of the 2006 QDR, while also informing the country’s next administration and Congress, and the public as well.The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) has taken on this challenge. Through a series of reports, CSBA will provide an independent, comprehensive defense strategy to assist those preparing the next Quadrennial Defense Review in 2009, as well as those who evaluate its results. Key Planning Scenarios The first in the series, this study translates the principal challenges to US security into a representative set of contingencies or scenarios to focus strategic options as a means to determine what resources will be required, and how they are to be apportioned among forces and capabilities. US Military Power and Concepts of Operation This study provides the connective tissue between the challenges to US security and the kinds of capabilities and force elements useful in addressing the new challenges confronting the nation. The Defense Budget The defense program is typically out of sync with the resources allocated to sustain it. This study assesses what resources are required in order to position the US military—and its allies—to address contingencies, and the relationship beween resources and risk. The Defense Industrial Base How might the defense industrial base be reorganized to support the US military in a manner that improves military efficiency and effectiveness? This study details possible modernization strategies underlying shifts in capabilities, and the impact of a new modernization profile on the US defense industry. Manpower Recruiting and retaining quality people in sufficient numbers at an acceptable cost remains a vexing challenge to the Defense Department. This study addresses this thorny issue and offers specific recommendations on manpower requirements to meet demands for new skill sets needed by the military. Training Infrastructure and Professional Military Education It is highly likely that the training and education of America’s service personnel will require a dramatic overhaul if US forces are to have the skills needed to meet the new security challenges. This study will assess the situation and make recommendations. Restructuring the U.S. Alliance Portfolio The United States will need a substantially different alliance portfolio to develop and reassure allies who are going to be increasingly important to US security. This study will consider the nature and type of alliance capacity the United States needs to meet security challenges, who might be the most promising allies, and how best to develop these relationships. Ground Forces US ground forces are strained by the high deployment levels to Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea. This assessment evaluates the 2006 QDR plans for US ground forces and outlines a more relevant and comprehensive alternative addressing the role of the various services in modernization plans. Special Forces Special Forces are playing a key role in the US military’s war against radical Islamists and are likely to figure more prominently in meeting new security challenges such as dealing with nuclear state failure contingencies, and supporting power-projection operations against anti-access/area-denial threats. This study addresses the expansion and growing role of US Special Forces, including recommendations for desired manpower levels. Maritime Forces US maritime forces are struggling to meet multiple demands, including contingencies that require them to defend increasingly vulnerable global commerce networks, support operations against radical Islamist elements, and dissuade China from expanding its submarine force. This report addresses how US maritime forces might be better organized, structured, modernized, and postured to meet the principal existing and likely multiple emerging challenges to US Security. Air and Space Forces Current plans call for continued high levels of investment on short-range manned strike aircraft that recent military operations show are of declining importance in addressing existing and emerging challenges to national security. This study provides a thorough review of force structure and investment priorities linked to a more realistic set of contingencies involving air and space forces, and recommendations for a more efficient and effective alternative approach to the current high levels of investment on short-range manned strike aircraft. Strategic Forces The world has entered a second nuclear age in which the old US-Soviet rivalry has dissipated, replaced by fears of loose nuclear weapons, hostile and unstable Third World regimes developing nuclear arsenals, and the prospect that radical nonstate entities may somehow gain access to radiological weapons or nuclear weapons. This study examines the very different circumstances under which nuclear strategy and force posture decisions must be made, and includes recommendations that go beyond the 2006 QDR and 2002 Nuclear Posture Review. Modernization Strategies Far less, if any, weight is given by planners to how the Defense Department’s modernization strategy supports such strategic pillars as dissuasion and reassurance. This study provides a detailed overview on how the defense modernization program can be utilized to inform priorities for the size and shape of the US armed forces, as well as the conduct of military operations. Organizing for National Security New security challenges present the US national security establishment with its greatest organizational challenge since 1947. This study assesses US organization for national security and provides policy recommendations addressing strategic planning and execution across the national security establishment, including what might be done to improve the performance of key national security agencies that lie outside the Defense Department. A Grand Strategy for the United States This capstone study integrates the efforts of the study series, providing a detailed level of analysis of how the Defense Department might fit within an overall strategy to secure the national security in light of the purview of the other principal arms of the executive branch in this regard. We’ve already advanced a number of elements of the Long Haul Project by examining in detail defense programs key to defining future US strategic options, including: The Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration Program: A New Dawn for Naval Aviation?, by Thomas P. Ehrhard and Robert O. Work, released on May 10, 2007, at a CSBA-sponsored Capitol Hill event. This report finds that, in order to ensure continued operational effectiveness and survivability in the future security environment, aircraft carriers need to be equipped with new air platforms with greater range (independent reach), greater persistence (ability to loiter over the target area), and improved stealth (ability to survive in contested airspace). An important way to achieve these goals is to develop and field a low-observable and air-refuelable carrier-capable unmanned combat air system (UCAS), beginning with the Navy’s new Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) program and its associated technology maturation efforts to ensure these new aircraft can be safely operated as part of integrated carrier air operations by the end of the next decade. Of IEDs and MRAPs: Force Protection in Complex Irregular Operations, by Andrew F. Krepinevich and Dakota Wood, released at a CSBA-sponsored Capitol Hill Event on October 17, 2007. In 2007, the Pentagon decided to order a “crash” production of MRAP’s. CSBA’s report provides issues for consideration regarding the role of MRAPs on the modern (and future) battlefield. The report addresses the role of light utility vehicles such as the Humvee and its planned replacement, the JLTV, which will continue to shoulder the bulk of the support load in general transportation and patrol duties across a wide range of operating environments and scenarios. Among other findings, the report emphasizes the importance or retaining a balanced portfolio of vehicle capabilities. US Fighter Modernization Plans: Near Term Choices, by Steve Kosiak and Barry Watts, published in June 2007. CSBA public outreach for this publication included a press briefing on June 20 and a September 19 CSBA-sponsored Capitol Hill conference with participation of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne. The report explores the near-term modernization choices now facing the Department of Defense (DoD) in fixed-wing air power. The focus of this report is on the need for and affordability of the three JSF variants in plans: a conventional take-off landing (CTOL) variant (the F-35A) for the Air Force; a short take-off, vertical-landing (STOVL) variant (F-35B) for the Marine Corps; and the F-35C carrier variant (CV) for the Navy’s aircraft carriers. The principal aim of the report is to affect a thorough consideration of the affordability and need for the Joint Strike Fighter program. Know When to Hold ‘Em’, Know When to Fold ‘Em: A New Transformation Plan for the Navy’s Surface Battle Line, in Backgrounder and Report formats by Bob Work, has made a splash in the media, on Capitol Hill and within the Navy. This CSBA’s research addresses the Navy’s transition to a next generation battle line. Bob Work concludes that, in order to ensure continued US naval superiority, the most affordable, executable, and effective transformation strategy will involve cancelling the CG-21 program beyond what has been already authorized; planning, budgeting, and executing a balanced Aegis/VLS BNRAM program with a sustained follow-on maintenance regime; starting a clean sheet design for the next 21st century LBNC; and sustaining the industrial base with further Burke DDGs until the LBNC is ready for production. In addition to the research and activities highlighter above, we’ve continued our persistent individual outreach to Members of Congress and their staff, military commanders, administration officials, industry leaders, as well as influential individuals from various academic and professional communities who are advising presidential candidates. I, personally, have engaged a number of senior officials who stand to play major roles in shaping the next administration’s defense posture, among them Senator Evan Bayh, Army Chief of Staff George Casey, Senator Hillary Clinton, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator Joseph Lieberman, Andrew Marshall, former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, Representative Vic Snyder, Representative Mac Thornberry, and General William Wallace. The demand for CSBA’s independent research and analysis of US military policy and defense spending issues is astounding. CSBA E-Newsletters chronicle the prominent position that our analysts enjoy in the media and press. Suffice to say, CSBA staff is quoted on all the topical defense-related issues ranging from the FY 2009 defense budget request, to the war in Iraq, to Army, Air Force and Navy plans. If you would like to receive our weekly newsletter, please send a request to info@csbaonline.org to get on our free email subscription list. We are committed to making this website a regular source of exclusive defense information and analysis for you. We welcome your comments and suggestions at info@csbaonline.org. Sincerely,
|
|
