CSBA Proposes New Defense Strategy


Strategic Studies Strategy for the Long Haul [Flash slide show] Future Warfare > Alliances Competitive/Grand Strategies Scenarios Transformation Strategy Revolution in Military Affairs Service-Focused Analysis > Army Navy Air Force Marines DOD Strategy and Policy > QDR Rumsfeld Strategy Review US Commission on National Security National Defense Panel Comission on Roles and Missions Bottom-Up Review Radical Islamism China Proliferation Defense Budget Studies Overview [Flash slide show] Strategy for the Long Haul [Flash slide show] Annual Defense Budget Cost of Defense Plans and Forces> Overview Systems and Force Structure Personnel and Readiness Nuclear Forces Tables and Graphs > Budget Topline Budget By Title Weapons Systems Budgets Service Budgets Federal Budget Cost of Military Operations > Iraq Costs Afghanistan Costs Other Operations Costs Defense Budget Process > Defense Budget Process Congressional Budget Resolution Defense Authorization Defense Appropriations National Defense Components Homeland Security Publications Publications List Publications Orders Subscription Service Subscription Service Orders Events and Activities Congressional Programs> Forums Testimonies Briefings and Presentations Strategic Studies Exercises CSBA in the News Press Releases Subscribe to CSBA News About Us Mission Statement President’s Message Staff Directory Board of Directors Employment Opportunities CSBA in the News Contact Us

CSBA Proposes New Defense Strategy

Stacey Shepard	Published 01/30/2001 Press Release

Contact: Stacey Shepard		PHONE:	(202) 331-7990
January 30, 2001		FAX:	(202) 331-8019

In the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments’ newest release, A Strategy for a Long Peace, authors Andrew Krepinevich, Michael Vickers and Steven Kosiak propose a new defense strategy to respond to a changing security environment, and to ensure the United States maintains the military superiority needed to underwrite a long peace. Revolutionary military changes, major geo-political shifts, and a current strategy that is ill-suited to confront the challenges posed by these developments motivated the authors to offer a strategy whose centerpiece is the transformation of the American military.

Among the emerging challenges they foresee are: power projection in an anti-access environment; sea control in the littorals against an area-denial threat; homeland defense against missile and covert WMD attack; space control; and information warfare. The authors support: developing a future warfare vision that will impart direction to transformation efforts; selecting senior leaders based on their ability to effect transformational change; funding increases for leap-ahead technologies and sustained experimentation; freeing up resources for innovation and institutional reform; adopting a procurement strategy in the near- to mid-term that emphasizes limited production runs of a wide range of new systems and service-life extensions/upgrades of existing systems; and pursuing divestment strategies to eliminate capabilities that are a poor fit with the emerging environment. They also support specific initiatives, including: converting Trident submarines to conventional SSGNs; testing a space-based radar (Discoverer II); accelerating efforts to field unmanned systems (UAV/UCAVs), Army missile systems (HIMARS/ATACMS Block IIA), stealthy “Streetfighter” combatants, and a Joint Mobile Offshore Base (JMOB); creating joint training centers—for anti-access/area-denial threats and urban warfare—and a joint opposing force (JOPFOR); and providing a separate major program funding line for the CINC, Joint Forces Command.

The authors stress realistic defense planning within currently projected defense budget estimates. Consequently, reductions in current modernization programs and force structure are necessary. The bulk of reductions are needed because the current defense plan already suffers from a program-funding mismatch of some $120 billion over the same time period. Only a small portion of these reductions are needed to offset transformation initiatives, which are projected to cost $30 billion over the next six years.

Finally, the authors note that, because large organizations such as DoD typically require a decade or more to effect transformational change, it is imperative to begin the process now, while the opportunity for change is at its greatest and the risks to the national security are relatively low.

# # # # #

If you would like to order a copy of the full report, click here.
If you would like to see the table of contents and the executive summary, click here.

CSBA is an independent research institute established to promote innovative thinking about defense planning and investment strategies for the 21st century.