Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2592-1002026011-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 02 Oct 2001 05:38:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 11831 invoked by uid 510); 2 Oct 2001 12:33:41 -0000 Received: from n27.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.77) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 12:33:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2592-1002026011-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.54] by n27.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Oct 2001 12:33:31 -0000 X-Sender: fc@big.all.net X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 12:33:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 59730 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 12:33:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Oct 2001 12:33:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 12:33:26 -0000 Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id FAA02747 for iwar@onelist.com; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 05:33:16 -0700 Message-Id: <200110021233.FAA02747@big.all.net> To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List) Organization: I'm not allowed to say X-Mailer: don't even ask X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 05:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: [iwar] [fc:Pentagon.Delays.Hard.Choices] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Defense News October 1-7, 2001 Pentagon Delays Hard Choices Study Makes No Suggestions on Major Programs By Gail Kaufman, Jason Sherman and Amy Svitak, Washington Once touted as the bottom-line blueprint for reshaping the U.S. military, the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) instead postpones major decisions on weapon procurement and force structure. Those will have to wait for 24 new studies commissioned by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and due in March, Pentagon official and documents say. To be unveiled Oct. 1 - less than three weeks since the terrorist attacks on two U.S. cities - the congressionally mandated report claims a prominent role for the armed forces in homeland defense and eliminates the decade-old requirement to fight two nearly simultaneous wars. "It's a strategy and policy document," a defense analyst here familiar with the QDR draft told Defense News Sept. 26. "It's not a report that says much about what the program will look like." Some congressional staff members, frustrated by the report's absence of detailed recommendations, say Rumsfeld did not take the congressional mandate seriously. "They've just punted all of the major decisions until next year and essentially ignored a congressional mandate," said one aide. The decision to offer fewer details in the QDR was obviously made before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but since then, the lack of details has become more justifiable, Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at Brookings Institution here, said Sept. 28. "The Bush administration team came in with grandiose ideas reshaping the military and refocusing the threat, but is unable to take the tough decisions. The lack of details in the QDR is a reflection of that," he said. While the QDR does not specify the numbers of ships, tanks or aircraft the U.S. Defense Department requires, it does herald significant changes in the Pentagon's strategy and policy. The QDR breaks with the Pentagon's decade-old strategy of preparing to fight two nearly simultaneous conflicts the size of the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The two-war strategy is replaced with a new set of policy goals designed to give political and military leaders more flexibility in shaping force structure. The policy objectives are: assuring allies and friends; dissuading future military competition; deterring threats to U.S. interests; and defeating aggression if deterrence fails. The QDR proffers no price tag for the new strategy. However, the report notes that the current level of defense spending as a percentage of gross domestic product is less than 3 percent, far below the 8 percent average of the past 60 years. "There is still a strategy-resource mismatch," said another senior military official, who argues that the Defense Department has too little money to fulfill the new QDR's strategy. The new strategy advocates a capabilities-based approach to defense. Because the United States does not know who its adversaries will be, the military should focus "more on how an adversary might fight than who the adversary might be and where a war might occur," says the report's final draft, which was obtained by Defense News. "There are some very good things that have come out of this QDR," said one senior military official who asked not to be named. "There is a different look at strategy and a different force-sizing construct. Those two things alone were worth the effort." After more than a year of work, the QDR was nearly complete when terrorists flew hijacked civilian airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11. "We went back and reviewed the QDR specifically to [determine] ... whether or not we ... adequately addressed homeland security," Army Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who retired on Sept. 30, told Defense News Sept. 24. "The finding was that we believed we had. "I think what 11 September has shown us is that the impetus needs to be greater than it was," Shelton told Defense News. "We need to move faster than the program had called for. Of course, that takes more money in order to do that, to be able to get the right equipment and to get the units we've organized to deal with it, etc." Rumsfeld assumed the Pentagon's helm in January with a goal of transforming the U.S. military into a force better suited to meet threats of the 21st century. But the attempt - already bogged down by political missteps and the forces for the status quo - will be further delayed by the terrorist attacks. The attacks "preclude substantial reductions in forces in the near term, though it may be feasible to reduce personnel end-strength by streamlining and reorganizing the force," states the draft report. The U.S. military, for now at least, will retain 10 active-duty Army divisions, 12 Navy carrier battle groups and 12 active Air Force fighter wings. The Pentagon's new defense review details no changes to major weapon programs such as the Air Force's F-22 fighter, the Navy's aircraft carriers and the Army's Crusader artillery program. "The primary weakness of the QDR is that it is extremely short both on programmatic details and on revealing the analytic basis for their conclusions," said the analyst. Pentagon officials say modifications to the weapons recapitalization program will be spelled out in the 2003 to 2007 program review called the program objective memorandum, or POM. The Pentagon is currently constructing its 2003 spending plan, which will be submitted to Congress in February. Following the White House's post-attack requests for military budget hikes, Pentagon financial managers have provided new spending targets for 2003. These targets will determine what weapon system programs are funded and which are not, sources say. Before the terrorist attacks, Rumsfeld said the Defense Department would require every nickel Congress could find for its modernization program. With the new war on terrorism, President George W. Bush and Congress have pledged to make available every resource necessary. Gopal Ratnam contributed to this report from Washington. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide! http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:53 PST