Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report Day

As the QDR report goes online sometime today on the DoD official QDR page, the first question worth pondering is whether the DoD webmaster will correct the spelling for Quadrennial on the pages title (for those who don't know, page titles translate to Google searches. See top line of your browser window for title). I will be out front in admitting I am the last person who should say something about spelling though, I can be horrible.

To be honest, I am much more interested in the FY2011 budget than the QDR report, because budgets matter and QDR reports do not, but if you are looking for a tip guide in reading the QDR report I thought I would offer a bit of assistance.

Legislation describes in detail 15 items that the QDR report to Congress must contain, including overall national defense strategy, national interests, threats, assumptions, and requirements:

"The results of the review, including a comprehensive discussion of the national defense strategy of the United States and the force structure best suited to implement that strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk."

"The assumed or defined national security interests of the United States that inform the national defense strategy defined in the review."

"The threats to the assumed or defined national security interests of the United States that were examined for the purposes of the review and the scenarios developed in the examination of those threats."

"The assumptions used in the review, including assumptions relating to (A) the status of readiness of United States forces; (B) the cooperation of allies, mission sharing and additional benefits to and burdens on United States forces resulting from coalition operations; (C) warning times; (D) levels of engagement in operations other than war and smaller-scale contingencies and withdrawal from such operations and contingencies; and (E) the intensity, duration, and military and political end-states of conflicts and smaller-scale contingencies."

"The effect on the force structure and on readiness for high-intensity combat of preparations for and participation in operations other than war and smaller-scale contingencies."

"The manpower and sustainment policies required under the national defense strategy to support engagement in conflicts lasting longer than 120 days."

"The anticipated roles and missions of the reserve components in the national defense strategy and the strength, capabilities, and equipment necessary to assure that the reserve components can capably discharge those roles and missions."

"The appropriate ratio of combat forces to support forces (commonly referred to as the tooth-to-tail ratio) under the national defense strategy, including, in particular, the appropriate number and size of headquarters units and Defense Agencies for that purpose."

"The strategic and tactical air-lift, sea-lift, and ground transportation capabilities required to support the national defense strategy."

"The forward presence, pre-positioning, and other anticipatory deployments necessary under the national defense strategy for conflict deterrence and adequate military response to anticipated conflicts."

"The extent to which resources must be shifted among two or more theaters under the national defense strategy in the event of conflict in such theaters."

"The advisability of revisions to the Unified Command Plan as a result of the national defense strategy."

"The effect on force structure of the use by the armed forces of technologies anticipated to be available for the ensuing 20 years."

"The national defense mission of the Coast Guard."

"Any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate."

If you can find these topics covered sufficiently in the QDR report - then the report is good. If you cannot, the report is not good. That is basically the only benchmark that matters, because those quotes come from Title 10, U.S. Code, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 2, §118 (d).

The QDR has no statutory authority, meaning it will be used when applicable to someones agenda and ignored when not applicable. That is the pattern of the past anyway.

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) report is intended to "delineate a national defense strategy consistent with the most recent national security strategy." Recognizing that the most recently released National Defense Strategy (2008) and National Security Strategy (2006) were published by the Bush administration, we are once again doing things out of order if there is some forthcoming NSS or NDS.

'What is driving what' is a serious question, because one could conclude that the current Secretary of Defense is driving National Security Policy - not the other way around - if we are attributing the QDR to the Obama administration. Otherwise, the NDS and NSS would be available for release... one should presume.

I have seen a few people praise the QDR because it focuses on the war we are in. While I believe that is important, I think it is also important that people recognize the intent of the QDR, as Title 10 law makes clear, is to produce a report that looks out 20 years - not a report that looks at today. Being unable to look into the future has been the biggest problem troubling the DoD under Secretary Gates, and all anyone said in Congress in FY 2010 was that the QDR would answer those forward looking questions.

I guess not.

Am I the only one who looks at the QDR and is concerned how little the report looks ahead? While some initial reactions may be positive, I am unsure if that will last as the long term trend once budget season rolls around and everyone realizes how very little the QDR contributes to answering big lingering questions.

The QDR report does not answer questions. What the QDR report has done is shape which questions will be asked over the next year. The debate over the next 12 months will be interesting to watch, but it is unclear if yet another year of debate will actually produce meaningful results. The issue is this: there are about 9 COCOMs and Service Chiefs that will be retiring in mid 2011 - during the FY2012 budget battle. POM12 will be the last budget for a lot of leaders in the DoD, and if Secretary Gates is still around in mid to late 2011 he will decide who carries the QDR and POM12 agenda forward.

So the QDR just bought the DoD another year - until POM12. No answers, lots of questions, and the stars are in alignment to begin debate from a blank slate under very generic directions. It will be interesting if Congress is patient enough to give the DoD another year to make a tough decision. Do not be fooled by rhetoric, cutting defense programs has never been a tough decision; defining the future is what is tough. Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report Day represents a starting point - the 1 year countdown to POM12. If Secretary Gates is successful, over the next 21 months he will execute a strategic vision that changes and molds the DoD into the 21st century force everyone has been hoping was coming. If he is unsuccessful, it will be because he was incapable of articulating and executing a strategic vision for the DoD that looks into the 21st century. The outcome is far from certain.

--

For more thoughts on the QDR Report, the FY2011 budget, and upcoming POM12 cycle check out Sunday nights Midrats. For those who prefer to download to iPhone or iPod from iTunes, click here. Topics included a heavy dose of AEGIS BMD, my thoughts on LPD-17 issues, and other random bits of knowledge that can come out when we have high powered guests like Mackenzie Eaglen - who was outstanding.