National Defense Panel Releases Assessment of 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review

The entire 81 page report can be downloaded here:  http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/Ensuring-a-Strong-U.S.-Defense-for-the-Future-NDP-Review-of-the-QDR_0.pdf

I know every wants to focus on their sequestration analysis but I have to wave the BS flag here from page 26 of the report:

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan U.S.forces forward based in and deployed to the Asia-Pacific, although reduced in capacity by theMiddle East conflicts, kept up an ambitious schedule of engagement, exercises, and securitycooperation with allies and partners, while Special Forces soldiers continued partnering with local forces in counter-terrorism operations.

SOF did/does a lot more than partner with local forces in counterterrorism operations.  This panel continues to perpetuate the myth that all SOF does is focus on counterterrorism.  Unfortunately and with all due respect to the distinguished panel members and consultants (Appendix 6 page 69) few to none have any significant experience in special warfare activities conducted by SOF (LTG (RET) Kearney notwithstanding).

However,  they do recognize that the ability to counter unconventional and political warfare must be a priority (interesting that it is listed first - but this can be extended beyond the former Soviet Union to other hostile state and non-state actors to include Iran, China, ISIL/IS, and even AQ).  From page 19:

Specific challenges that should guide U.S. planning include:1. Russia’s increasing use of rapidly mobile and well-equipped special operations forces with coordinated political warfare and cyberspace capabilities to create new “facts onthe ground,” particularly in areas of the former Soviet Union;

National Defense Panel Releases Assessment of 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review

Report Addresses U.S. National Security, Sequestration, Force Structure

Published: 

July 31, 2014

For Immediate Release: July 31, 2014

http://www.usip.org/publications/national-defense-panel-releases-assessment-of-2014-quadrennial-defense-review
Contact: Allison Sturma
202-429-4725 – Direct
202-415- 4935 – Mobile

(Washington) – The National Defense Panel delivered its review of the Department of Defense 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to Congress today. The Congressionally mandated report, “Ensuring a Strong Defense for the Future,” was written at the request of the Department of Defense. The executive director of the project was Colonel (Ret.). Paul Hughes, a senior advisor at the United States Institute of Peace and was written in partnership with LMI, a non-profit government consulting firm. COL. Hughes also led the 2010 review of the QDR. 

The consensus conclusion of the report is that there is a growing gap between the strategic objectives the U.S. military is expected to achieve and the resources required to do so. In their cover letter to Congress, NDP co-chairs Dr. William Perry and General John P. Abizaid wrote, “We must act now to address our challenges if the nation is to continue benefiting from its national security posture.” 

“USIP is an honest, non-partisan convener of sometimes difficult conversations related to America’s security,” said Kristin Lord, acting president of USIP. “The NDP is the most recent in a long list of practical discussions involving senior leaders hosted, and led, by the Institute.” USIP has also facilitated the work of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, the Task Force on the United Nations, the Iraq Study Group, the Afghanistan Senior Working Group, the Genocide Prevention Task Force, and others.

The NDP is comprised of 10 members appointed by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Dr. Perry and General Abizaid were appointed to co-chair the 2014 Panel by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. The report examined how the QDR presented U.S. interests and objectives; the strategic and operational environment; U.S. strategy, budget and reforms; and the readiness, capabilities and force structure of the armed services.

The other National Defense Panel members are:

·       General James Cartwright (Ret.)

·       Ambassador Eric Edelman

·       Former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy

·       Lieutenant General Frank Kearney (Ret.)

·       Lieutenant General Michael Maples (Ret.)

·       Former Congressman Jim Marshall

·       General Gregory Martin (Ret.)

·       Former Senator James Talent

###

“Ensuring a Strong U.S. Defense for the Future: The National Defense Panel Review of the Quadrennial Defense Review” represents the consensus views of the Panel members and does not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Institute of Peace, which does not take policy positions.

The United States Institute of Peace is a Congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world. USIP does this by engaging directly in conflict zones and providing analysis, education, and resources to those working for peace. To learn more about visit www.usip.org and follow USIP on Twitter @USIP.

Defense Reorganization Under Sequestration: A Speech by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on December 1, 2016

Fascinating read.  I will file this away to re-read again on December 1, 2016.

Regarding this excerpt on SOF – we could probably go from 68.000 to 55,000 without cutting the numbers of the operational force of Special Forces, SEALs, SWCCs, Rangers, Marine Special Operations Teams, Air Commandos, CCT, PJ's, STTs etc. And I especially like the focus on education. But regarding the 68,000 number we really should be talking about the size of the operational force because the vast majority of that 68,000 number are not "operators" but the more it is repeated the more the public thinks there are 68,000 special operators running around the world which of course is not at all accurate.

Special Operations Command.  The special operations community has grown in value and size over the last decade.  The valor and value of our Special Operators is unquestionable.  But we must be cognizant that it is not always the right tool to fix all problems. To keep its special status, especially as the size of the conventional force shrinks, and where it gets its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines from, we propose a decrease in its size from 68,000 to 55,000.   However, key modernization programs for aviation and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets will be increased.  We also tasked the National Defense University with sourcing a world-class education system for our experts in the Human Domain.

V/R

Dave

Defense Reorganization Under Sequestration: A Speech by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on December 1, 2016

https://www.fpri.org/print/1719

Frank G. Hoffman is a Washington-based national security analyst and a member of FPRI’s Board of Advisors.

Michael P. Noonan is Director of FPRI’s national security program.

Related program(s)

Program on National Security [5]

Frank G. Hoffman [3], Michael P. Noonan [4]

July 2013

This “speech” by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff addressing the National Press Club in Washington DC on December 1, 2016 is, obviously, a work of fiction. With that having been said, the recommendations made here may very well be necessary in order to align U.S. military means to budgetary ends under the realities of sequestration and the Budget Control Act. The suggested force structure recommendations are solely those of the authors and do not represent the views of any organizations they may represent.

Guests, members of the press and media, and most importantly, my fellow Americans…….

Now that the election is over, and we’re in the interregnum between the outgoing and incoming Administrations, the time has come for me to address a profound challenge facing our nation: the serious decline in the readiness of our Armed Forces.  Our national security strategy, issued last year by the outgoing Administration, remains a comprehensive and accurate list of the key strategic objectives for our Nation. However, it is not rationally tied to any priorities nor to the means that the Nation is willing to tax itself to pay for. Its aspirations are beyond reach, and poorly linked to our security appropriations. Thus, a growing gap has been created between the missions that we in the Armed Forces of the United States are assigned, and those that we can actually execute.  This yawning gap places our security at peril, and I am duty bound to report this simple fact to our Nation’s leaders in both the Executive Branch and Congress. 

As I say this, let me stress that I am also duty bound by custom and the professional ethos of our country’s military to offer a possible solution to this serious and growing problem.

After coming to this assignment upon the sudden resignation of my predecessor, I have gained a steadily greater insight to why he chose to take the position of principle that he did. The Chiefs and I collectively have come to feel that the time has come for both the Executive Branch and Congress to acknowledge the harm that the inability to conclude any effective legislative agreements over the last four years has had on our Nation’s defense, and to take responsibility for the steady demise of our ability to meet our strategic objectives.

We have watched with growing alarm the significant damage that sequestration is doing to the force, as recruiting declines, retention of our experienced and capable junior leaders past their basic obligation sinks toward zero, maintenance backlogs spike, and our combat readiness is degraded. Half the Air Force’s flying squadrons are not combat ready, our Fleet size is now projected to be 215 ships, and the Army has cancelled all combat exercises at the National Training Center, our premier training evolution. The Marine Corps has grounded its MV-22 fleet for lack of parts and massive readiness concerns, and the last three Marine Expeditionary Units deployed on 2 instead of 3 ships due to a collapse of naval maintenance in our amphibious fleet.  None of those units were Special Operations Certified despite dire requests from the regional commanders for such training qualifications. To be completely direct: three years of political deadlock and legislative paralysis has undermined our ability to preserve our position in the world, and badly damaged our influence and our ability to defend ourselves.  Frozen pay and sharply reduced benefits, cuts to force levels, reduced training and wholesale cuts in procurement and research accounts have left us poorly prepared to execute any national security strategy. 

(Continued at the link below)

https://www.fpri.org/print/1719