Every four years, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is a congressionally mandated to conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR is a wide-ranging, comprehensive review that ensures the national defense strategy is consistent with the National Security Strategy, barring budgetary considerations. The International Security Program at CSIS held an event discussing future the 2014 QDR and U.S. defense strategy, capabilities and organizational structures in this unique budgetary environment and pressure from Congress.
The panel included the Director of CSIS’s International Security Program, David Berteau; Director of the Defense and National Security Group, Clark Murdock; Senior Fellow at the International Security Program, Sam Brannen; and the acting Director for the Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program, Stephanie Kostro. The event was moderated by Kim Wincup.
The QDR was created in the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The first QDR occurred in 1996 following the collapse of the Soviet Union. U.S. strategy, post-WWII, had been containment of the Soviet threat. The post-Cold War era needed a new defense strategy. The QDR is supposed to: 1) assess the current security environment; 2) establish strategic priorities to guide DoD procurement, personnel, and policy; and 3) lay the foundation for planning and decision making for the next four years.
The sequester and a resulting environment of reduced budgets dominated the discussion. Mr. Brannen flatly criticized the QDR objective to create a defense strategy with an unconstrained budget analysis. However, Ms. Kostro was opposed to that line of thinking. She posited that the defense strategy and force structure should be devised regardless of budget at first. She recommended that the strategy should be primarily based off the mission the National Security Strategy sets. After the QDR has been developed, then review strategy through a budgetary lens.
Mr. Murdock noted that this is not an era for grand strategy. Quoting a colleague, he said this was the era of a ‘dial-a-strategy.’
“The first Gulf War was won with a Cold War force structure,” he stated. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. military has had to contend with a broad range of contingencies that no one could have predicted: a humanitarian crisis in the Balkans, the first Gulf War, the War on Terror, and the Libyan uprising.
After the QDR is conducted, an independent panel—the national defense panel—reviews the QDR and presents the review to the Congress. The panelists were divided on the value of this independent review. The Pentagon conducts many reviews on strategy, force structure, and capabilities. Kostro stated the national defense panel was unnecessary and called it a “bridge to nowhere.” The panel’s cynic, Mr. Clark, said the independent panel is for Congressional men and women to protect defense jobs in their districts. Berteau did not agree and argued that the independent review “adds another pair of eyes.”
Overall, the panel appeared the agree that the 2014 QDR should focus more on fewer tough issues, in order to better resolve such issues. Further, a defense grand strategy, similar to that in the Cold War, might not be needed today, but will definitely be needed in the near future. Finally, budget considerations should be an integral part of creating the next QDR.
DoD photo by Glenn Fawcett (released).
a global affairs media network
The 2014 QDR: Budget Constraints Debated
August 2, 2013
Every four years, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is a congressionally mandated to conduct a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR is a wide-ranging, comprehensive review that ensures the national defense strategy is consistent with the National Security Strategy, barring budgetary considerations. The International Security Program at CSIS held an event discussing future the 2014 QDR and U.S. defense strategy, capabilities and organizational structures in this unique budgetary environment and pressure from Congress.
The panel included the Director of CSIS’s International Security Program, David Berteau; Director of the Defense and National Security Group, Clark Murdock; Senior Fellow at the International Security Program, Sam Brannen; and the acting Director for the Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program, Stephanie Kostro. The event was moderated by Kim Wincup.
The QDR was created in the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The first QDR occurred in 1996 following the collapse of the Soviet Union. U.S. strategy, post-WWII, had been containment of the Soviet threat. The post-Cold War era needed a new defense strategy. The QDR is supposed to: 1) assess the current security environment; 2) establish strategic priorities to guide DoD procurement, personnel, and policy; and 3) lay the foundation for planning and decision making for the next four years.
The sequester and a resulting environment of reduced budgets dominated the discussion. Mr. Brannen flatly criticized the QDR objective to create a defense strategy with an unconstrained budget analysis. However, Ms. Kostro was opposed to that line of thinking. She posited that the defense strategy and force structure should be devised regardless of budget at first. She recommended that the strategy should be primarily based off the mission the National Security Strategy sets. After the QDR has been developed, then review strategy through a budgetary lens.
Mr. Murdock noted that this is not an era for grand strategy. Quoting a colleague, he said this was the era of a ‘dial-a-strategy.’
“The first Gulf War was won with a Cold War force structure,” he stated. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. military has had to contend with a broad range of contingencies that no one could have predicted: a humanitarian crisis in the Balkans, the first Gulf War, the War on Terror, and the Libyan uprising.
After the QDR is conducted, an independent panel—the national defense panel—reviews the QDR and presents the review to the Congress. The panelists were divided on the value of this independent review. The Pentagon conducts many reviews on strategy, force structure, and capabilities. Kostro stated the national defense panel was unnecessary and called it a “bridge to nowhere.” The panel’s cynic, Mr. Clark, said the independent panel is for Congressional men and women to protect defense jobs in their districts. Berteau did not agree and argued that the independent review “adds another pair of eyes.”
Overall, the panel appeared the agree that the 2014 QDR should focus more on fewer tough issues, in order to better resolve such issues. Further, a defense grand strategy, similar to that in the Cold War, might not be needed today, but will definitely be needed in the near future. Finally, budget considerations should be an integral part of creating the next QDR.
DoD photo by Glenn Fawcett (released).
