The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a once-every-four-years report to Congress on the military's defense planning, was leaked over the weekend in advance of its official release this morning.
Congress instituted the QDR in 1996 -- mandating the Department of Defense to regularly review national security threats and military objectives -- after the end of the Cold War left the U.S. without a clear strategic focus in the medium and long terms. The 2000 QDR was notable for being released just before George W.Bush's election, and was essentially rendered obsolete by the September 11 attacks. The 2006 QDR, or “Long War” QDR, was the clearest evocation of the late Bush administration's understanding of the war on terror's military aspect. It goes without saying that defense wonks have much anticipated the 2010 QDR's release.
The exciting bits are as follows:
- The cancellation of the Navy's Next Generation Cruiser program, CG(X). The program's objective was to replace nearly two dozen Ticonderoga class cruisers after 2017.
- The elimination of the “Long War” framework that structured the 2006 QDR. The United States is now involved in “wars,” rather than a “War.” This marks a substantial ideological shift from the Bush interpretation of the relationship between Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror.
- The formal disposal of the “two war” standard, an oft-misunderstood requirement that specified the need to fight and win (or fight and hold, depending on the edition) two major regional wars simultaneously. The requirement was finessed away and replaced by a set of scenarios all of which involve managing simultaneous, geographically separated crises.
- The greening of the Department of Defense, including efforts to make the military more environmentally friendly, to anticipate and prepare for environmentally driven crises and disasters, and to achieve energy security.
- Reform of the acquisition process, including the hiring of 20,000 civilian acquisitions personnel by 2015. This would rebuild an acquisitions staff gutted by privatization efforts in the Clinton and Bush administrations, which often left development of the military's equipment stock in the hands of private contractors.
What the QDR doesn’t do is lay the groundwork for serious cuts to the U.S. defense budget. Priorities and funding are rearranged, but it’s hard to imagine how the strategic ideas set forth in the QDR will lead to a substantially smaller defense establishment. This is one reason why progressives don’t tend to follow the QDR as closely as conservatives; the changes from edition to edition seem like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Nevertheless, they should.
For additional commentary, see Spencer Ackerman, Galrahn, Erik Loomis and CNAS on the climate change question, and Matthew Yglesias on China.
--Robert Farley
(Flickr/Matt Morgan)
