New US QDR hits the streets

The new QDR is likely to result in a major shift away from the 2MRC conflict paradigm. This would only make sense based on realities on the ground at this point, given that one of the 2MRCs was Iraq.

The Pentagon will no longer shape the U.S. military to fight two major conventional wars at once, but rather prepare for numerous conflicts and not all in the same style, according to a draft of a new strategic outlook the Pentagon is announcing on Monday.
The new mantra for military planners will replace the almost 25-year-old combat planning style of fighting and winning two major conventional wars in two different locations in favor of a fighting force that is capable of protecting U.S. interests around the world from a range of threats, from terrorism to cyber attacks.
The change will be addressed in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressionally mandated document that looks at future threats and the military's requirements to mitigate them.
"It is no longer appropriate to speak of major regional conflicts as the sole or even primary template for sizing, shaping or evaluating U.S. forces," according to a draft first obtained by Inside Defense.

A deeper look into the QDR shows how some acquisitions requirements are being shaped, too.

The QDR stresses the need for several types of long-range strike capabilities -- rather than specifying a requirement for a new bomber or another single platform -- to counter growing threats to forward-deployed U.S. forces and overseas bases.
But the department also plans to experiment with "conventional prompt global strike prototypes" -- an apparent indication the Air Force still plans to pursue a new bomber.
"Building on insights developed during the QDR, the Secretary of Defense has ordered a follow-on study to determine what combination of joint persistent surveillance, electronic warfare, and precision-attack capabilities, including both penetrating platforms and stand-off weapons, will best support U.S. power projection operations over the next two to three decades," according to the report.
The review calls for increasing the number of airborne electronic warfare assets, which have been used to counter roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report says the Navy will buy more EA-18G Growler aircraft but does not state how many more of the Boeing Co. planes it will procure.
The Marine Corps, meanwhile, will take steps to keep its EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft in service longer.

As required by law, there will be an independent panel responsible for assessing the QR.

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announced today his appointments to a congressionally-mandated independent panel selected to review the Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
The bipartisan panel is required by law to submit by July 2010 a report to Congress assessing the QDR, its recommendations, stated and implied assumptions, and any vulnerabilities of the strategy and force structure underlying the report.
The panel’s assessment will include analyses of trends, asymmetries, and concepts of operations that characterize the military balance with potential adversaries, focusing on the strategic approaches of possible opposing forces.
The panel consists of 20 members, eight of whom are selected by Congress. The 12 members announced by the secretary of defense are:

William J. Perry, co-chair
Stephen J. Hadley, co-chair
Richard L. Armitage
Jack Dyer Crouch II
Rudy F. deLeon
Joan A. Dempsey
Sherri W. Goodman
Retired Navy Adm. David E. Jeremiah
Retired Army Gen. George A. Joulwan
Alice C. Maroni
Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper
Retired Air Force Gen. Larry D. Welch

Members appointed by Congress are:
Charles Curtis
Eric S. Edelman
Retired Army Gen. John (Jack) Keane
Richard H. Kohn
John F. Lehman Jr.
Retired Army Lt. Col. John Nagl
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr.
James M. Talent

There are some definite iconoclasts in there, so it'll be interesting to see what their recommendations are.

Other coverage of the QDR out there:
World Politics Review - QDR: The Triumph of Integrated Defense Thinking

I don't think anyone who's been following the military's operational soul searching and evolution over the past five years will be surprised by anything here. But I'd offer one alternative reading of the degree to which COIN figures prominently in this year's edition, as compared to conventional warfighting. Certainly it is a priority, and if we're to go by the order of appearance, it now comes just after homeland defense on the Pentagon's "to do" list. That makes sense, since we've currently got roughly 200,000 soldiers taking part in COIN operations, compared to roughly zero taking part in conventional warfare.
But operating in anti-access environments comes just after (security mentoring with partner states being an aspect of the broader COIN/CT campaign). And as I argued last week, anti-access is another way of saying China, and to a lesser degree North Korea and Iran.
Now, let's take the scenario of an armed conflict on the Korean Penisula, since it's a bit easier to tackle than one involving China and Taiwan. The immediate challenge would be deploying the necessary reinforcements in the face of North Korea's offensive missile threat and anti-access defenses. Let's also assume, for the sake of making my argument easier to defend, that the normal probablilities of warfare apply and the force with the greater capacity -- i.e., us -- prevails. Unless the fighting results in a negotiated ceasefire along the lines of the status quo ante, which is difficult to imagine, what follows is most likely the complete destabilization of North Korea, with all of the security, governance and humanitarian contingencies we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Haiti.

Information Dissemination - Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report Day

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.

Attackerman over at FireDogLake has a collection of "Good QDR Lines", starting here.

Bloomberg asks if we've just replaced Iraq and North Korea with China and Iran as the bogeymen-du-jour.

A few definite patterns are emerging:
1. COIN is gaining a huge emphasis. While that's certainly necessary right now, it may not be the real long-term direction for the US to go.
2. Budget turf wars are still primarily being fought between the USAF and USN, since they have the big-ticket items, even if they aren't relevant to current COIN fights.
3. It's hard to project where you might be shooting people in 10 years. After all, 10 years ago we were still arguing over whether or not we should be nation-building in Kosovo and Bosnia.
4. Congress is going to get involved as they try to rescue local jobs in a tight economy. And the focus will be jobs, not national defense.

By: Brant