Wednesday, February 08, 2006

QDR 2005-6

A brief look at the QDR

Well I’m in the wonderful Garden State,working on the Disaster Recovery Program for UK/Homeland Security. So I will be missing class Thursday I saw yesterday that the Quadrennial Defense Review came out, so while riding on the famed subways around here I figured I would write a quick overview of the QDR. Sorry for typo’s.

After reading the QDR it seems that the Department of Defense has learned from some of its mistakes over the past 30 years and also realized what some of our strengths are in the twenty first century. The QDR has two main points, changing the capabilities of our military and changing the way we fight wars and conflicts. To that end the DOD will continue with the downsizing of the U.S. military. The Army will be cut down to its pre 2001 levels and the Air Force will lose 40,000. This will be to “fight the long war” as they have renamed the war on terrorism, and to realign the military to threats and missions applicable to Counter Terrorism missions (CT) and Counter Insurgency operations (CI). To achieve this goal the QDC will ask for a 15 percent boost in the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to include Special Mission Units ( SMUs) such as SEAL Teams, ODA’s, and the new Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC). Which by the way is going to be a great unit with its past going back to Combined Action Program (CAP) Platoon in Vietnam, and its present, as high speed as ODA’s and SEAL TEAM SIX. (OOH – RAH!).Plus it will add 3,500 personnel to civil affairs and psychological operation units, that’s a 33% increase in that area of warfare. This should make wining the hearts and minds of our Islamic brothers easier.

The QDR 2001 required the U.S. to be able to fight two wars and swiftly defeat the enemy in both. The 2005 QDR states that we will need to fight two wars with one of them being a prolonged “irregular” war i.e.…Iraq. In the 2001 QDR the U.S. was required to be able to operate in four regions of the world. In the 2005 QDR it states that we should be capable of operating around the globe. This will be accomplished by working with international coalitions and by, ““shape choices of countries at strategic crossroads,” according to Pentagon briefing documents. Three main countries have been recognized for this “shaping” China, Russia and India.

The new Capabilities- based system will eliminate threat-based planning. Instead the U.S. military will have four new based capabilities that will give the Pentagon a better choice set on how to use the military. These four new capabilities are: Defeat terrorist networks, Defend the U.S. homeland in depth, Prevent acquisition or use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and Shape choices of countries at strategic crossroads.

The new QDR has many interesting points and topics for debate, such as the “anticipatory measures,” partnerships portion of the QDR, for those of you not going to read it, its the part that I mentioned about managing rising powers. It does look like it will be an interesting decade for the military.

The QDR report and supporting materials are available on the Defense Department Web site.

1 comment:

80's TV character w/mullet who can get out of jams w/only a Dixe cup & old Earth,Wind,and Fire album said...

I'm not convinced that this QDR really does enough to fight terrorism. It says it does, but just looking at future procurement tells the reader another story:

F-22: we already have 100 stealth fighters-but we want more.

Virginia-class sub: we already have 60 nuclear subs-do we really need to try and build new ones a year when the USSR no longer exists?

DD(X)-we already have 12 carriers, which is two times more than any other country.

I wouldn't have a problem buying these systems if we facing a traditional threat, but alas, we're not. Why spend so much money when the QDR even admits that asymmetric warfare is the threat we're going to continue to face? And I'm not just talking about terrorists. Even any state actor we would fight today would have to fight us asymmetrically because if they came at us direct, they'd be finished.