By Ann Roosevelt
The Army is ramping up for its portion of the massive review of national defense strategy, force structure and modernization that takes place every four years under instructions from the Secretary of Defense: the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
“Everyone’s anticipating and waiting,” Brig. Gen. Francis Mahon, director, Quadrennial Defense Review, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, told Defense Daily in a recent interview. “The QDR we should work through this calendar year, and the QDR as a formal report should go over [to Congress] no later than next January with the FY ’11 budget.”
The secretary sends what is called the “terms of reference,” developed by his policy office, to all the services.
While much has been published about what could or should be included in the QDR review, there are only two people who matter, Tim Muchmore, deputy director of the Army QDR office, said: “It’s all about the Secretary of Defense and he’s all about the President.”
Between QDRs, the Army office “goes into hibernation,” shrinking to about three to four people, Mahon said. They stay engaged by watching joint studies, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) studies, stay engaged with think tanks, reading papers and attending seminars.
In August, Mahon was brought in to lead the Army’s effort. “We’re almost there, we’ll get up to about 15-16 people dedicated to the QDR and then we matrix across the Army staff so as an issue is presented–based on what the issue is–then we’ll reach down to the appropriate staff section. That staff section will then lead the effort in studying the issue and working the proposals, and then it comes back to us and we kind of integrate and organize the process for the chief and the secretary.”
In the fall, the office worked on roles and missions, which set the stage for the coming QDR. “We use the same process: as we received the topic it was passed down to a staff section. They work the issue, and we brought the package back together and submitted it to OSD,” he said.
OSD looks it over, and then the work goes to the secretary.
Every service has a QDR team, led by a flag officer, Mahon said. All are organized a little differently in size or process, but “we will meet, I assume, on a regular basis. We did that during the fall to roles and missions, and to rewrite the Department of Defense directive 5100.1, functions, and then we’ll exchange views and ideas on whatever the issue might be.”
DoD directive 5100.1 describes the functions of the Defense Department and its major components.
Muchmore said, “I think we think we’re fundamentally different as an office especially compared to the Air Force and Navy. The big thinking that takes place in the Air Force and the Navy doesn’t take place in this office. The big thinking happens on the Army staff where all the experts are.”
Mahon said, “We just integrate, and prod.”
Recent attention went to the U.S. Joint Forces Command-generated Joint Operating Environment, and the subsequent Capstone Concept for joint Operations, signed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen (Defense Daily, Dec. 8, Jan. 26).
“I think they [the two documents] may help frame the QDR process,” Mahon said. “The Joint Operating Environment I think does a pretty good job of articulating the current environment we’re operating in…you’ve got to have something to put your azimuth on to move forward.”
The joint capstone document lists 17 implications, institutionalizing irregular warfare that the Secretary of Defense talks about.
“As I looked at those and looked at what the Army has been doing, I think we’re well on our way in executing those” 17 implications for the joint force.
The Army has reorganized its schools to capture the current environment, instruction has changed, as has leader development. And, three new doctrinal manuals were published in the past year on operations, stability operations, and counterinsurgency. “We’re moving down the path of those 17 steps,” he said. “We’ve done a lot to institutionalize irregular warfare and bring it more into the mainstream Army.”
The watchword must be balance, he said, without swinging too far in one direction. Everyone talks about balance. The Army has been talking about it since 2002.
“When we see what issues come out to be worked in the QDR, I think a lot of them will be where you are, what you have done and what you’ve got in process or what you intend to do,” he said. “You’ve got to lay that out. We may be well on the path. The militaries and the department don’t turn on a dime and so it takes time.”
For example, the 2006 QDR talked about increasing special operations, and building partnership capacity.
Special operations have grown, Mahon said. “But it takes time to produce those helicopters before they start flying. It takes time to transition a unit to grow more civil affairs, so we’re moving down that path.”
Building partnership capacity will take time to win the trust and friendship needed.
Indirectly, the QDR will influence the budget.
Muchmore said this year the FY ’10 budget and QDR coincide.
“If there are decisions made by the new administration that are going to go in the president’s amended [FY ’10] budget then those will either affect the follow-on QDR or they’ll be withdrawn from the QDR because the decisions will already be made,” he said.
Mahon said Secretary Gates has several times said he would make some hard decisions, and they will set the stage for the QDR.
“We’re moving on a parallel path, here time-wise,” Mahon said. “Whatever gets decided on that budget will set the start point probably for the QDR. What happens in the QDR as we go forward and study topics or issues will probably influence the ’11 budget and then influence the next POM cycle.
While no one can yet say for sure what Secretary Gates will want to examine, Mahon said, looking back at the roles and missions work, cyber is an emerging domain, so to speak. There’s more work to be done in cyber in defining how the department is going to address that. I think that will be a topic that will be addressed in the QDR.
The Army G-3 leads cyber efforts supported by the G-2 and G-6. “They’ve done some work for the QRM continuing to think about it, and if that comes up as an issue, then they’ll be engaged in the QDR process,” he said.
Muchmore said, “The reality is, there’s only two people that matter, the president and the secretary of defense. They are working now, they’ve been working for months to figure out what priorities need to change how the strategy maybe needs to change and eventually they will begin to share that vision with the rest of the department of defense.”
“There aren’t many dogs that don’t bark in a QDR,” Muchmore said. “Some of them are relevant, some of them are not relevant.”
The Army’s major Future Combat System (FCS) program–14 systems connected to each other and soldiers by a network–has come in from some criticism in many quarters and is touted as one program that will face tough times from the new administration.
However, until the terms of reference come, the QDR office continues to scan the environment, Mahon said, reading, “debating amongst ourselves and challenging some of the established thoughts, red teaming, so to speak.”