PDP Hosts Workshop on Defense Management Challenges in the Post-Bush Era

Washington, DC – On February 7, 2008, PDP Co-Directors Ashton B. Carter and William J. Perry hosted one in a series of workshops entitled “Defense Management Challenges in the Post-Bush Era.” The off-the-record workshop, held in Washington, DC, focused on what management challenges the next administration will face in the next two to five years. The management issues include balancing strategy and resources in a tightening budget climate, leveraging America’s technology and industrial bases to sustain a competitive edge, resetting civil-military relations, and extending the concept of national security management to include non-military capabilities.

Photo: Ms. Sarah Sewall (Director, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government), Dr. John P. White (Robert and Renée Belfer Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government), General John P. Abizaid (Former Commander, U.S. Central Command)

(Photo by Gretchen Bartlett, PDP Associate Director)

* * *

In the first session, “Strategy, Force Structure, Budget: What Should the 2009 QDR Say?,” participants were asked to comment on the role and value of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) process and what planning is needed to address the upcoming budgetary environment. The discussion focused on whether or not the QDR is working; the relative importance and meaning of strategy, threats, resource constraints, and business planning; and the need to broaden the review beyond the Department of Defense.

The workshop participants discussed the possibility of a more constrained budgetary environment for Defense priorities. The budget trends included a possible leveling off of the top line of the Defense budget; a reduction of supplementals faster than a reduction of commitments that are funded by the supplementals; a larger than forecasted resource need for resetting ground forces, weapon systems, and other services; a rise in health care and other operating costs; and a uncertain view of the country’s overall economic health.

Overall, participants agreed that the current QDR does not work. Many of those making comments noted that the current review of programs does not add value relative to the amount of effort that is used. Further, participants commented that the review of programs does not help to set or to inform a strategy. However, some did point out that the QDR can serve as a helpful framing device and provides the opportunity for an analysis of how strategy and resources are being matched. Others discussed the possibility of identifying redundancies and excesses through the QDR process.

While there was agreement that the current QDR process does not work, participants did not come to consensus about whether or not it should be replaced with an approach focused on strategy, underlying threats, resource constraints, or a business plan approach. Some argued that a focus on strategy should come first. Others noted that since there is not consensus about what the most important emerging threats are, it may be difficult to focus primarily on strategy. Others argued that strategy was not just about threats but included resources and policy. Several participants noted that a review and planning process should be guided by resource constraints. Others specifically raised the concept of a business plan that would be guided by resource constraints, a time table, or where things should be changed. Lastly, several participants noted that focusing on the process was limiting and a focus on the attributes needed or end goal would be more productive.

Several participants voiced the view that a Quadrennial Review should be broader than just within the Department of Defense. Instead, some advocated for a National Security Review that would include other agencies, but raised questions about what structure would be created to achieve one. Participants added that the Department of Defense would need to get its own plans in order before being prepared to work with other agencies on the overall national security strategy.

Photo: General James E. Cartwright, USMC (Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), Admiral Dennis C. Blair, USN (Ret.) (John M. Shalikashvili Chair in Strategic Studies, National Bureau of Asian Research), Dr. Stephen D. Biddle (Senior Fellow for Defense Policy, Council on Foreign Relations), Dr. Ashton B. Carter (Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government), Dr. William J. Perry (Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Stanford University, Center for International Security & Cooperation)

(Photo by Gretchen Bartlett, PDP Associate Director)

* * *

In the second session, “Transformation and Technology,” participants noted that technology has historically been America’s comparative advantage in defense, but in recent decades, the technological advances of others have forced the United States into a defensive position. In considering how the United States might bring its technological expertise to bear on existing and future security threats, participants considered strategies for improving ties with the commercial sector and academic community, and improving the Department’s own innovative capabilities.

While technology has long been the driver of defense, defense is no longer the key driver of technology in the United States, as much of America’s scientific innovation now originates in the commercial sector. The ability of our potential adversaries to purchase cutting edge technology makes it considerably more difficult for the United States to stay ahead of the curve. Participants noted that the military’s cooperation with In-Q-Tel provided an effective model for leveraging private industry technology for core defense applications, and urged the next administration to develop a similar model for cooperation with graduate students and university researchers.

Participants also emphasized the need for greater cooperation with the university community in two areas: increasing the number of American students in science and engineering, and incorporating academic research into the Department of Defense. To this end, participants encouraged the next administration to increase the number of American graduate students in science through a more robust National Defense Education Act, and introduce new incentives for graduate students to work with the military to address traditional security threats, as well as emerging security threats related to energy and the environment. Noting that current policy makes it difficult for foreign graduate students to remain in the United States after they finish their graduate work, participants urged the next administration to devise new strategies for retaining this talent and attracting these scientists to government service.

Within the military, the service academies train a high number of servicemen and women in technical fields, yet those with scientific or technological expertise often leave the military due to the lack of a clear career path and an incentive structure that does not adequately rewards their skills. Further, the ability of U.S. national laboratories to consider long-term projects and solutions is constrained by short time horizons and limited or earmarked funding. Participants acknowledged the need for rapid response capabilities to address pressing technological challenges, but also identified a need for longer-term thinking and a greater willingness to invest in scientific research programs that may not have an immediate payoff.

Considering the future challenges facing American military technology, participants noted that cooperation between the commercial base and defense base was particularly important for protecting U.S. cyber capabilities. The role of systems engineers and the need to improve deterrence and attribution capabilities was also emphasized, but participants warned against making technology a panacea. They noted that while a technological advantage might make the U.S. force more efficient, military technology must be supported by an appropriate force structure and a degree of redundancy in capabilities.

Photo: General John P. Abizaid (Former Commander, U.S. Central Command), Dr. William J. Perry (Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Stanford University, Center for International Security & Cooperation)

(Photo by Gretchen Bartlett, PDP Associate Director)

* * *

In the third session, “Acquisition and Industrial Base,” participants considered the continued problems with the Department of Defense’s acquisition practices despite reform efforts. The discussion focused on the importance of accountability in project decisions through comments regarding the trade off of risk, timing, performance, and costs; the ability of the acquisition corps; and the role of competition in procurement. The impact of acquisition problems was also noted.

Using recent problems with large acquisitions as a backdrop, the participants highlighted the importance that accountability plays in improving the acquisition and contracting process. Many participants noted that within the government, leaders and managers must be able to appropriately make decisions and trade-offs about risk, time, performance, and cost. Several participants noted that requiring a project be completed in a certain time frame, and therefore pushing decisions to be made about cost and performance would be valuable. Participants spoke about the importance of having high ability and knowledge within the acquisition corps and a process that matches the personnel. The large role of contractors raised questions about government accountability. Others noted that assuming competition in the defense industry when there is none is not productive and other tools can be used when competition is absent.

A few participants highlighted the negative impact that problems with the acquisition process creates. The lack of accountability and financial incentives decreases the desire for individuals to engage on these projects. In addition, the expense and bureaucratic complications of working with government as well as the poor performance of both the government and industry were also problems mentioned.

Photo: The Honorable John J. Hamre (President & CEO, Center for Strategic & International Studies), The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton (President & Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars), Mr. Alfred Grasso (President & CEO, The MITRE Corporation), The Honorable Jamie S. Gorelick (Partner, WilmerHale)

(Photo by Gretchen Bartlett, PDP Associate Director)

* * *

The fourth session entitled, “Civil-Military Relations”, encouraged participants to consider the “rules of the road” guiding the civil-military relationship. Concluding that the civil-military architecture is not broken, but simply must be used more effectively, participants emphasized the importance of strong civilian and military leadership that clarifies expectations, improves communication, and increases trust at all levels of the civil-military relationship.

Some compared civil-military relations to a “battlefield” on which each side must anticipate the moves of the other, while other participants referred to it as a “social compact” between civilian and military leaders, noting that military leaders have a responsibility to offer professional military advice, and civilian leaders have an obligation to listen to that advice. The relationship between military officers and their civilian counterparts must be sacrosanct; the military has an obligation to support the civilian leadership but also has an obligation to point out problems that must be addressed. Improved communication and increased trust could help prevent situations where civilian leaders overlook or ignore military advice, or where military officials feel the need to resign from their positions.

Participants also acknowledged the internal debates that further complicate civil-military relations. On the civilian side, the breakdown of consensus in Washington regarding national security and the state of the world has reduced cohesion within the government and across civilian agencies. On the military side, intergenerational differences and rivalries between the services have hampered the military’s efforts to clarify its own priorities and unified positions.

While the tensions between civilian and military leaders are not new, participants identified three emerging trends that have further strained the relationship. First, the politicization of the officer corps has led many retired military officials to join political campaigns, write tell-all memoirs, or speak out publicly in support of or opposition to the military decisions of future administrations. Second, the ability of disgruntled military officers at the junior or senior levels to air their grievances on the internet further exaggerates the level of disaffection. Finally, the junior officer corps has been fighting overseas for seven years, while their civilian counterparts at home have not been asked to make similar sacrifices, further increasing frustration and reducing trust in the civil-military relationship.

Participants urged the new administration to begin its term with a structured dialogue, orientation, and training that would bring discipline and self-conscious reflection to the civil-military relationship before a potential crisis emerges. This integrated planning would clarify roles and expectations, encourage communication, and increase trust for the future. Further, this training would introduce civilian newcomers to military affairs and military culture, teach new military arrivals about the intricacies of cooperation with their civilian counterparts, and prepare officials on both sides to overcome the trappings of professional jargon and communicate more effectively with one another.

Above all, the Secretary of Defense must make it clear that civilians in OSD are expected to coordinate internally with their military counterparts before entering discussions with other agencies. While civilian and military leaders offer advice from their own positions and expertise, the Secretary has a responsibility to look at the bigger picture, and make a decision that is best for the country.

Photo: General James E. Cartwright, USMC (Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)

(Photo by Gretchen Bartlett, PDP Associate Director)

* * *

As part of the fifth and final session entitled, “Interagency Coordination and Capability Building: What Would a Quadrennial National Security Review Say?,” participants discussed the merits of a National Security Review and the implications for resource and integration decisions for needed military and non-military capabilities. Using the concept of a QDR for all agencies related to national security as a frame, participants focused the discussion on whether or not a broader QDR was a good idea and offered comments on the challenges of resources and integration.

Most participants agreed that a broader QDR that involved agencies that impact national security was a good idea. Some agreed with a specific proposal to replicate a QDR with agencies that dealt with national security, including a budget review by the NSC and OMB, and the creation of Select Committees in Congress. A new Department of National Defense was put forward as a structural and integration solution, the concepts of cross-posting and increased professionalization on the civilian side were mentioned, and others emphasized the importance of decentralization and integration of interagency capabilities.

Participants noted that it is difficult for agencies other than the Department of Defense to advocate for resources. Others raised the question of whether the primarily problem was one of capability or one of coordination only. Participants commented that a process and structure that would provide more certainty as to the roles of the various agencies would be valuable. Other participants discussed that non-military agencies had the capability for more limited engagements but that large and intensive operations would likely expose capability problems.

* * *

The Defense Management Challenges in the Post-Bush Era Workshop was the eighth in a series of Washington, DC-based workshops convened by the Preventive Defense Project. Other workshops and related publications and Congressional testimony have concerned policy recommendations for Heading Off a Nuclear Cascade, the Day After a Nuclear Attack, Plan B for Iran, Improving WMD Intelligence, Updating the NPT Regime, Plan B for North Korea, and the US-India Nuclear Deal. These workshops are supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Richard Lounsbery Foundation and the Herbert S. Winokur Fund.

The following individuals participated in the “Defense Management Challenges in the Post-Bush Era” workshop:

General John P. Abizaid
Former Commander, U.S. Central Command
Dr. Deana Arsenian (observer)
Vice President, International Program Coordination, Carnegie Corporation of New York
Dr. Stephen D. Biddle
Senior Fellow for Defense Policy, Council on Foreign Relations
Admiral Dennis C. Blair, USN (Ret.)
John M. Shalikashvili Chair in Strategic Studies, National Bureau of Asian Research
Dr. Kurt Campbell
CEO & Co-Founder, Center for a New American Security
Dr. Ashton B. Carter
Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government
General James E. Cartwright, USMC
Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Lt. General David A. Deptula, USAF
Deputy Chief of Staff, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force
Ambassador James Dobbins
Director, Center for International Security and Defense Policy, RAND Corporation
The Honorable Jamie S. Gorelick
Partner, WilmerHale
Mr. Alfred Grasso
President & CEO, The MITRE Corporation
The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton
President & Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
The Honorable John J. Hamre
President & CEO, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Dr. John Harvey
Director, Policy Planning Staff, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy
Dr. Robert J. Hermann
Senior Advisor, Preventive Defense Project
Ms. Rebecca Hersman
Senior Research Fellow, Center for the Study of WMD, National Defense University
Dr. Paul G. Kaminski
Chairman & CEO, Technovation, Inc.
Dr. Donald M. Kerr
Principal Deputy Director, National Intelligence
Lieutenant General Frank G. Klotz
Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, Director of Staff, U.S. Air Force
The Honorable John E. McLaughlin
Senior Fellow, Merrill Center for Strategic Studies, John Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
Dr. Robert A. Mikelskas
Vice President & Chief Information Officer, The MITRE Corporation
Mr. Rodney W. Nichols
President & CEO Emeritus, New York Academy of Sciences
Dr. Mackubin Thomas Owens
Associate Dean of Academics for Electives/Directed Research & Professor of National Security Affairs, US Naval War College & Editor, Orbis
Dr. William J. Perry
Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Stanford University, Center for International Security & Cooperation
Admiral Joseph Wilson Prueher, USN (Ret.)
Senior Advisor, Preventive Defense Project
General Robert W. RisCassi, USA (Ret.)
Senior Vice President, L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.
Mr. David E. Sanger
Chief Washington Correspondent, The New York Times
Ms. Sarah Sewall
Director, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government
Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall
Founding Senior Advisor, Preventive Defense Project; Senior Research Scholar, Stanford University; Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Mr. James D. Shields
President & CEO, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.
Lieutenant General Glenn Spears, USAF
Deputy Commander, U.S. Southern Command
The Honorable John P. Stenbit
Partner, Global Technology Partners, LLC
Mr. Michael T. Strianese
President & CEO, L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.
Major General Guy C. Swan III, USA
Director of Operations, US Northern Command
Mr. Philip Taubman (observer)
Associate Editor, The New York Times
General John H. Tilelli, Jr., USA (Ret.)
Chairman & CEO, Cypress International
General Larry D. Welch, USAF (Ret.)
President & CEO, Institute for Defense Analyses
Dr. John P. White
Robert and Renée Belfer Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government
Mr. Herbert S. Winokur, Jr.
Chairman & CEO, Capricorn Holdings, Inc.