By GORDON I. PETERSON

As the date for November’s general election approaches, all branches of the U.S. armed forces—guided by the overarching direction of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—are quietly but methodically completing preparations for the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The degree to which the new administration will accept the preliminary work of the Joint Staff and the individual services is not known, but sea-service officials place a high premium on developing a comprehensive review that is based on current U.S. national-security strategy—making it what is already being described as a "strategy-led" review.

"That is exactly what the chairman [JCS chairman Gen. Henry H. Shelton] said he wants," Rear Adm. Joseph Sestak, director of the Strategy and Policy Division on the staff of the chief of naval operations, told Sea Power.

A Legal Mandate

The legal requirement for the 2001 QDR is contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 and correlates closely with Shelton’s approach; this makes it in part an effort by Congress to remedy perceived deficiencies in the last QDR, in 1997. The FY 2000 authorization bill stipulates that next year’s review shall be conducted to achieve a number of key objectives, including the following:

• Delineate a national-defense strategy consistent with the most recent National Security Strategy approved by the president;

• Define the force structure, force-modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plans, and other elements of the U.S. defense program required to execute successfully the full range of required missions; and

• Identify: (a) the budget plan that would be required to provide sufficient resources to execute successfully the full range of missions called for in the national-defense strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk; and (b) any additional resources—beyond those programmed in the current Future-Years Defense Plan—required to meet that level of risk.

"The QDR provides a roadmap to prepare for the next conflict," Rep. Floyd D. Spence (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told a Capitol Hill conference on the QDR sponsored by the Lexington Institute. "We have a good strategy, but we don’t have the force or the resources to carry out that strategy."

Spence said he is convinced that budget constraints will have a large part to play during the development of the review, but he expressed the hope that the upcoming QDR would be conducted more objectively than the 1997 review.

Preparation and Transition

All of the nation’s armed services have adopted similar approaches in responding to the Joint Staff’s preliminary planning. Work groups and panels have been formed to conduct new studies and to update strategic-planning documents. Round-table discussions, workshops, seminars, and service-unique war games have been conducted in a conscious effort to refine operational concepts and gain insights into the types of issues that will be addressed during the QDR.

The Navy, for example, issued its revised Navy Strategic Planning Guidance in April. Its QDR Planning Group has developed three major themes to guide it during and beyond the QDR, including: (a) the Navy’s enduring contribution to combat-credible forward presence; (b) the Navy’s transformation into a knowledge-superior force; and (c) the Navy’s move into new mission areas—such as theater ballistic-missile defense and deep-land attack—as the result of new technology and other factors.

The Joint Staff, guided by a general officer steering group, has directed that a schedule of four war games—code-named Dynamic Commitment—begin this month to help identify and research critical issues more intensively. U.S. warfighting commanders in chief have made significant contributions to the games’ scenarios.

This preparation phase will end on the day after Election Day, and will be followed by a transition phase as the new administration’s transition team reports to the Pentagon.

The FY 2000 DOD Authorization Bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit the QDR report to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services not later than 30 September 2001.

The Navy and Marine Corps flag and general officers assigned to lead their services’ preparation for and support of the QDR told Sea Power that their hope is that the review will address the current mismatch between U.S. national-security strategy and present force-structure and funding levels.

"We think the strategy is about right," said Maj. Gen. Robert Magnus, the assistant deputy commandant of the Marine Corps for plans, policy, and operations. "Right now, the strategy-resource mismatch is significant enough ... if we continue on the [current funding] level ... we will not have ... the resources to maintain the capabilities of being a superpower."