IT IS THAT TIME AGAIN – THE QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW: THIS TIME LET’S GET IT RIGHT.

by PEP Board Member, Charles Kindleberger

Every 4 years the Defense Department prepares the Quadrennial Defense Review. As required by Congress, the QDR must review the threats around the world, consider strategies for addressing those threats, and recommend the allocation of resources necessary to implement the strategies.

Work began some time ago on the latest report, which is due in early 2010. Hopefully those working on this analysis have or will read carefully an article in the July/August 2009 issue of “Foreign Affairs,” by Andrew Krepinevich Jr., president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Entitled “The Pentagon’s Wasting Assets”, this provocative article is a highly effective critique of current U.S. defense policy and weapon systems.

MORE...

Wasting Assets. A “wasting asset” is a thing that looses value over time; think of a car, which depreciates each year, in contrast with a house which (at least traditionally) tends to gain in value. Many of our weapon systems, Krepinevich claims, are “wasting assets”.

The reason has to do with the improvement and dissemination of technology that can be summarized with the acronym G-RAMMS. Guided rocket, artillery, mortar and missile capabilities used to be primarily in America’s arsenal (remember the “shock and awe” attack on Baghdad in 2003). Now they are being developed by and/or sold to many of our potential adversaries.

Krepinevich notes that major stationary bases like Camp Victory in Iraq or Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan are increasingly at risk, but the implications are much more serious. He points out the vulnerability of our ships in the Persian Gulf where Pentagon war games have demonstrated that a combination of swarming suicide vessels, antiship cruise missiles (ASCMS), sea mines and submarines could allow Iran to badly damage the U.S. Navy.

He then turns to China which is developing an “assassin’s mace” strategy – armed ballistic missiles that could not only target off shore ships but strike U.S. bases in Okinawa and Guam. Krepinevich notes that China is building submarines, aircraft with ASCMS, over the horizon radar, unmanned aerial vehicles and reconnaissance satellites. The effect is that “East Asian waters are slowly but surely becoming another no-go zone for U.S. ships.”

But there is more. The Chinese have demonstrated the ability to knock out satellites in low orbit like the Global Positioning System satellites which Krepinevich claims is integral to the delivery of our “smart” weapons. Both the Chinese and the Russians appear also to be developing cyber warfare capability that could interfere with our military communications and reek havoc on the U.S. Economy.

The implications seem clear. Those preparing the new Quadrennial Defense Review must recognize that America cannot solve every world problem, especially through military means. Even were the nation not faced with huge fiscal deficits, it would seem harder and harder to make a case for many of the new weapons in the pipeline.

EFV. Consider, for example, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). The marines have long wanted a new amphibious assault vehicle (think armored landing craft). After 14 years and almost $2 billion in Research and Development funds, they have a prototype. Unfortunately each vehicle is projected to cost as much as $22 million or $12.4 billion for 573 of them, half the number previously desired by the pentagon.

It gets worse. The EFV prototypes are reported to have major reliability problems, insufficient protection against roadside bombs, and unpredictable steering in high seas. Made out of aluminum, they are designed to “swim” up to 25 miles from their Navy ships that understandably fear getting close to shore in the face of anti-ship cruise missiles, mines and all the other G-RAMM weapons.

Is it not evident that the days of D-day type beach assaults no longer make sense in our current age? Secretary Gates has hinted that he agrees, but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an admiral and the Vice Chairman a marine general. They, and many like them, no doubt think that the legacy of “leathernecks hitting the beach” is central to their being.

Aircraft Carriers. The EFV is one small example of the new reality. As other potential antagonists increase their G-RAMM capability, much bigger weapons systems become more problematic. One new Ford class (CVN-78) aircraft carrier costs about as much as all 500 plus proposed EFVs. Now under construction, the Gerald R. Ford is reported to cost $9 billion plus another $5 billion in R and D expenditures. It is currently expected to be completed in 2015, and to be followed by more carriers of the same class. The Navy wants to replace each of its 11 earlier Nimitz and Enterprise class carriers.

The Quadrennial Review professionals need to ask if these carriers and other large ships are not just large floating targets, appropriate in another era, and helpful now in delivering humanitarian services, but no longer smart, let alone affordable as part of our weapons inventory.

Hard Decisions. Secretary of Defense Gates has shown his ability to make hard decisions. Last April, he recommended termination of the F-22 and a number of other expensive programs. Moreover, the Air Force has begun to get the picture. They appear to have gotten serious about deploying relatively cheap unmanned aerial vehicles despite the fact that they don’t require “top gun” fighter pilots. Can the same message be brought to, and understood by, the Navy and the Marines?

Internet rumors suggest that Gates and President Obama are not prepared to make more tough decisions that run counter to the military-industrial congressional complex. Given the challenges of Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Somalia pirates and, of course, China and Russia, the politics may not allow it. Yet the budget dilemma is real, and Peter Orzag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget reportedly asked every government department to identify five “significant” programs that could be trimmed or terminated in their FY 2011 budgets.

The Quadrennial Review is being coordinated by Michèle Flournoy, Under Secretary of Policy in the Defense Department. She was reported in the New York Times (7/4/09) to be “meticulous, academic, and reserved” in contrast with neo-con Douglas Feith who had the job during the Bush Administration.

Now would be a good time for PEP readers to educate Ms. Flournoy and her boss Secretary Gates about the vital importance of turning this nation towards a peace economy. We don’t need more “wasting assets.”


For more information, and rumors, about the EFV and other expensive toys, visit DODBuzz.com, the Online Defense and Acquisition Journal and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.