Debate within the Office of the Secretary of Defense has led those spearheading the Quadrennial Defense Review to delete a myriad of programmatic recommendations from strategic guidance written to rebalance military priorities, sources tell Inside the Pentagon.
The Defense Department’s program analysis and evaluation office, the comptroller’s office and the Joint Staff rolled back the Pentagon policy shop’s attempt to dictate everything from helicopter procurement plans to the number of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance orbits needed to support military operations, a Pentagon official said.
There was agreement on the general strategic direction of the guidance written by the policy shop, but officials balked at programmatic recommendations because they worried the specifics were wrong, might amount to unaffordable bills for the department or were too detailed to be decided “in a vacuum,” the official said.
When the debate was over there was “blood on the floor” and the vast majority of the programmatic recommendations were cut from the document, known as the Guidance for the Development of the Force, the official said, adding that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has since released a draft of the GDF to four-star officers for comment. Gates is likely to issue a final version to defense officials this month, sources said, as InsideDefense.com has reported.
None of the strategic guidance changed, the official said, noting the outcome was good, but it was “way too hard” to get there. A military official said the GDF is now “a lot less specific” compared to early drafts. In addition to the program analysis and evaluation office and the Joint Staff, the services also resisted the specificity, the military official said.
“If you’re trying to rebalance the force, you may make some specific recommendations on what programs to enhance or what new ones to pursue, whereas if you’re the service you say ‘No, you just told me you just want the irregular warfare capability improved and let me figure out how to do that,’” a second Pentagon official said.
But the debate over the guidance was mainly confined to OSD, according to the first Pentagon official. The discussion came months after DOD policy chief Michèle Flournoy, in written testimony prepared for her confirmation hearing in January, advocated boosting her office’s role in the planning, programming and budget process.
The policy shop’s chief advocate for the programmatic recommendations was Kathleen Hicks, the deputy under secretary of defense for strategy, plans and forces and the head of QDR efforts, the first Pentagon official said.
The essence of the debate was about the degree to which OSD’s QDR shop should tell the services to fund specific initiatives or instead simply outline broad goals with negotiable suggestions about how to implement them, the second Pentagon official said.
The military official put it another way, noting the debate was about whether the GDF should be a planning or programming document. The official argued it should not be the latter, but rather a “strategic document.” Confirming that such arguments prevailed, the official said the latest version is “about right.”
A third Pentagon official said the GDF would be “pretty specific,” in some cases calling for “X number increase” in particular platforms, typically in areas where a lot of agreement already exists, or where there is sufficient analyses to back it up. But the first Pentagon official said the majority of the specific recommendations for programs had been eliminated. “There’s not a whole lot of specifics left in the current version,” the official said. “There’s a little bit.”
In the fall, DOD officials who handle programming for the planning, programming and budget process will sort through options to solve the strategic needs outlined in the GDF, the official said.
“Why should the guidance say you have to buy stuff if there’s a better way to do it?” the official said, noting that a need for more helicopters in Afghanistan, for example, does not necessarily mean the Pentagon must buy new airframes.
Citing another example, the official said the GDF calls for DOD to be ready to give equipment to other countries for internal security rather than going through the lengthy foreign military sales process. This was seen as a good idea, but the GDF initially was written in a way that required DOD to buy, warehouse and maintain the gear. DOD’s acquisition directorate objected, noting DOD can get contractors to rapidly deliver some gear and only certain long-lead items need to be warehoused, the official said. The acquisition office won that argument, so now the guidance simply calls for providing the gear on short notice, the official added.
The wrangling over the guidance comes at a critical time for officials conducting the QDR, which is expected to help the Pentagon steer investment decisions for fiscal year 2011 and beyond.
David Ochmanek, deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development and the head of the QDR analysis and integration cell, said in May that officials were mulling defense planning scenarios to identify capability gaps and capacity shortfalls, while also gathering ideas about programs and development projects that might provide solutions (ITP, May 28, p1). He noted that work would culminate in June, when his office would harvest “1,000 flowers” and turn them into “perfume.” On June 26, InsideDefense.com reported OSD’s guidance would contain the first round of QDR “insights.”
In the months ahead, the Pentagon must reconcile a disconnect between the QDR effort and the services’ FY-11 budget work, two processes that have been running in parallel, the military official said.
The services are due to turn in FY-11 budget plans to the service secretariats this month, the official said. Once the GDF is issued, service leaders will be tasked with complying with the guidance. In some cases the services might respond by taking new steps, but they might also highlight existing efforts to make the case that current initiatives meet the identified needs. As DOD leaders have publicly predicted, they will have to make tough choices about how best to spend limited resources, which could spark debates between the services and OSD.
“Every option looks good,” the military official said, until it is time to decide “what you’re not going to do.”
On June 17, InsideDefense.com reported that as part of the QDR process, DOD evaluated three options for shifting resources to rebalance its force. The “modest” option would shift about $30 billion over the future years defense plan, while the “extensive” one would shift $75 billion, another DOD source said.
The first Pentagon official said the $30 billion option included most of the irregular warfare capabilities eyed. The $50 billion option for “significant” changes included the first option, plus more stuff focused on combating high-end threats. The $75 billion option added even more to address high-end threats.
Sources said the intent was never to simply pick one of the options but rather to provide a menu of ideas. Most of the $30 billion option is likely to go forward and DOD will cherry-pick initiatives from the other two options, the official predicted.
With the deletion of specifics from the GDF, the cost of all the options will come down because there will likely be better ways to accomplish the goals, the official said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, the combatant commanders and other top defense officials held a meeting June 18 and 19 at the Pentagon to discuss the QDR and other major issues. The two-day Defense Senior Leadership Conference (DSLC) was an opportunity for senior military and civilian leaders to get an update on the status of QDR scenarios from the policy shop and hear from the secretary’s Red Team about their work so far. Those presentations were expected to spark a healthy debate about the analysis under way and inform the process going forward (ITP, June 18, p3).
“The conference was what the secretary had hoped it would be,” Gates’ spokesman, Geoff Morrell, told ITP. “The scenarios presented were compelling and provoked lively discussions about how best to match resources to current and emerging threats.”
More senior-level powwows are expected. “Secretary Gates plans to convene several additional senior leadership meetings before the QDR comes to a conclusion later this year,” Morrell added.
Adm. Timothy Keating, the head of U.S. Pacific Command, touted last month’s DSLC when asked about it June 29. He told ITP the DSLC was better than previous ones he has attended. But, he said, DOD had not yet issued guidance to implement what was discussed at the conference. Officials are “still making the sausage,” he said as he left the Atlantic Council’s downtown Washington office after making a speech.
During a question-and-answer session following the speech, Keating praised this year’s QDR for addressing the needs of combatant commanders. “We were just in town two weeks ago talking about this,” he said, noting combatant commanders “have a larger say so” in this year’s review compared to previous QDRs.
“We submit an integrated priority list,” with 10 issues that need more funding and attention from DOD, he said. “Of our 10,” all are being addressed in the QDR, Keating added. He said the specifics are classified, but suggested the needs include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. -- Christopher J. Castelli
PENTAGON-25-27-1