Some more good stuff from yesterday’s conference call with Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Gen. James Cartwright, the Joint Chiefs vice chairman. Noah Shachtman from Danger Room asked a passel of good questions about why the new defense budget keeps certain troubled or criticized programs and cuts others, and in answering that, Cartwright made an intriguing point about further reorganizations that the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review — the Pentagon’s big kahuna of institutionalized review documents — will advise. Since Noah asked the question, it’s only fair to quote him:
Marine General [and] Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright says the Review will handle all kinds of tradeoffs. For instance: "If you have bombers in the Pacific, do you also have to have aircraft carriers?" he asks. "Do we always have to have every thing in every service? How much of this do we really need, especially given the situation we face which is a much broader spectrum of conflict over a much great geographic dispersal than we’ve had in the past?"
That sounds a lot like the Pentagon will start asking why duplicative functions exist between the armed services when they’re supposed to complement each other under the concept of "jointness." If that’s the case, then if the services and Congress don’t like the fiscal 2010 budget, they’ll absolutely hate the QDR and the fiscal 2011 budget that the QDR informs. Reform is starting to seem like the new normal at the Pentagon under Gates.
Crossposted to The Streak.
Login Here




3 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Yes, of course the services will fall right in line with the new direction, just like they did for the last two-three QDRs… Each service has a full-time QDR office who plans for this three years in advance. The Joint Staff and OSD includes military officers who know they have to go back to the services, sooner or later. The Services still own the budget and the R&D programs – they still “train, organize and equip” their own unique forces.
What part of this makes you think that the QDR and the FY10-11 budget will do anything other than tweak the existing paradigm? It’s all well for Gates and Cartwright to make these bold statements, which is all very good and logical. But until the Services, and more importantly, the House and Senate armed services committees decide otherwise, we will have duplicative and wasteful defense programs.
The answer to the question, “Do we always have to have every thing in every service?” is YES. Not gonna change until we have one armed force like the Canadians instead of four feuding branches.
Jason, I saw your simple-answers post on this and was going to respond in my own, but I wasn’t sure if you were making a normative point (”things should be this way”) or descriptively highlighting the obstacles to meeting Cartwright’s musing. I suspect the latter. Right?
Latter, correct. It’s an obstacle, don’t see it going away.