DOCSLIB.ORG

Transitioning Defense Organizational Initiatives an Assessment of Key 2001–2008 Defense Reforms CENTER for STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transitioning Defense Organizational Initiatives an Assessment of Key 2001–2008 Defense Reforms CENTER for STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES transitioning initiatives defense organizational Transitioning Defense Organizational Initiatives An Assessment of Key 2001–2008 Defense Reforms CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 1800 K Street | Washington, DC 20006 project director Tel: (202) 887-200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 Kathleen H. Hicks E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org principal investigators David Berteau Samuel J. Brannen Eleanore Douglas Nathan Freier Clark A. Murdock Christine E. Wormuth CSIS December 2008 ISBN 978-0-89206-561-5 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & Ë|xHSKITCy065615zv*:+:!:+:! INTERNATIONAL STUDIES CSIS Transitioning Defense Organizational Initiatives An Assessment of Key 2001–2008 Defense Reforms project director Kathleen H. Hicks principal investigators David Berteau Samuel J. Brannen Eleanore Douglas Nathan Freier Clark A. Murdock Christine E. Wormuth december 2008 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, DC. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world. Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn became chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 1999, and John J. Hamre has led CSIS as its president and chief executive officer since 2000. CSIS does not take specific policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed herein should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). © 2008 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved. Cover photo: 11/8/2006 PRESIDENTIAL NEWS CONFERENCE. President George W. Bush, center, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, left, and Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates address the nation during a news conference, Nov. 8, 2006, from the White House. Defense Dept. photo by James Bowman. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data CIP information available on request. ISBN 978-0-89206-561-5 The CSIS Press Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 775-3119 Fax: (202) 775-3199 Web: www.csis.org y contents Acknowledgments iv Introduction 1 Issue Scope 1 Methodology 4 Prioritized Recommendations 5 Conclusion 7 Category 1: Retain Best Practices 9 Global Defense Posture Realignment and Global Force Management 9 Adaptive Planning and Execution System 15 Category 2: Deepen or Redirect Attempted Reforms 21 Establishment of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSD(I)) 21 OUSD(P) Reorganization 25 Strategic Guidance 31 Assessing the Future Security Environment 37 Defense Business Transformation 43 Defense Acquisition Initiatives 47 Revisions to the Unified Command Plan 52 Joint Requirements Process 57 Category 3: Halt Failed Experiments 65 Joint Concept Development 65 Program and Budget Processes 69 Appendix: Acronyms and Abbreviations 75 | iii y acknowledgments The CSIS study team is grateful to Dr. Stephen Flanagan, who served as senior adviser for our examination of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. The team also wishes to acknowledge Becca Smith for the substantial editorial and research support she provided to this project. The following senior defense experts lent their considerable insight to the project at various stages, for which the authors owe a debt of gratitude: Mr. Pierre Chao Dr. Daniel Y. Chiu Mr. Raymond F. DuBois Ms. Michèle A. Flournoy Gen Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF (Ret.) Dr. Jacques S. Gansler Mr. Paul R.S. Gebhard ADM Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., USN (Ret.) Dr. John J. Hamre Mr. Andrew R. Hoehn Mr. Michael Kostiw ADM Charles Larson, USN (Ret.) Mr. Peter Levine Hon. William J. Lynn Gen Thomas S. Moorman Jr., USAF (Ret.) Maj Gen Arnold L. Punaro, USMC (Ret.) Dr. Kori Schake Mr. Robert D. Soule Dr. Edward L. Warner III Mr. Robert Work The study team further benefited from interviews with many current and former civilian and military officials serving in the Department of Defense. CSIS’s efforts were significantly enhanced by the contributions of all who gave so generously of their time and expertise to this project. The contents of this report are nevertheless the responsibility of its authors alone. iv | y introduction Presidential transitions often bring the promise of new opportunities and the threat of reversing key advances. In the United States, the change from one administration to the next is by its very nature a political event. Political calculations about the initiatives of one’s predecessor, in turn, can sometimes outweigh policy considerations of their value where the two may seem in conflict. Making such a determination requires an accurate understanding of how issues have evolved and been resolved, and an assessment of the adequacy of action to date. In March 2008, the Defense and National Security Group and the Defense Industry Initiatives Group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) began a study effort aimed at informing the next Secretary of Defense’s transition decisions. The CSIS study team focused where it felt it could provide the most value to incoming decisionmakers, assessing that set of little understood defense organizational and process changes that the George W. Bush administration has implemented in an attempt to improve the Defense Department’s internal operations. In so doing, the team sought to complement rather than replicate the strong body of existing and ongoing work relating to the advisability of continuing “hot button” policies related to Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and other prominent topics. The CSIS study team’s efforts were sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD(P)), but its findings and recommendations are independent of Department of Defense (DoD) influence and partisan sentiment. This report presents the study team’s analysis. It incorporates a wide range of personal interviews with key Bush administration defense officials, career civilian and military subject matter experts, and leading outside defense thinkers, including senior leaders from prior administrations. It also relies on the extensive written record that exists on many of these issues. The study team is grateful to all those who granted interviews for this report and especially to Dr. John Hamre and the senior experts who provided unparalleled insight into the changes underway in DoD. Issue Scope With guidance from outside experts and the input of study sponsors, the CSIS study team chose to examine all major George W. Bush–era defense reform initiatives that fell within the Department’s self-described enterprise categories of strategic direction, force development, force employment, force management, and corporate support. | 1 Strategic Direction Strategic Guidance. Over the past eight years, the Department has evolved its approach to providing strategic direction. Reforms have included the streamlining of guidance documents, new roles and uses of Departmental-level governance bodies, and the creation and subsequent reissuance of a National Defense Strategy (NDS) document. The Department has also attempted to better prioritize the Deputy Secretary’s guidance to DoD components and to articulate the ways in which it is accepting programmatic and capability risk. Program and Budget Processes. Program and budget process reforms began early in the new administration. In 2001, the DoD Comptroller (USD(C)) directed components to use a biennial, vice annual, planning, programming, and budgeting cycle. Several years later, the Department made its program and budget reviews concurrent. Throughout the administration, senior leaders evolved their attempts to realize a capabilities-based approach to building and assessing programs. Revisions to Combatant Command Structures. Highlights of the substantial Bush administration Unified Command Plan (UCP) changes include the establishment of United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) and United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM), the maturation of United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), and the expansion of United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), to include its absorption of United States Space Command (USSPACECOM). Global Defense Posture and Global Force Management. In 2004, President Bush announced a Global Defense Posture Review process by which the United States would determine its overseas basing and presence profile. Subsequent changes undertaken through this process included the return to the continental United States of significant U.S. forces in Japan and Europe and the repositioning of forces throughout Asia. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also implemented a process of global force management that formalized his conception of having a unified force sourcing prioritization and oversight process. Assessing the Future Security Environment. DoD has expanded its
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vice Admiral Jon A. Hill, USN Director, Missile Defense Agency Before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces March 12, 2020
    Vice Admiral Jon A. Hill, USN Director, Missile Defense Agency Before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces March 12, 2020 Good morning, Chairman Cooper, Ranking Member Turner, distinguished Members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today. The Missile Defense Agency budget request of $9.187 billion for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 will enable the continued execution of the MDA mission to design, develop and deploy a layered Missile Defense System to defend the United States, deployed forces, allies, and friends from missile attacks in all phases of flight. Working together with the Services, international partners, and industry, the highly skilled and dedicated MDA government and contractor workforce stands ready to develop and deliver ready, reliable, and effective defenses the Nation needs to counter the proliferating and increasingly sophisticated missile threat. Missile Threat – A Significant Inflection Point for Missile Defense Potential adversaries continue to increase the number and capabilities of existing missile systems while adding new types of missile capabilities to their arsenals, creating an inflection point in the missile defense program that will complicate U.S. missile defense operations. Ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles are becoming more capable of carrying conventional and mass destruction payloads farther, faster, and with greater accuracy. New ballistic missile systems feature multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles and maneuverable reentry vehicles, along with decoys and jamming countermeasures. Russia and 1 China are developing advanced cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles. Hypersonic missiles can be launched from ground ballistic missile launchers, released from aircraft, or launched from the sea. These missiles travel along unpredictable flight paths and at low altitudes, making them especially difficult to track and intercept.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense: an Assessment
    DEFENSE BUSINESS BOARD Submitted to the Secretary of Defense The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense: An Assessment DBB FY 20-01 An assessment of the effectiveness, responsibilities, and authorities of the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense as required by §904 of the FY20 NDAA June 1, 2020 DBB FY20-01 CMO Assessment 1 Executive Summary Tasking and Task Force: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (Public Law (Pub. L. 116-92) required the Secretary of Defense (SD) to conduct an independent assessment of the Chief Management Officer (CMO) with six specific areas to be evaluated. The Defense Business Board (DBB) was selected on February 3, 2020 to conduct the independent assessment, with Arnold Punaro and Atul Vashistha assigned to co-chair the effort. Two additional DBB board members comprised the task force: David Walker and David Van Slyke. These individuals more than meet the independence and competencies required by the NDAA. Approach: The DBB task force focused on the CMO office and the Department of Defense (DoD) business transformation activities since 2008 when the office was first established by the Congress as the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO), and in 2018 when the Congress increased its statutory authority and elevated it to Executive Level (EX) II and the third ranking official in DoD. The taskforce reviewed all previous studies of DoD management and organizations going back twenty years and completed over ninety interviews, including current and former DoD, public and private sector leaders. The assessments of CMO effectiveness since 2008 are focused on the performance of the CMO as an organizational entity, and is not an appraisal of any administration or appointee.
    [Show full text]
  • CHEY Special Lecture by John HAMRE.Pdf
    Executive Summary In Search of a Durable Strategy to Guide ROK-US Relations Special Lecture by Dr. John Hamre, President of CSIS The following publication is based on the special lecture titled ‘In Search of a Durable Strategy to Guide ROK-US Relations’ given by Dr. John Hamre, President of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), on September 24th 2019, at the Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies Conference Hall. Chey Institute for Advanced Studies is a knowledge-sharing platform established in October 2018 to honor the 20th anniversary of the passing of CHEY Jong-hyon, the former Chairman of SK Group. The Chey Institute is committed to analyzing various geopolitical risks surrounding the Korean Peninsula, and exploring opportunities and challenges posed by scientific innovation. In doing so, the Chey Institute aims to come up with pragmatic solutions to the challenges that Northeast Asia and the global community at large face today. Specifically, the Chey Institute seeks to identify geopolitical risks that threaten regional and global stability, investigate opportunities and challenges posed by scientific innovation, and help generate and disseminate new knowledge to the world. In the process, the Chey Institute partners with leading academic institutions, research organizations, and think tanks around the world to establish a global network of top thinkers and groups working to solve the challenges of this century. All views and opinions expressed in CHEY publications are the sole responsibility of the author(s) or speaker(s). For Further information about Chey Institute for Advanced Studies or this publication, please visit our website, www.chey.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 30, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33745 SUMMARY RL33745 Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) September 30, 2021 Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke The Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by the Missile Defense Specialist in Naval Affairs Agency (MDA) and the Navy, gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations. BMD-capable Aegis ships operate in European waters to defend Europe from potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as Iran, and in in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf to provide regional defense against potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran. MDA’s FY2022 budget submission states that “by the end of FY 2022 there will be 48 total BMDS [BMD system] capable ships requiring maintenance support.” The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget. The Navy’s budget provides additional funding for BMD-related efforts. MDA’s proposed FY2021 budget requested a total of $1,647.9 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in procurement and research and development funding for Aegis BMD efforts, including funding for two Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania. MDA’s budget also includes operations and maintenance (O&M) and military construction (MilCon) funding for the Aegis BMD program. Issues for Congress regarding the Aegis BMD program include the following: whether to approve, reject, or modify MDA’s annual procurement and research and development funding requests for the program; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the execution of Aegis BMD program efforts; what role, if any, the Aegis BMD program should play in defending the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE Office of the Secretary, the Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1155 Phone, 703–545–6700
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1155 Phone, 703–545–6700. Internet, www.defenselink.mil. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT M. GATES DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WILLIAM LYNN III Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, ASHTON B. CARTER Technology, and Logistics Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Business PAUL A. BRINKLEY Transformation) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense LOUIS W. ARNY III (Installations and Environment) Under Secretary of Defense for Policy MICHELE FLOURNOY Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense JAMES N. MILLER, JR. for Policy Assistant Secretary of Defense (International ALEXANDER R. VERSHBOW Security Affairs) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special MICHAEL VICKERS Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland (VACANCY) Defense and America’s Security) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Global Strategic JOSEPH BENKERT Affairs Assistant Secretary of Defense (Asian and (VACANCY) Pacific Security Affairs) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Plans) JANINE DAVIDSON Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (VACANCY) (Technology Security Policy/Counter Proliferation) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Strategy, KATHLEEN HICKS Plans and Forces) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Policy PETER VERGA Integration and Chief of Staff) Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense WILLIAM J. CARR, Acting for Personnel and Readiness Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) DAVID L. MCGINNIS, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve JENNIFER C. BUCK Affairs) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Program JEANNE FITES Integration) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness) SAMUEL D. KLEINMAN Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military WILLIAM J. CARR Personnel Policy) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military ARTHUR J. MYERS, Acting Community and Family Policy) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Plans) GAIL H.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to the Under Secretary of Defense
    Wind Turbine Analysis for Cape Cod Air Force Station Early Warning Radar and Beale Air Force Base Upgraded Early Warning Radar Spring 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) analyzed the potential impact of utility class wind farms on radars. • Utility class wind farms could have a significant impact on radars, including the missile defense early warning radars (EWRs), the PAVE PAWS radar at Cape Cod AFS, MA, and the Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR) at Beale AFB, CA. • To mitigate this impact, establish and enforce a wind farm offset zone within the effective “line-of-sight” of the radars, taking into account the direct, refracted, and diffracted signals from the radar. This effectively establishes a zone around the radar of approximately twenty-five kilometers, assuming relatively level terrain. • Within twenty-five kilometers, further study would be required to assess the impact accounting for location within the radar’s field of view and the relative height of the wind turbine. • After establishing this offset zone, eliminate any remaining impacts on the radar by using gain control and range gating techniques. 1 History Studies on the effects of windmill farms on military readiness were documented in a 2006 Report to Congressional Defense Committees. That report focused on the effects of wind farms on radars and the resulting potential impact on military readiness. The primary historical data and research efforts were focused on air defense radars, characterized as “Primary Surveillance Radars” (PSR) and Air Traffic Control (ATC) radars. Two fixed-site missile Early Warning Radars (EWR) were mentioned in the report but not examined in detail.
    [Show full text]
  • The History and Politics of Defense Reviews
    C O R P O R A T I O N The History and Politics of Defense Reviews Raphael S. Cohen For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2278 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9973-0 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The 1993 Bottom-Up Review starts with this challenge: “Now that the Cold War is over, the questions we face in the Department of Defense are: How do we structure the armed forces of the United States for the future? How much defense is enough in the post–Cold War era?”1 Finding a satisfactory answer to these deceptively simple questions not only motivated the Bottom-Up Review but has arguably animated defense strategy for the past quarter century.
    [Show full text]
  • Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments
    Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments Shirley A. Kan Specialist in Asian Security Affairs May 6, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS22570 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments Summary Since 2000, the U.S. military has been building up forward-deployed forces on the westernmost U.S. territory of Guam to increase U.S. presence, deterrence, and power projection for possible responses to crises and disasters, counterterrorism, and contingencies in support of South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, or elsewhere in Asia. Since 2006, three joint exercises based at Guam called “Valiant Shield” have boosted U.S. military readiness in the Asian-Pacific region. The defense buildup on Guam has been moderate. China still has concerns about Guam’s buildup, suspecting it to be directed against China. There has been concern that China and North Korea could target Guam with missiles. Still, Guam’s role increased in engaging China’s military. In 2006, the United States and Japan agreed on a “Roadmap” to strengthen their alliance, including a buildup on Guam to cost $10.3 billion, with Japan contributing 60%. Primary goals were to start the related construction on Guam by 2010 and to complete relocation of about 8,000 marines from Okinawa to Guam by 2014. In Tokyo on February 17, 2009, the Secretary of State signed the bilateral “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan Concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of the III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and Their Dependents From Okinawa to Guam” that reaffirmed the “Roadmap” of May 1, 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert M. Gates, Ph.D
    Robert M. Gates, Ph.D. Secretary of Defense (2006-2011); Author, New York Times Best Seller, DUTY: Memoirs of a Cuyahoga Community College Secretary at War and A Passion for Leadership Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C®) is a regional leader in public education, academic Robert Gates served as the 22nd secretary of defense (2006-2011) and is the only secretary innovation and cultural enrichment. For more than 55 years, the College has tailored its of defense in U.S. history to be asked to remain in that office by a newly elected President. curriculum to meet changing workforce demands, helping individuals qualify for work in the President Barack Obama is the eighth president Gates has served. He previously served under job market’s most sought-after fields. With six Centers of Excellence and more than 140 career, President George W. Bush. technical and liberal arts programs, Tri-C empowers students by providing clear pathways On Gates’ last day in office, President Barack Obama awarded him the Presidential Medal of to degree and certificate completion. Tri-C has helped more than 900,000 students toward Freedom, America’s highest civilian honor. meaningful careers or advanced education, and more than 85 percent of Tri-C graduates Before becoming secretary of defense in 2006, Gates was the president of Texas A&M University, continue to live in the area, providing a pool of skilled workers that includes nurses, teachers, the nation’s seventh largest university. Prior to assuming the Texas A&M presidency on August medical technicians, firefighters, engineers, police officers and business professionals.
    [Show full text]
  • Leadership in Times of Transition
    U.S. Department of Defense Executive Development Program LEADERSHIP IN TIMES OF TRANSITION FEBRUARY 21–24, 2016 HOSTED BY The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) IN COLLABORATION WITH Robertson Foundation Consortium of Universities Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Tufts University, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Texas A&M University, Bush School of Government and Public Service University of California, San Diego, School of Global Policy and Strategy University of Maryland, School of Public Policy SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY TIME FEB. 21 FEB. 22 FEB. 23 FEB. 24 8:45 AM BREAKFAST BREAKFAST MODULE 1: INTERAGENCY DECISION-MAKING IN TRAVEL TO A COMPLEX WORLD MODERATED BY KATHLEEN HICKS DOD ON OWN 9 AM PART I: COUNTERING NONSTATE ACTORS JUAN ZARATE SIMULATION: PRINCIPALS COMMITTEE MEETING PART II: INTERAGENCY HOTWASH AND WRAP-UP COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION ARRIVE AT DOD AND JOHN HAMRE, MICHAEL GREEN TRANSFER THROUGH JAMES STAVRIDIS, SECURITY JAMES STEINBERG, RYAN 10 AM BREAK CROCKER, AND PETER COWHEY PART III: DOMESTIC SECURITY COORDINATION CHALLENGES CONVERSATION WITH PAUL STOCKON SECRETARY ASH CARTER 11 AM PART IV: RAPID INTRO. OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TRAVEL TO CSIS BREAK DENISE ZHENG AND ANDREW HUNTER CLOSING LUNCH MODULE WRAP-UP 12 PM CONVERSATION WITH DR. ZBIGNIEW MODULE 2: LEADERSHIP AND BRZEZINSKI TRANSITION: FUNCTIONAL IMPERATIVES JOHN HAMRE ROBERT MURRETT 1 PM PANEL I: NATIONAL SECURITY MODULE 3: CYBER CRISIS LEADERSHIP, REFORM, SIMULATION: DEFENSE AND TRANSITION AND
    [Show full text]
  • Welcoming Remarks by Dr. Hamre
    JoongAng Ilbo-CSIS Forum 2014 Welcoming Remarks By John Hamre President and CEO, and the Pritzker Chair, CSIS Dr. John Hamre was elected president and CEO of CSIS in January 2000 and named Pritzker Chair in December 2012. Before joining CSIS, he served as the 26th U.S. deputy secretary of defense. Prior to holding that post, he was the under secretary of defense (comptroller) from 1993 to 1997. As comptroller, Dr. Hamre was the principal assistant to the secretary of defense for the preparation, presentation, and execution of the defense budget and management improvement programs. In 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appointed Dr. Hamre to serve as chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Before serving in the Department of Defense, Dr. Hamre worked for 10 years as a professional staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. From 1978 to 1984, Dr. Hamre served in the Congressional Budget Office, where he became its deputy assistant director for national security and international affairs. Dr. Hamre received his Ph.D. from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University on international politics and economics and U.S. foreign policy. He received his B.A. from Augustana College in Sioux Falls, South Dakota on political science and economics. The following year he studied as a Rockefeller fellow at the Harvard Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is a great honor to be back in Seoul, which feels increasingly like my second home. I am honored to be here, partnering with my good friend and mentor, Chairman Ambassador Hong Seok-Hyun at this, the 2014 JoongAng Ilbo-CSIS Forum.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded April 22, 2006
    SIX DECADES OF GUIDED MUNITIONS AND BATTLE NETWORKS: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic Smarter and Budgetary Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments March 2007 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonprofit, public policy research institute established to make clear the inextricable link between near-term and long- range military planning and defense investment strategies. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundations, corporations, government, and individual grants and contributions. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), and The Revolution in War (2004). The first of these, on the military-technical revolution, reproduces the 1992 Pentagon assessment that precipitated the 1990s debate in the United States and abroad over revolutions in military affairs. Many friends and professional colleagues, both within CSBA and outside the Center, have contributed to this report. Those who made the most substantial improvements to the final manuscript are acknowledged below. However, the analysis and findings are solely the responsibility of the author and CSBA. 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS .................................................. v SUMMARY ............................................................... ix GLOSSARY ………………………………………………………xix I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 Guided Munitions: Origins in the 1940s............. 3 Cold War Developments and Prospects ............
    [Show full text]