DOCSLIB.ORG

DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE Office of the Secretary, the Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1155 Phone, 703–545–6700

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. MCGINN Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief ROBERT F. HALE Financial Officer 146 VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:47 Sep 23, 2009 Jkt 217558 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6995 Sfmt 6995 M:\GOVMAN\217558\217558.026 APPS06 PsN: 217558 dkrause on GSDDPC29 with $$_JOB DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 147 Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense MICHAEL J. MCCORD (Comptroller) Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR. Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks and JOHN G. GRIMES Information Integration)/Chief Information Officer Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative (VACANCY) Affairs) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) ROBERT L. HASTINGS, Acting General Counsel JEH CHARLES JOHNSON Director, Operational Test and Evaluation CHARLES E. MCQUEARY Principal Deputy Director for Operational Test DAVID W. DUMA and Evaluation Inspector General GORDON S. HEDDELL, Acting Director of Administration and Management MICHAEL L. RHODES, Acting Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman ADM. MICHAEL G. MULLEN, USN Vice Chairman GEN. JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT, USMC Chief of Staff, Army GEN. GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., USA Chief of Naval Operations ADM. GARY ROUGHEAD, USN Chief of Staff, Air Force GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF Commandant, Marine Corps GEN. JAMES T. CONWAY, USMC [For the Department of Defense statement of organization, see the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 32, Chapter I, Subchapter R] The Department of Defense is responsible for providing the military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our country. The major elements of these forces are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, consisting of about 1.3 million men and women on active duty. They are backed, in case of emergency, by the 825,000 members of the Reserve and National Guard. In addition, there are about 600,000 civilian employees in the Defense Department. Under the President, who is also Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department, which includes the separately organized military departments of Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Joint Chiefs of Staff providing military advice, the combatant commands, and defense agencies and field activities established for specific purposes. The National Security Act Amendments the defense agencies; DOD field of 1949 redesignated the National activities; and such other offices, Military Establishment as the Department agencies, activities, and commands as of Defense and established it as an may be established or designated by executive department (10 U.S.C. 111), law, or by the President or the Secretary headed by the Secretary of Defense. of Defense. Each military department is separately Structure organized under its own Secretary and The Department of Defense is composed functions under the authority, direction, of the Office of the Secretary of Defense; and control of the Secretary of Defense. the military departments and the military The Secretary of each military services within those departments; the department is responsible to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense for the operation the Joint Staff; the combatant commands; and efficiency of his department. Orders VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:53 Oct 26, 2009 Jkt 217588 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6995 Sfmt 6995 C:\JIM\GOVT MANUAL\LOC\217558.026 217558 dkrause on GSDDPC29 with $$_JOB dkrause on GSDDPC29 with $$_JOB VerDate Nov 242008 15:47 Sep 23, 2009 Jkt217558 PO00000 Frm00148 Fmt6995 Sfmt6995 M:\GOVMAN\217558\217558.026 APPS06 PsN: 217558 148 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE U . S DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE . GOVERNMENT MANUAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY INSPECTOR GENERAL JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF OF DEFENSE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY SECRETARY OF THE NAVY SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF UNDER THE JOINT STAFF UNDER UNDER SECRETARY UNDER SECRETARIES SECRETARY SECRETARY CHIEF OF CHIEF OF COMMANDANT AND CHIEF OF ASSISTANT SECRETARIES VICE CHAIRMAN, AND AND STAFF NAVAL OF MARINE ASSISTANT STAFF OF DEFENSE ASSISTANT ASSISTANT JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ARMY OPERATIONS CORPS SECRETARIES AIR FORCE AND EQUIVALENTS SECRETARIES SECRETARIES CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMY OF THE OF THE ARMY OF THE NAVY AIR FORCE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS CHIEF OF STAFF, AIR FORCE COMMANDANT, MARINE CORPS MARINE AIR FORCE ARMY MAJOR NAVY MAJOR CORPS MAJOR MAJOR COMMANDS COMMANDS COMMANDS COMMANDS AND AND AND AND AGENCIES AGENCIES AGENCIES AGENCIES DEFENSE AGENCIES COMBATANT COMMANDS DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FIELD ACTIVITIES DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY AFRICA COMMAND DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY DEFENSE BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION AGENCY CENTRAL COMMAND DEFENSE PRISONERS OF WAR / MILITARY POLICE OFFICE EUROPEAN COMMAND DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER JOINT FORCES COMMAND DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NORTHERN COMMAND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY PACIFIC COMMAND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE SOUTHERN COMMAND ACTIVITY DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TEST RESOURCE DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY STRATEGIC COMMAND MANAGEMENT CENTER DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY TRANSPORTATION COMMAND OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY TRICARE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE PENTAGON FORCE PROTECTION AGENCY E21fiMDSUfl7558fiMDNMfl.014 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 149 to the military departments are issued command authority over forces assigned through the Secretaries of these to them. The operational chain of departments or their designees, by the command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense, or under authority Secretary of Defense to the commanders specifically delegated in writing by the of the combatant commands. The Secretary of Defense or provided by law. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff The commanders of the combatant functions within the chain of command commands are responsible to the by transmitting the orders of the President and the Secretary of Defense President or the Secretary of Defense to for accomplishing the military missions the commanders of the combatant assigned to them and exercising commands. Office of the Secretary of Defense Secretary of Defense The Secretary of Networks and Information Integration Defense is the principal defense policy The Assistant Secretary of Defense adviser to the President and is (Networks and Information Integration) is responsible for the formulation of the principal staff assistant and adviser to general defense policy and policy related the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of to DOD, and for the execution of Defense for achieving and maintaining approved policy. Under the direction of information superiority in support of the President, the Secretary exercises DOD missions, while exploiting or authority, direction, and control over the denying an adversary’s ability to do the Department of Defense. same. The Assistant Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics also serves as the Chief Information The Under Secretary of Defense for Officer. Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is Personnel and Readiness The Under the principal staff assistant and adviser to Secretary of Defense
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

    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.
  • Toward an Enhanced Strategic Policy in the Philippines

    Toward an Enhanced Strategic Policy in the Philippines

    Toward an Enhanced Strategic Policy in the Philippines EDITED BY ARIES A. ARUGAY HERMAN JOSEPH S. KRAFT PUBLISHED BY University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies Diliman, Quezon City First Printing, 2020 UP CIDS No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, without written permission from the publishers. Recommended Entry: Towards an enhanced strategic policy in the Philippines / edited by Aries A. Arugay, Herman Joseph S. Kraft. -- Quezon City : University of the Philippines, Center for Integrative Studies,[2020],©2020. pages ; cm ISBN 978-971-742-141-4 1. Philippines -- Economic policy. 2. Philippines -- Foreign economic relations. 2. Philippines -- Foreign policy. 3. International economic relations. 4. National Security -- Philippines. I. Arugay, Aries A. II. Kraft, Herman Joseph S. II. Title. 338.9599 HF1599 P020200166 Editors: Aries A. Arugay and Herman Joseph S. Kraft Copy Editors: Alexander F. Villafania and Edelynne Mae R. Escartin Layout and Cover design: Ericson Caguete Printed in the Philippines UP CIDS has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ______________________________________ i Foreword Stefan Jost ____________________________________________ iii Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem _____________________________v List of Abbreviations ___________________________________ ix About the Contributors ________________________________ xiii Introduction The Strategic Outlook of the Philippines: “Situation Normal, Still Muddling Through” Herman Joseph S. Kraft __________________________________1 Maritime Security The South China Sea and East China Sea Disputes: Juxtapositions and Implications for the Philippines Jaime B.
  • Improving the Total Force Using National Guard and Reserves

    Improving the Total Force Using National Guard and Reserves

    IMPROVING THE TOTAL FORCE USING THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES A Report for the transition to the new administration by The Reserve Forces Policy Board RFPB Report FY17-01 This report, Report FY17-01, is a product of the Reserve Forces Policy Board. The Reserve Forces Policy Board is, by law, a federal advisory committee within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. As mandated by Congress, it serves as an independent adviser to provide advice and recommendations directly to the Secretary of Defense on strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the reserve components. The content and recommendations contained herein do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Defense. As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Title 5, and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41, Section 102-3 (Federal Advisory Committee Management), this report and its contents were deliberated and approved in several open, public sessions. IMPROVING THE TOTAL FORCE USING THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES A Report for the transition to the new administration by The Reserve Forces Policy Board RFPB Report FY17-01 4 5 6 Chairman Punaro introduces the Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Ashton B. Carter, during the June 9, 2015 Board Meeting. “The presence, skill and readiness of Citizen Warriors across the country give us the agility and flexibility to handle unexpected demands, both at home and abroad. It is an essential component of our total force, and a linchpin of our readiness.” 1 - Secretary of Defense Ash Carter 1 As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Pentagon Auditorium, Aug.
  • Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress

    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.
  • Report to the Under Secretary of Defense

    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.
  • Deploying Federal Civilians to the Battlefield: Incentives, Benefits, and Medical Care

    Deploying Federal Civilians to the Battlefield: Incentives, Benefits, and Medical Care

    Deploying Federal Civilians to the Battlefield: Incentives, Benefits, and Medical Care U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES • COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations April 2008 HASC Committee Print No. 9 41-410 On the cover: The Defense of Freedom medal, created after the September 11th attacks, acknowledges civilian employees of the Department of Defense and other civilians in service to the Department of Defense who are killed or injured while on duty. It is the civilian equivalent to the Purple Heart. DEPLOYING FEDERAL CIVILIANS TO THE BATTLEFIELD: Incentives, Benefits, and Medical Care HASC OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS STAFF LORRY M. FENNER, STAFF LEAD STEVE J. DETERESA, PROJECT LEAD THOMAS HAWLEY ANDREW HYDE JOHN E. KRUSE GREGORY A. MARCHAND MICHAEL MCERLEAN SUZANNE MCKENNA MARK PARKER SASHA ROGERS ROGER I. ZAKHEIM DEPLOYING FEDERAL CIVILIANS TO THE BATTLEFIELD 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We want to thank our fellow subcommittee members and the subcommittee staff. We would also like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter, and staff members, Erin Conaton, Bob DeGrasse, Robert Simmons, Paul Oostburg Sanz, Paul Arcangeli, Cathy Garman, Debra Wada, Michael Higgins, David Kildee, Loren Dealy, Lara Battles, Christine Lamb, Josh Holly, Linda Burnette, Nancy Warner, Rebecca Ross, Cyndi Howard, and Derek Scott. Finally, we want to thank our own military legislative assistants (MLAs) and fellows, Dan Madden, James Lively, Justin Johnson, and Caryll Rice, as well as the rest of the subcommittee MLAs for all their assistance on this study. We also want to thank those outside the committee who assisted in this effort, including those from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Joint Staff, the military services, the Department of State, the U.S.
  • Defense 2020 “Covid-19 and the U.S. Military”

    Defense 2020 “Covid-19 and the U.S. Military”

    Center for Strategic and International Studies TRANSCRIPT Defense 2020 “Covid-19 and the U.S. Military” RECORDING DATE Wednesday, April 1, 2020 GUESTS Steve Morrison Senior Vice President, and Director, Global Health Policy Center, CSIS Mark Cancian Senior Advisor, International Security Program, CSIS Christine Wormuth Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, RAND Corporation Christine Wormuth Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, RAND Corporation HOST Rear Admiral (Ret.) Tom Cullison Former Deputy Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy, and Adjunct Fellow, Global Health Policy Center, CSIS Transcript by Rev.com Kathleen Hicks: Hi, I'm Kathleen Hicks, Senior Vice President and Director of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and this is Defense 2020 a CSIS podcast examining critical defense issues in the United States is 2020 election cycle. We bring in defense experts from across the political spectrum to survey the debates over the US military strategy, missions and funding. This podcast is made possible by contributions from BAE systems, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and the Thales Group. Kathleen Hicks: On this episode of Defense 2020, I hosted discussion with four experts on COVID-19 and the US military. Steve Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director of Global Health Policy at CSIS, Mark Cancian, Senior Advisor in the International Security Program at CSIS, Christine Wormuth, Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation and Rear Admiral (Ret.), Tom Cullison Former Deputy Surgeon General of the US Navy and an Adjunct Fellow in the Global Health Policy Center at CSIS.
  • The History and Politics of Defense Reviews

    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.
  • Trump's Generals

    Trump's Generals

    STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY - PERSPECTIVE Trump’s Generals: A Natural Experiment in Civil-Military Relations JAMES JOYNER Abstract President Donald Trump’s filling of numerous top policy positions with active and retired officers he called “my generals” generated fears of mili- tarization of foreign policy, loss of civilian control of the military, and politicization of the military—yet also hope that they might restrain his worst impulses. Because the generals were all gone by the halfway mark of his administration, we have a natural experiment that allows us to com- pare a Trump presidency with and without retired generals serving as “adults in the room.” None of the dire predictions turned out to be quite true. While Trump repeatedly flirted with civil- military crises, they were not significantly amplified or deterred by the presence of retired generals in key roles. Further, the pattern continued in the second half of the ad- ministration when “true” civilians filled these billets. Whether longer-term damage was done, however, remains unresolved. ***** he presidency of Donald Trump served as a natural experiment, testing many of the long- debated precepts of the civil-military relations (CMR) literature. His postelection interviewing of Tmore than a half dozen recently retired four- star officers for senior posts in his administration unleashed a torrent of columns pointing to the dangers of further militarization of US foreign policy and damage to the military as a nonpartisan institution. At the same time, many argued that these men were uniquely qualified to rein in Trump’s worst pro- clivities. With Trump’s tenure over, we can begin to evaluate these claims.
  • Hearing on China's Military Reforms and Modernization: Implications for the United States Hearing Before the U.S.-China Economic

    Hearing on China's Military Reforms and Modernization: Implications for the United States Hearing Before the U.S.-China Economic

    HEARING ON CHINA'S MILITARY REFORMS AND MODERNIZATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES HEARING BEFORE THE U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018 Printed for use of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission Available via the World Wide Web: www.uscc.gov UNITED STATES-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON: 2018 U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION ROBIN CLEVELAND, CHAIRMAN CAROLYN BARTHOLOMEW, VICE CHAIRMAN Commissioners: HON. CARTE P. GOODWIN HON. JAMES TALENT DR. GLENN HUBBARD DR. KATHERINE C. TOBIN HON. DENNIS C. SHEA MICHAEL R. WESSEL HON. JONATHAN N. STIVERS DR. LARRY M. WORTZEL The Commission was created on October 30, 2000 by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 2001 § 1238, Public Law No. 106-398, 114 STAT. 1654A-334 (2000) (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 7002 (2001), as amended by the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for 2002 § 645 (regarding employment status of staff) & § 648 (regarding changing annual report due date from March to June), Public Law No. 107-67, 115 STAT. 514 (Nov. 12, 2001); as amended by Division P of the “Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003,” Pub L. No. 108-7 (Feb. 20, 2003) (regarding Commission name change, terms of Commissioners, and responsibilities of the Commission); as amended by Public Law No. 109- 108 (H.R. 2862) (Nov. 22, 2005) (regarding responsibilities of Commission and applicability of FACA); as amended by Division J of the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008,” Public Law Nol. 110-161 (December 26, 2007) (regarding responsibilities of the Commission, and changing the Annual Report due date from June to December); as amended by the Carl Levin and Howard P.
  • Report of Investigation Concerning RC-26B Operations 1-4 June 2020

    Report of Investigation Concerning RC-26B Operations 1-4 June 2020

    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 II. Background .......................................................................................................................4 III. Standards and Authorities .................................................................................................7 IV. Discussion and Analysis .................................................................................................18 V. Summary .........................................................................................................................68 VI. Recommendations ...........................................................................................................69 This is a protected document. It will not b released (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given additional dissemination (in whole or in part) outside of he inspector ge eral channels without prior approval of The Inspector Ge eral (SAF/IG) o designee. FOR OFFIC\ AL USE \ON Y (FOUO) In addition, the President can activate the National Guard to participate in federal missions, both domestically and overseas. When federalized, Guard units fall under the same military chain of command as active duty and reserve personnel. (Ex 14) The senior military commander for each state and territory is The Adjutant General (TAG) and in most cases reports directly to their Governors (32 U.S. Code § 314.Adjutants general). Under the District of Columbia
  • Foreign Press Center Briefing with Ms. Kathleen Hicks, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Forces, Dr

    Foreign Press Center Briefing with Ms. Kathleen Hicks, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Forces, Dr

    FOREIGN PRESS CENTER BRIEFING WITH MS. KATHLEEN HICKS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR STRATEGY, PLANS, AND FORCES, DR. PEPPINO DEBIASO, THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY, AND MS. JANINE DAVIDSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PLANS. THE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. TOPIC: "DEFENSE DEPARTMENT QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW (QDR) ROLLOUT BRIEFING" THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2010 AT 1:00 P.M. EST MS. HICKS: Thank you and good afternoon. I’m going to speak to you a little bit about the Quadrennial Defense Review and then I’ll turn it over to Dr. DeBiaso to speak a little bit about the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, and then we’ll be open to your questions. As you may know, on Monday, the Secretary of Defense provided the reports of both of these important documents to Congress. They help to institutionalize the shift that the Secretary of Defense called for last year to rebalance our forces for the urgent demands of today and for the complex and lethal threats of the future. Both reports emphasize international cooperation to ensure the United States and our allies, partners, and friends are able to meet the demands of a broad spectrum of threats, concerns, and issues that impact every nation. The QDR report delivered to Congress conveys a defense strategy centered on two key themes. The first is the need to rebalance capabilities to prevail in today’s wars while building capability to address future threats. We owe our people in harm’s way nothing less than focusing on the operations in which we are engaged today.