Sustainable Pre-Eminence: Reforming the US Military at a Time Of

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Sustainable Pre-Eminence: Reforming the US Military at a Time Of RESPONSIBLE DEFENSE SERIES Sustainable Pre-eminence MAY 2012 Reforming the U.S. Military at a Time of Strategic Change By Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), Nora Bensahel, Matthew Irvine and Travis Sharp About the Report “Sustainable Pre-eminence” is part of an ongoing project called Responsible Defense at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). The project examines how the United States should maximize its national security in an era of defense spending reductions. The project published its first report, “Hard Choices: Responsible Defense in an Age of Austerity,” in October 2011. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the many talented people who contributed to this report. First and foremost, we thank Bill French and Peter Bacon for their countless research contributions. We thank Kristin Lord, John Nagl, Melissa Dalton and Richard Fontaine for commenting on early drafts. We thank Liz Fontaine for imparting her creativity to the report’s design, and we thank Kay King and Sara Conneighton for helping to spread our message. In addition, we thank Tom Donnelly, Frank Hoffman, Russell Rumbaugh, Norm Augustine and Michèle Flournoy for serving as external reviewers. Their assistance does not imply any responsibility for the final product, which rests solely with the authors. A Note about Funding This report was made possible, in part, through the generous financial support of the Smith Richardson Foundation. The opinions expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Smith Richardson Foundation. Some organizations that have business interests related to the defense industry support CNAS financially, but they provided no direct support for the report. CNAS retains sole editorial control over its research and maintains a broad and diverse group of more than 100 funders including foundations, government agencies, corporations and private indi- viduals. A complete list of CNAS’ financial supporters can be found at www.cnas.org/support/our-supporters. Cover Image A U.S. Air Force crew chief assigned to the 67th Aircraft Maintenance Unit checks over an F-15 Eagle aircraft on Kadena Air Base in Japan, September 8, 2010. (STaff SGT. CHRISTOPHER HummeL, U.S. AIR FORce/Department of Defense) TABLE OF CONTENts I. Executive Summary 5 VII. Reforming the Services 28 and Special Operations Forces II. Introduction 9 Army 28 III. Defense Strategic Guidance 13 Navy 33 and Regional Priorities Marine Corps 39 Air Force 43 IV. Four Principles for Reform 16 Special Operations Forces 48 V. Strengthening Joint Integration 22 VIII. Conclusion 53 VI. Defense-Wide Reform: 24 Appendix: Summary of Policy Recommendations 65 Downsizing Military Headquarters and Reducing Civilians and Contractors MAY 2012 Sustainable Pre-eminence Reforming the U.S. Military at a Time of Strategic Change By Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), Nora Bensahel, Matthew Irvine and Travis Sharp Sustainable Pre-eminence MAY 2012 Reforming the U.S. Military at a Time of Strategic Change About the Authors Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.) is a Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Dr. Nora Bensahel is the Deputy Director of Studies and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Matthew Irvine is a Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security. Travis Sharp is the Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. 2 | Sustainable PRE-eminence: Reforming the U.S. MilitarY at A Time of Strategic Change By Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA (Ret.), Nora Bensahel, Matthew Irvine and Travis Sharp Sustainable Pre-eminence MAY 2012 Reforming the U.S. Military at a Time of Strategic Change I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Maintaining the U.S. military’s global pre- eminence is vital to protect American interests and promote American values. Yet, in order to sustain U.S. military pre-eminence in an emerging strategic environment characterized by new threats and constrained resources, the Department of Defense (DOD) will need to orga- nize and operate America’s armed forces in new ways. The reality of constrained defense budgets presents DOD with an opportunity to adopt reforms that will make the U.S. military more effective as well as less expensive. Such reforms will ensure that the U.S. military remains the world’s pre-eminent fighting force at a sustain- able cost to American taxpayers. In early 2012, DOD released new strategic guid- ance and a corresponding budget reflecting $487 billion in cuts over 10 years as imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. The guidance directs the U.S. military to prioritize the Asia-Pacific and greater Middle East. These are the correct regional pri- By Lieutenant General David W. Barno, USA orities for the U.S. military, as we argued in our (Ret.), Nora Bensahel, Matthew Irvine October 2011 report, “Hard Choices: Responsible and Travis Sharp Defense in an Age of Austerity.”1 However, the Pentagon still has not enacted the types of reforms that we believe are necessary to sustain U.S. military pre-eminence into the future. Too many DOD structures, processes, programs and operational concepts are legacies of the past, which create unnecessary redundancies, waste valuable resources and encourage unproductive competition among the services rather than com- petition. These practices are no longer acceptable in the current fiscal environment. In this report, we argue that DOD should make numerous policy changes to achieve sustainable pre-eminence. While most studies focus primar- ily on either strategic ends or budgetary means, this report concentrates more on operational ways, the connective tissue that links goals to resources. Our recommendations rely on | 5 Sustainable Pre-eminence MAY 2012 Reforming the U.S. Military at a Time of Strategic Change judgments about both security threats and avail- able resources, the inseparable elements of any DOD must maintain practical strategy. America’s military pre- We disagree with those who argue that preserv- ing American military pre-eminence requires eminence but spend less on maintaining or increasing current levels of defense defense by operating more spending. DOD must maintain America’s military pre-eminence but spend less on defense by operat- efficiently and effectively. ing more efficiently and effectively. We continue to believe strongly in the judgment we reached in “Hard Choices”:2 that the defense budget can be Based on these principles, the U.S. military should reduced responsibly, but that total defense cuts adopt the following reforms: beyond $500 billion to $550 billion over 10 years,* • Joint Integration. Shrinking resources demand measured relative to the Pentagon’s current level of a more unified and integrated employment of spending, would place at high risk the U.S. mili- capabilities. To make the joint force more capable, tary’s ability to execute America’s long-standing the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs and generally successful military strategy of global of Staff, in concert with the Office of the Secretary engagement. of Defense (OSD), should assert greater authority Four principles guide this report’s recom- in challenging combatant command (COCOM) mendations. DOD has made limited progress and service requirements. DOD also should form implementing elements of these principles, but it standing red teams for competitive analysis, create should go much further. First, DOD should pri- standing joint operational headquarters and reform oritize naval and air forces to project power and joint professional military education (PME). deter aggression in the vast Asia-Pacific and volatile • Military Headquarters. To make U.S. military greater Middle East. Second, DOD should increase headquarters more efficient and effective, the interdependence across and within the military Pentagon should shrink the number of geo- services to strengthen joint effectiveness and reduce graphic combatant commands from six to four unnecessary redundancy. Third, DOD should match by merging U.S. Africa Command with U.S. requirements to likely threats based on holistic European Command and merging U.S. Northern analysis of the aggregate capability of the joint force, Command with U.S. Southern Command. The not on narrow analysis of a single platform, service military services should abolish most admin- or domain. Fourth, DOD should accelerate invest- istrative service component commands and ments in technologies that leap ahead of the planned replace them with components that also have next generation of existing systems, especially war-fighting capabilities. Following the model technologies related to unmanned, autonomous and already used by the Marine Corps, the services artificial intelligence systems. * Because we start from a different baseline, DOD would have to cut an additional $150 billion beyond the cuts reflected in the FY 2013 request to reach what we refer to as $500 billion to $550 billion in total cuts over the next 10 years. DOD has announced plans to cut its budget by approximately $487 billion during this time, but that figure is calculated relative to the requested FY 2012 base defense budget ($553 billion). Our figures are calculated relative to the actual FY 2012 budget ($531 billion). See David W. Barno, Nora Bensahel and Travis Sharp, “Hard Choices: Responsible Defense in an Age of Austerity” (Center for a New American Security, October 2011), 5-6. 6 | should dual-hat remaining service component • The Navy. To meet the demands of a budget- DOD must maintain headquarters and commanders so they have both constrained U.S. strategy weighted toward the operational and administrative roles. Asia-Pacific and global dominance at sea, the America’s military pre- • Civilians and Contractors. The Pentagon and Navy should adopt a broader set of crew rota- eminence but spend less on defense intelligence community should reduce tion policies that enable ships to remain forward their civilian and contractor workforces to reflect for greater stretches of time.
Recommended publications
  • Symbiosis and Strife: Where Is the Sino–American Relationship Bound?
    SYMBIOSIS AND STRIFE WHERE IS THE SINO–AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP BOUND? An Introduction to the APL Series “Measure Twice, Cut Once: Assessing Some China–US Technology Connections” National Security Report Richard Danzig | Lorand Laskai SYMBIOSIS AND STRIFE: WHERE IS THE SINO–AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP BOUND? An Introduction to the APL Series “Measure Twice, Cut Once: Assessing Some China–US Technology Connections” Richard Danzig Lorand Laskai Copyright © 2020 The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory LLC. All Rights Reserved. The views in this document reflect the opinions of the authors alone and do not represent any institutional position held by APL. NSAD-R-20-070 SYMBIOSIS AND STRIFE: WHERE IS THE SINO–AMEricaN RElatioNSHIP BOUND? iii Contents Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................................................v Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................................vii A Search for Strategy between the Poles ...................................................................................................... 2 Seductive “Lessons” from Soviet Experiences .............................................................................................. 6 Conjoined Siblings ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • September 12, 2006 the Honorable John Warner, Chairman The
    GENERAL JOHN SHALIKASHVILI, USA (RET.) GENERAL JOSEPH HOAR, USMC (RET.) ADMIRAL GREGORY G. JOHNSON, USN (RET.) ADMIRAL JAY L. JOHNSON, USN (RET.) GENERAL PAUL J. KERN, USA (RET.) GENERAL MERRILL A. MCPEAK, USAF (RET.) ADMIRAL STANSFIELD TURNER, USN (RET.) GENERAL WILLIAM G. T. TUTTLE JR., USA (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL DANIEL W. CHRISTMAN, USA (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL PAUL E. FUNK, USA (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT G. GARD JR., USA (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAY M. GARNER, USA (RET.) VICE ADMIRAL LEE F. GUNN, USN (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL ARLEN D. JAMESON, USAF (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLAUDIA J. KENNEDY, USA (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL DONALD L. KERRICK, USA (RET.) VICE ADMIRAL ALBERT H. KONETZNI JR., USN (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES OTSTOTT, USA (RET.) VICE ADMIRAL JACK SHANAHAN, USN (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL HARRY E. SOYSTER, USA (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL PAUL K. VAN RIPER, USMC (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL JOHN BATISTE, USA (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL EUGENE FOX, USA (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL JOHN L. FUGH, USA (RET.) REAR ADMIRAL DON GUTER, USN (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL FRED E. HAYNES, USMC (RET.) REAR ADMIRAL JOHN D. HUTSON, USN (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL MELVYN MONTANO, ANG (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL GERALD T. SAJER, USA (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL J. SCOTTI JR., USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID M. BRAHMS, USMC (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES P. CULLEN, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL EVELYN P. FOOTE, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID R. IRVINE, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN H. JOHNS, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL RICHARD O’MEARA, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL MURRAY G. SAGSVEEN, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN K. SCHMITT, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL ANTHONY VERRENGIA, USAF (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN N.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2020 Full Issue
    Naval War College Review Volume 73 Number 1 Winter 2020 Article 1 2020 Winter 2020 Full Issue The U.S. Naval War College Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Naval War College, The U.S. (2020) "Winter 2020 Full Issue," Naval War College Review: Vol. 73 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol73/iss1/1 This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Naval War College: Winter 2020 Full Issue Winter 2020 Volume 73, Number 1 Published by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2020 1 Naval War College Review, Vol. 73 [2020], No. 1, Art. 1 Cover Two modified Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IV interceptors are launched from the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) during a Missile Defense Agency (MDA) test to intercept a short-range ballistic-missile target, conducted on the Pacific Missile Range Facility, west of Hawaii, in 2008. The SM-2 forms part of the Aegis ballistic-missile defense (BMD) program. In “A Double-Edged Sword: Ballistic-Missile Defense and U.S. Alli- ances,” Robert C. Watts IV explores the impact of BMD on America’s relationship with NATO, Japan, and South Korea, finding that the forward-deployed BMD capability that the Navy’s Aegis destroyers provide has served as an important cement to these beneficial alliance relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • Newman's Own® Awards Announce
    PRESS RELEASE Contact: Michelle Baldanza, Fisher House Foundation [email protected] Contact: Brandon Rook, Newman’s Own Foundation, [email protected] Contact: Christine Aquino, Military Times [email protected] Newman’s Own® Awards Announce 2020 Grant Winners *** Funds Continue to Support Military Non-Profits Offering Quality Veteran Care ROCKVILLE, Md (Nov. 11, 2020) – Fisher House Foundation, Military Times, and Newman’s Own have awarded grants to six non-profit organizations supporting military servicemembers and their families. Newman’s Own® Awards provide funding toward innovative programs created to improve the quality of life for veterans. Newman’s Own® Awards began in 1999 and have now awarded more than $2.1 million across 185 non- profit programs. The grant’s name honors the legacy of Paul Newman, founder of Newman’s Own, who sought to help make a difference in the lives of others. Paul, a Navy veteran, served in the Pacific during World War II. Later in life, he came up with his own line of salad dressings, pasta sauces, pizzas, salsas and much more and decided that all the profits from Newman’s Own products would go to charities. “Fisher House Foundation congratulates the 2020 Newman’s Own Awards grant recipients, all of which offer important programs to support our military and veteran communities,” said Chairman and CEO of Fisher House Foundation Ken Fisher. “Thank you to our partners at Newman’s Own and Military Times, along with our distinguished judges, for their dedication to helping non-profits succeed, especially in such trying times.” “Military Times is honored to provide our platform to find and recognize organizations whose mission is to help improve the lives of veterans and their families,” said Andrew Tilghman, Military Times executive editor.
    [Show full text]
  • Right-Sizing the Force Lessons for the Current Drawdown of Working Paper American Military Personnel
    JUNE 2013 Right-Sizing the Force Lessons for the Current Drawdown of WORKING PAPER American Military Personnel By Bernard Rostker Cover Image iStockphoto JUNE 2013 Right-Sizing the Force Lessons for the Current Drawdown of American Military Personnel By Bernard Rostker About the Author Bernard Rostker is a former Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and is a Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of RAND or its research sponsors. WORKING papER President Barack Obama’s decision in June 2011 to begin the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Mobilizing reserve forces, Afghanistan set in motion the first significant reduc- particularly ground combat tion in the size of the U.S. military since the 9/11 attacks.1 This will be the latest in a long history of forces, has often been drawdowns, going back to the American Revolution, which have restructured, repositioned and reduced problematic. U.S. military forces after each major conflict. These past drawdowns offer many important lessons on against uncertainty — both about future strategic 2 what not to do, including excessive demobilization requirements and the possibility of additional end and planning based on specific assumptions about strength cuts if budgets decline further — then- 3 the nature of the next war. Yet, evidence from the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General past — including newly analyzed data from the Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 1990s drawdown — suggests that the Department of Staff, both emphasized relying on the reserve com- Defense (DOD) may be about to repeat two critical ponent.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2020S Tri-Service Modernization Crunch Mackenzie Eaglen with Hallie Coyne MARCH 2021
    Embargoed until Tuesday, March 23, at 12:01 a.m. EST The 2020s Tri-Service Modernization Crunch Mackenzie Eaglen with Hallie Coyne MARCH 2021 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE The 2020s Tri-Service Modernization Crunch Mackenzie Eaglen with Hallie Coyne MARCH 2021 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE © 2021 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. All rights reserved. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed here are those of the author(s). Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 Addressing the Tri-Service Spending Spike ...................................................................... 3 Why Does It Matter? ..................................................................................................... 4 What Factors Are Making the Modernization Spending Crunch Worse? ............................... 6 What Does Addressing the Modernization Crunch Mean for the US Military in the 2020s? .............................................................................................................. 15 What Went Wrong: Identifying the Causes of the 2020s Modernization Crunch ................... 16 The Shape and Size of the Tri-Service Modernization Crunch ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Case: 17-35634, 12/15/2017, ID: 10693337, DktEntry: 11-2, Page 1 of 293 No. 17-35634 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit MOHAMED SHEIKH ABDIRAHMAN KARIYE; FAISAL NABIN KASHEM; RAYMOND EARL KNAEBLE IV; AMIR MESHAL; STEPHEN DURGA PERSAUD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States; CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; CHARLES H. KABLE IV, Director, Terrorist Screening Center, Defendants-Appellees. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS’ EXCERPTS OF RECORD VOLUME II OF IV On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Portland Division Case: 3:10-cv-00750-BR Hina Shamsi [email protected] Hugh Handeyside [email protected] Anna Diakun [email protected] AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 T. 212.549.2500 F. 212.549.2654 (Additional Counsel on Inside Cover) Case: 17-35634, 12/15/2017, ID: 10693337, DktEntry: 11-2, Page 2 of 293 Ahilan T. Arulanantham [email protected] AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 West Eighth St. Los Angeles, CA 90017 T. 213.977.9500 F. 213.977.5297 Steven M. Wilker [email protected] TONKON TORP LLP 1600 Pioneer Tower 888 SW 5th Avenue Portland, OR 97204 T. 503.802.2040 F. 503.972.3740 Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Oregon Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mohamed Sheikh Abdirahman Kariye, Faisal Kashem, Raymond Knaeble IV, and Amir Meshal Richard M. Steingard [email protected] LAW OFFICESOF RICHARD M. STEINGARD 800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 T.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Defense Edition
    Department of Defense Edition ©© 2019 2019 Market Market Connections, Connections, Inc. Inc. Table of Contents Background & Methodology…………………..………………………… 3 Demographics…………………………………………………………………… 9 Federal Environment………………………………………………………… 14 Media Results…………………………………………………………………… 20 Confidence & Marketing Impact Index……………………………… 30 Marketing Tactics……………………………………………………………… 32 Federal Media & Marketing Dashboard….………………………… 48 Background & Methodology FEDERAL MEDIA & MARKETING STUDY 2019 4 Methodology • Comprehensive respondent base o Market Connections proprietary Government Insight Panel o Third party databases o Print publications o Digital sites • Over 200 media outlets • Online survey fielded in June – August 2019 • Data weighted to ensure publications were not over- or under-represented in sample (total weighted sample size: 1,119) FEDERAL MEDIA & MARKETING STUDY 2019 5 Topics Covered Demographics Trusted sources of information • Agency/Location • Age Time spent with media • Political affiliation Media usage Job functions • Print • Over 25 job functions • Digital & social sites Washington, DC Purchase responsibility • Print, digital, broadcast • Over 40 product/service purchase categories Trade shows, webinars …and much more FEDERAL MEDIA & MARKETING STUDY 2019 6 Publications & Digital Sites Government Media Technology & Industry • Over 65 media properties • Over 20 media properties • New this year • New this year o FedSmith.com o Techwire.net o G2Xchange.com RouteFifty.com Social Media & Lifestyle o • Over 20 sites o American
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence and National Security
    BELFER CENTER STUDY Artificial Intelligence and National Security Greg Allen Taniel Chan A study on behalf of Dr. Jason Matheny, Director of the U.S. Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) STUDY JULY 2017 Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard Kennedy School 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 www.belfercenter.org Statements and views expressed in this report are solely those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Harvard University, Harvard Kennedy School, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, or IARPA. Design & Layout by Andrew Facini Cover photo and opposite page 1: Adobe Stock, Illustration Copyright 2017, President and Fellows of Harvard College Printed in the United States of America BELFER CENTER PAPER Artificial Intelligence and National Security Greg Allen Taniel Chan A study on behalf of Dr. Jason Matheny, Director of the U.S. Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) STUDY JULY 2017 Acknowledgments We would like to thank our advisors at Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Business School, Dr. Joseph Nye Jr. and Dr. Gautam Mukunda, respectively, for their insight and dedication to the success of this project. We also thank Dr. Matthew Bunn and Dr. John Park, who provided timely feedback at multiple stages of this effort. We are grateful to the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, and the Social Enterprise Initiative for their generous financial support, without which this research would not have been possible. We would also like to thank our client, Dr. Jason Matheny, who went out of his way to support this effort at every step.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Times Launches New Online Obituary Platform for IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    114 Turnpike Road, Suite 203 Westborough, MA 01581 office (508) 366-6383 fax (508) 366-6387 web www.ipublishmedia.com Military Times Launches New Online Obituary Platform FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Arlington, VA., March 24, 2021 — Military Times has launched a new self-service obituary platform to provide families of veterans with a free way to easily tell the story of their loved ones and their years of service. In partnership with iPublish Media Solutions and Legacy.com, the new Military Times obituary platform will offer a free, permanent online obituary of unlimited length for any veteran. Families and friends will be able to upload photos, share condolences in an online Guest Book, and announce service information. An enhanced Facebook promotion is also available for a modest fee. Obituaries can be published at obits.militarytimes.com and viewed at www.legacy.com/militarytimes. “We’re extremely proud to be able to offer this service to our readers. This is another very important way we can honor those who choose to serve in uniform and to memorialize their individual stories for family, friends and future generations,” said Andrew Tilghman, Executive Editor of Military Times. The new veteran obituary section will become an important part of the Military Times’ Military Honor channel. Other Honor channel offerings include: Salute to Veterans, Military Appreciation Month, Service Members of the Year, Honor the Fallen, and Hall of Valor special content topics. “Legacy’s mission is to help life stories live on,” said Stopher Bartol, Chief Executive Office of Legacy.com. “We’re honored to partner with the Military Times to support the military community by publishing the legacies of our treasured veterans, sharing their service with generations to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Space and Defense Issue
    33SPAC E and DEFENSE Volume Eleven Number One Spring 2019 China’s Military Space Strategy Sam Rouleau Volume Five Number One Communicating Cyber Consequences Sum Timothy Goines mer 2011 Why Brazil Ventured a Nuclear Program Saint-Clair Lima da Silva Arms Control & Deterrence Coalitions in Space:Damon Coletta Where Networks are CadetPower Voice—Curious Trinity: War, Media, Public Opinion byLaura James Olson Clay Moltz The 2010 National Space Policy: Down to Earth? by Joan Johnson-Freese Space & Defense Journal of the United States Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Publisher Col. Kris Bauman, [email protected] Director, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Editors Dr. Damon Coletta Dr. Michelle Black U.S. Air Force Academy, USA University of Nebraska, Omaha Associate Editors Mr. Deron Jackson Dr. Peter Hays U.S. Air Force Academy, USA George Washington University, USA Dr. Schuyler Foerster Ms. Jonty Kasku-Jackson U.S. Air Force Academy, USA National Security Space Institute, USA Thank You to Our Reviewers Andrew Aldrin Christopher Dunlap United Launch Alliance, USA Naval Postgraduate School, USA James Armor Paul Eckart ATK, USA Boeing, USA William Barry Andrew Erickson NASA Headquarters, USA Naval War College, USA Daniel Blinder Joanne Gabrynowicz UNSAM-CONICET, Argentina University of Mississippi, USA Robert Callahan Jason Healey NORAD-NORTHCOM, USA Atlantic Council, USA James Cameron Stephen Herzog Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Brazil Yale University, USA Robert Carriedo Theresa Hitchens U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Officials September 1947–July 2021
    Department of Defense Key Officials September 1947–July 2021 Historical Office Office of the Secretary of Defense Contents Introduction 1 I. Current Department of Defense Key Officials 2 II. Secretaries of Defense 5 III. Deputy Secretaries of Defense 11 IV. Secretaries of the Military Departments 17 V. Under Secretaries and Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense 28 Research and Engineering .................................................28 Acquisition and Sustainment ..............................................30 Policy ..................................................................34 Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer ........................................37 Personnel and Readiness ..................................................40 Intelligence and Security ..................................................42 VI. Specified Officials 45 Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation ...................................45 General Counsel of the Department of Defense ..............................47 Inspector General of the Department of Defense .............................48 VII. Assistant Secretaries of Defense 50 Acquisition ..............................................................50 Health Affairs ...........................................................50 Homeland Defense and Global Security .....................................52 Indo-Pacific Security Affairs ...............................................53 International Security Affairs ..............................................54 Legislative Affairs ........................................................56
    [Show full text]