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