Why the QDR’s independent panel makes good, common sense on U.S. defense

Today the congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Defense Review independent panel released its report, The QDR in Perspective: Meeting America’s National Security Needs in the 21st Century. The 20-member panel, chaired by former Clinton administration Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former Bush administration National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, included former senior officials from Democratic and Republican administrations as well as retired senior officers. I served on the staff of the panel and will therefore confine my observations to the report’s findings and recommendations as well as its overall significance. 

The Independent Panel’s report represents a striking bipartisan consensus that the United States must do more when it comes to national defense if we are to continue to play the international role we have and pursue the interests that have animated American grand strategy since the end of World War II. These include the need to defend the American homeland; assure access to the sea, air, space, and cyberspace; preserve a favorable balance of power across Eurasia that prevents authoritarian domination of the region and providing for the common good globally. The panel’s report stands in stark contrast with the recent report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, which sought to curtail America’s global role to fit a shrinking defense budget. 

While commending Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for his focus on winning America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the report notes "a significant and growing gap between the ‘force structure’ of the military — its size and its inventory of equipment — and the missions it will be called on to perform in the future." The panel’s members were particularly concerned that the force structure outlined in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review "may not be sufficient to assure others that the United States can meet its treaty commitments in the face of China’s increased military capabilities." The report calls for an increase in U.S. force structure in the Pacific to counter Chinese military modernization, noting, "A robust US force structure, largely rooted in maritime strategy but including other necessary capabilities, will be essential."

It is powerful statement that a group of 20 senior officials who have served Democratic and Republican presidents agreed that "The [U.S.] force structure needs to be increased in a number of areas, including the need to counter anti-access challenges; strengthen homeland defense, including cyber threats; and conduct post-conflict stabilization missions. It must also be modernized." They call for an increase in the size of the U.S. Navy, the acquisition of a next-generation bomber, and new long-range strike systems. They also acknowledge that although the Defense Department must do everything it can to achieve cost savings on acquisition and overhead, "substantial additional resources will be required to modernize the force. Although there is a cost to recapitalizing the military, there is also a price to be paid for not re-capitalizing, one that in the long run would be much greater."

The report also tackles the sensitive issue of the Defense Department’s rising personnel costs, noting that "A failure to address the increasing costs of the all-volunteer force will likely result in a reduction in the force structure, a reduction in benefits or a compromised all-volunteer force."

The QDR independent panel’s report lays out a cogent bipartisan argument that the United States must do more, not less, in defense of American interests if we are to continue to play an active international role. It should generate a debate over America’s role in the world and the value of maintaining it. It is a debate that Americans should welcome.