LESSON 28:U.S. DEFENSE STRATEGY AND SHAPING THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
Mon 1 October 2001 (0830-1130)
Col James Holcomb 245-3282

1. Introduction.

     a. Defense Strategy. The current U.S. defense strategy was issued in May 1997 as a result of the first Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The strategy is another step down the evolutionary path that began early in the 1990's with the Base Force and Bottom-Up Review; it attempts to define the ends, ways, and means of dealing with an uncertain future in an era of diminishing resources and increasing demand. The strategy implemented NSS 97 and is still in consonance with NSS 00. It reflects the strategic imperatives of the National Security Strategy of SHAPING the international environment, RESPONDING to the full spectrum of crises, and PREPARING now for an uncertain future.

     b. Alternatives to the Current Defense Strategy. In anticipation of a second QDR process and resultant defense strategy, a great debate is underway on the ends, ways, and means of any future strategy. Differing alternatives to the current defense strategy carry with them varying degrees of emphasis and ultimately risk. Much is at stake. It is therefore important to be familiar with some of the alternatives and critically analyze and assess them against the current strategy and come to some conclusions about the future and the best approaches to take to achieve our strategic objectives within our resources. One such alternative approach was the Congressionally mandated National Defense Panel undertaken in parallel with the QDR. Another is exemplified in the work of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (USCNS/21). (also known as the Hart-Rudman Commission after the two former Senators who chair it), which was intended to be "the most comprehensive review of the national security environment and organizations since the National Security Act of 1947." Its goal is to establish a roadmap for developing U.S. defense strategy and structure out to 2025. It has published three reports that examine the future strategic environment, propose a new defense strategy and recommend structural and organizational change. The National Defense University's Quadrennial Defense Review 2001 Working Group under the direction of Ms. Michele Flournoy has also done substantial work in examining strategic alternatives as has the Strategic Studies Institute here at the War College. There is no shortage of views; the challenge is to pick the strategic alternatives that match ends, ways, and means most efficiently and effectively while incurring the minimum risk in the long term.

     c. Shaping the International Environment. One of the pillars of the NSS and the defense strategy is SHAPING the international environment. This could be considered an "economy of force" element of the strategy. It is intended to achieve U.S. objectives through positive activities that contribute to promoting regional stability, preventing or reducing conflicts or the threat of conflict and deterring aggression. The Combatant Command CINC's play an important role in implementing the shaping component of the strategy through activities in their Areas of Responsibility.

2. Learning Objectives.

     a. Understand and evaluate the current U.S. defense strategy that emerged from the 1997 QDR.
     b. Understand the SHAPE-RESPOND-PREPARE underpinnings of the defense strategy and the National Military Strategy.
     c. Critically assess alternatives to the current defense strategy.
     d. Understand how to formulate national security direction and a strategic endstate, in terms of the instruments of national power, so that combatant commanders can determine the military endstate to achieve the national security objectives.
     e. Understand the organizational and political influences to include cabinet-level departments, Congress, NSC, DOD agencies, the media, and public opinion on the development of national security strategy and strategic decisionmaking.
     f. Translate national security objectives, guidance, and strategic endstate into national military objectives, guidance, and endstate.

3. Student Requirements.

a. Tasks.
     (1) Explain the interrelationship of the SHAPE-RESPOND-PREPARE pillars in the defense strategy.
     (2) Propose, examine and assess alternatives to the 1997 defense strategy.
     (3) Explain various ends, ways, and means of implementing the SHAPING pillar of the defense strategy.

b. Required Readings.
     (1) Cohen, William S. Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review. 1997. Read "The Secretary's Message," pp. iii-x; Section II; Section III; and Section V. (Student Issue)
     (2) National Military Strategy of the United States of America, 1997. Washington, D.C., pp. 5-20. (Student Issue)
     (3) U.S. Army War College, Department of National Security and Strategy. Readings in War, National Security Policy, and Strategy. Carlisle Barracks: 2001. Vol. IV: (Student Issue)
          (a) Metz, Steven, American Strategy: Issues and Alternatives for the Quadrennial Defense Review, Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2000, pp. vii-xix.
          (b) Strategic Assessment 1998. "Instruments for Shaping," Chapter II.
          (c) "CINC's Theater Engagement Plan (TEP) Executive Summary," 21 April 1998.
     (4) Michele A. Flournoy, ed. QDR 2001: Strategy-Driven Choices for America's Security, Washington, D.C., National Defense University Press, 2001, pp. 373-382, "Elements of Success for the QDR," by Michele A. Flournoy. (Student Issue)

c. Internet Resource. Internet access: http://www.fas.org/man/docs

4. Points to Consider.
     a. What assumptions does the QDR make about U.S. national interests and the challenges to those interests? Do you agree with those assumptions?
     b. Does the up front limitation on projected defense budgets (means) in the 1997 defense strategy skew the ends, ways, and means equation? Is this an issue in the ongoing QDR discussions?
     c. Which alternative approaches do you believe most closely address future strategic challenges and requirements? At what risk?
     d. Should the SHAPE-RESPOND-PREPARE pillars be balanced or should one be given more emphasis than others?
     e. How does Shaping the International Environment contribute to the overall strategy?

 Military challenges by a regional competitor(s)
 Attempts by a regional competitor to attack homeland-asymmetry
 Use of anti-access and area denial strategies
 Use of WMD by regional competitor for anti-access operations
 Involvement in failed states
 Operations in urban terrain and in chaotic conditions
 Continual diffusion of military technology
 High level of informational warfare

Bush Administration  1991 - Base Force Review - National Security Strategy (Aug)  1992 - National Military Strategy (Jan)  1993 - National Military Strategy (Jan)

Clinton Administration  1993 - Bottom Up Review Report (Sep)  1994 - National Security Strategy (Jul)  1995 - National Security Strategy (Feb) - Commission on Roles and Missions (May) - National Military Strategy & Joint Vision 2010  1996 - National Security Strategy (Feb)  1997 - National Security Strategy & QDR (May) - Concept for Future Joint Operations (May) - Defense Reform Initiative Report (Nov) - National Defense Panel Report (Dec)  1998 - National Security Strategy (Oct)  1999 - Defense Science Board Report on Transformation (Aug) - US Commission on National Security/21st Century I (Sep) - National Security Strategy (Dec)  2000 - US Commission on National Security/21st Century II (Apr) - Joint Vision 2020 (May) - National Security Strategy (Dec)

BUSH Administration  2001 - US Commission on National Security21st Century III (Feb) - QDR II (Sep 30?) - National Military Strategy (?)