Debate: Outside QDR Red Team?

Debate: Outside QDR Red Team?

The first Quadrennial Defense Review I covered — also the first QDR there ever was — included what I thought was a productive and provocative tool, a panel of outside defense experts who were charged with critiquing the QDR as it went along and basically grading it when it was done.

At Wednesday’s  House Armed Services Committee budget hearing, Rep. Mac Thornberry, one of the most consistently thoughtful and effective legislators on the House Armed Services Committee, asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates if he thought such an outside panel would be a good idea.  Gates made the classic bureaucrat’s move of preempting the questioner, telling Thornberry he had already ‚made a move in that direction, naming Andy Marshall, head of the elect Office of Net Assessment, and Marine Gen.  James Mattis, head of Joint Forces Command, as his red team.

Gates said he wanted to avoid any groupthink and so had charged Marshall and Mattis with doing critical analyses of both the QDR’s scenarios and its outcomes. With the smart folks we have among our readers, I’d like to get a Buzz debate going about whether this is a good idea to follow in this QDR. This is a chance to perhaps help a good idea get crucial support it might not otherwise — or a chance to kill a flawed idea before it grows too big, depending on where you come down.

Generally speaking, I really like the idea of an outside panel to help drive the QDR teams to greatness. Here’s one reason why. While I can’t remember a lot of the details, I do remember getting my hands on a letter the National Defense Panel wrote during the first QDR in the last quarter of the process. That letter sparked considerable discussion about the direction of elements of the QDR and resulted in substantial changes being made to the final QDR product.

But another reason is that people whose jobs don’t depend on the conclusions they reach are often willing to offer solutions or analyses that those closer to where the rubber hits the road may fear to tread. Put a few eminence grises such as Paul Kaminski or John Hamre on it to lead, spice it up with a few defense iconoclasts like Loren Thompson or Robbin Laird and add a few solid industry experts and you could end up with one heck of an interesting alternative vision of what the QDR should become.

The kind of red team effort I see working would be one that met this sort of standard. An old special forces buddy told me years ago about a successful raid his red team made on a nuclear sub base, slipping aboard a boat, entering offices and slipping away before the security forces could react. It led to a fair amount of turmoil at the base but demonstrated gaping holes in their security that were then filled.  While Gates is clearly willing to make hard decisions, I say he can use all the help he can get from a robust red team that is not too closely tied to the building.

What say you, dear readers?

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

I think a red team is a good idea, particularly for this QDR. I’m concerned that this QDR will be nothing but a verification of what Gates announced last month. The Department already has the Gospel Truth, the QDR will just reinforce it. An outside panel, that actually had some independent thinkers, would be a helpful tool to keep this in check.

Team B lives!

The problem with contemporary defense analysis is that it’s always possible to deny the basic assumptions about the projected threat. This undercuts the credibility of any defense analyst’s statements; and without that credibility, an “independent review panel” is just like any other pundit, albeit more well-informed.

Gates can form a red team if he wants, but I think they’ll spend the large majority of their time justifying their basic assumptions.

Andy Marshall: Now there is an outside the beltway voice of reason.

Excellent idea by Sec. Gates and wise choice in his selection of Gen. Matis, I’d also recommend if he wants another candidate known for being an excellent Red Team thinker: Gen Paul Van Riper.

Some of you may recall his tactics led to a reset of the Millenium Challenger exercise where he was so effective that he effectively deployed non-conventional system in an unorthodox manner and sunk several ships. The Blue team cried foul and reset the game and had Riper not participate. This is the kind of guy you want.

Nick
LOL…Some of us recall Gen Van Riper’s MC “motor boat” canard with great clarity. Mattis/Van Riper should come down on the side of a DOD that looks like the USMC of 1950…which would reach the current administration’s budget goal. Oooorah.

While Mattis and Marshall are excellent candidates to be on a red team, it’s not really “outside” if the red team is only active duty DOD civilians and military leaders. Need some truly outside the box thinkers like Biddle, Krepenevich, etc, who have done great and unbiased work in the think tanks.

Looks like Gates is merely stacking the deck (yet again). I’m dubious on the notion that there will be an actual independent oversight on the process.

An outside panel isn’t just a good idea, it’s the law. Title 10, Section 118 of the U.S. Code requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct the QDR. As mandated by law–and because defense policy is subordinate to foreign policy–the Pentagon’s QDR is to be conducted after the White House issues a National Security Strategy.

Due to the breadth of the impact the QDR stands to have on defense planning and budgeting, Congress also chose to insert subsection (f) of section 118, which directs the defense secretary to “establish a panel to conduct an assessment of the quadrennial defense review…including the recommendations of the review, the stated and implied assumptions incorporated in the review, and the vulnerabilities of the strategy and force structure underlying the review.” The panel is also required by law to analyze “the trends, asymmetries, and concepts of operations that characterize the military balance with potential adversaries, focusing on the strategic approaches of possible opposing forces.”

http://​www​.heritage​.org/​R​e​s​e​a​r​c​h​/​N​a​t​i​o​n​a​l​S​e​c​u​r​i​t​y​/​w​m​2​4​2​5​.​cfm

Need to pick a few 0–5 level combat vets to add to your red team. They are used to thinking out of the box…

As a guy who was always “in the rear with the gear” I’d like to see an independent review team made up of only combat veterans who are also not working for the government right now. Maybe limit the group to people who were fired from their last DoD job! Maybe people in academia or other organizations.

What Sec of Defense (or high level manager) ever wants a real independent review? They want people who will go along with their vision. That is why Gen Shenseki was fired by President Bush.

Maybe the fact that they were fired for too much independent thought is a good criteria for selection?

Outside the box? Put some gamers in the mix with vets up and down the ranks. The best ideas do not always come from the top!

Darpa should be represented with it’s affiliated university support system along with possible student engineering orgs.

Situational leadership is a requisite for this type of problem solving.

Chief Houston: Much like Reagan did by involving sci-fi authors in his defense planning.

How is Loren Thompson a “defense iconoclast”? He has written probably an op-ed a month for the last two years cheerleading for the F-22, a prime example of Pentagon conventional wisdom. Are you sure you meant “iconoclast”? http://​www​.merriam​-webster​.com/​d​i​c​t​i​o​n​a​r​y​/​i​c​o​n​o​c​l​ast

The Defense Science Board have done good non-political work on nukes, prompt global strike and future technology.

There is a role to play by reporting what is needed for future defense requirements without ANY politics.

If they include the Lexington Institute and specifically Dr. Rebecca Grant, I’m OK with it.

Is Gates really making hard decisions, or did Obama keep him on because Gates like Obama wants to destroy the U. S. Military?

If you think that I am being too hard on them, please read the DOD budget and plans to reduce Military equipment capability and quantity.

If Loren Thompson is truly a cheerleader for the F-22, then I’d say that as far as Gates is concerned, he is definitely an iconoclast.

He would certainly shoot down Gates’ cherished idea that the F-22 is not worth having.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement