Comments on: Debate: Outside QDR Red Team?

By: ChuckL

ChuckL — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:47:35 +0000

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.

By: ChuckL

ChuckL — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:39:00 +0000

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.

By: ChuckL

ChuckL — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:31:59 +0000

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

By: bobbymike

bobbymike — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:08:24 +0000

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.

By: SB

SB — Fri, 15 May 2009 20:08:56 +0000

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/dictionary/iconoclast

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:29:43 +0000

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

By: Chief Houston

Chief Houston — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:39:28 +0000

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.

By: Charles Phillips, LtCol USAF Ret

Charles Phillips, LtCol USAF Ret — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:22:18 +0000

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?

By: thinker

thinker — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:53:57 +0000

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…

By: DefenseAnalyst

DefenseAnalyst — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:36:00 +0000

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/Research/NationalSecurity/wm2425.cfm

By: BDF

BDF — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:49:36 +0000

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.

By: jason

jason — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:40:13 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:18:58 +0000

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.

By: Nick (atacms)

Nick (atacms) — Thu, 14 May 2009 04:18:57 +0000

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.

By: Threat Inflator

Threat Inflator — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:17:39 +0000

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

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:58:42 +0000

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.

By: jjdc

jjdc — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:37:20 +0000

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.