QDR Driving Major Forces Shift

QDR Driving Major Forces Shift

The guiding American strategy of responding to two major contingency operations may well fall during this Quadrennial Review, Michele Flournoy signaled to reporters today.

“We have to be able to do multiple things at a time,” Flournoy said at a Defense Writers Group breakfast. She ticked off, Iraq, Afghanistan, piracy and terrorism as realities the US must contend with and have a force capable of managing. She said many of the major QDR decisions should be made by late summer.

What used to be holy writ – that the US military must be capable of responding to two MCOs or some version of one big one and a second fight that we would respond to soon after – doesn’t seem likely to survive.


I asked Andrew Krepinvech, who is providing some support to the QDR from his perch at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, where this might go.

“I think what we are looking at now is an indirect strategy with regard to terrorism and nacre gangs and an offsetting strategy with regard to China and to the Pacific generally,” he said. The first set of missions is traditionally dominated by the Army and Marines, the second by maritime forces and aerospace capabilities. And all that may mean that the military will need to rebalance its forces, he said.

As part of rebalancing the US military to handle such varied contingencies, Flournoy said the Pentagon will consider its force structure, noting that “when you can’t do everything equally well” force sizing becomes a key factor in rebalancing the military.

Krepinvech suggested the US should build an Army designed to train and support allies and host countries, using an “indirect approach” instead of building a force capable of mounting massive expeditionary stability operations. Flournoy told reporters that helping allies and working closely with them in military operations was something the US would have to do much more of.

Flournoy’s resizing comments appear to raise the specter of the Marines losing forces dedicated to amphibious missions. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he is reconsidering that mission, which seems to indicate there is a good chance it will be either abandoned or substantially revised downwards.

At the Navy League conference earlier this month, Marine Commandant NAME said several times that the mission of kicking down doors – forcible entry – is a key function of the Corps, one that he is committed to restoring. And as part of that effort, he pushed hard for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle as a key capability to ensure the Marines can execute that mission. It’s reasonable to assume that the senior leadership of the Marines would not come out fighting unless they see a threat.

In other QDR news, Flournoy pushed the virtues of a Red Team drawn from outside sources such as thinktanks, academe and industry. She said they could “introduce a different range of scenarios [from those the Pentagon has identified] some of which may be high end and very intensive.” Andy Marshall, head of the Office of Net Assessment, is leading that effort. During the last QDR, Marshall gathered four retired four star generals, Krepinvech, Steve Rosen from Harvard, Wayne Downing to represent special forces interests and a representative from the intelligence community.

Share |

Join the Conversation

It would be a mistake to drastically reduce the “heavy” BCT’s, turn them into Stryker brigades. How many are they talking about? Thier will be a need for heavy forces to slug it out some day, right now its not gonna happen. Why the Canadians are able to use thier Leo II’s in A-stan, and we do not I cannot understand. Lets not get too light, it will hurt us in the long run.

i have watched with amusement the way that several people have slammed the Obama administration. if the reporting here is correct and i have no reason to doubt it, then perhaps they weren’t as alarmist as i had originally thought. the idea that instead of a warfighting Army and a forcible entry Marines, we’ll build a Army cooperation force and a neutered Marines is indeed CRAZY. before i raise the level of the BS meter, i’ll wait for future developments but this is not off to a good start.

translation…

The administration is going to neuter the US military.

The Dems and the Left DO NOT want to be a superpower. They want to cut the US down to size. They believe the US is arrogant BECAUSE of our military power. Obama said as much at the Arizona State University commencement.

This is one of the most sanest things I’ve heard in a long time. For you critics, let me ask you something — is it smarter to say that you’re going to fight two major wars and juggle multiple contingencies while not having enough people or hardware — as we’ve done for the last few decades — or is it smarter to say, hey, we really can’t commit to much more than one major war and a few contingencies, and actually resource to do that?

I’d much rather have adequate forces for a right-sized mission than rhetoric boasting that the US military is the supercop to the world and finding out that our force breaks under the stress. Get a grip. This isn’t about left and right. And if Andy Marshall is leading the effort, you know it’s going to be an air-tight solid effort.

The U.S. has the numbers to fight two wars, with contingencies on the side. But to fight those wars in a politically correct manner is another story. Lets not forget in WWII many national guardsmen served for the duration of the war. The conflict in the Iraq proved the need for heivy brigades as the Marines keep calling for help from M1’s and Bradleys. Throughout the conflict iraqi insurgents would fire on humvees, and 113’s but run in the face of bradleys.

We have limited resources and the types of war’s we are likely to fight will not require a bunch of heavy brigades with M1’s and Brad’s or MX missles ( we need to keep some — yes )

In history the Romans had the same issue in Spain and there are many more examples of taking heavy units and stripping down into lighter units in order to fight a counter-insurgency … and many more that failed to do that and were beaten

We have expanded Rangers Bat’s to 3 and I would like to see more.

SF is expanded a bit and more there is better … sending in A-Teams with some air cav and striker units as support is more effective than putting the 11th acr (ALLONS!) in places like Afghanistan and thats comming from an old cav tropper

I do think we need some heavy units as force protection, but you wont see a bradly climbing a mountain

The results of the QDR by summer’s end will be a good snapshot of what the next 4 years (or possibly 8 years) will look like for the US.
If as stated the “US should build an Army designed to train and support allies and host countries” and the USMC’s “mission is kicking down doors – forcible entry – and is a key function of the Corps” we have totally blown it. Despite the last 2 administrations we are still the strongest country in the world. We need to stop gutting the economy, US industry and the military.

We need at least 600,000 marines and about 1.500,000 in the army to take care of our owns asses but i belive in having friendly fore helping us out to.

*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