HIll Grapples With Interagency Reforms

HIll Grapples With Interagency Reforms

The talk on Capitol Hill is that major interagency reform — a new look at the interagency legislation and executive orders undergirding US national security — may be the hottest and hardest to address of the recommendations of the independent QDR panel led by Bill Perry and Stephen Hadley.

The panel called for a substantial revamp of the national security structure, saying it was created during the Cold War and was best suited to that era, not to today. Perry and Hadley called for an executive order “that clarifies interagency roles and responsibilities for ―whole of government‖ missions.” They also called on Congress to fix its own house and reduce the overlapping jurisdictions that slow and complicate everyone’s ability to act. They want to reconvene the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, established in 1945 and which has sat twice since then. They hope it will “establish a single national security appropriations subcommittee for Defense, State, State/AID, and the Intelligence Community,” which would require an enormous leap for both Congress and the executive branch.

You can imagine the screams of horror from appropriations subcommittee chairmen — also known as cardinals — at the prospect of merging the State, Foreign Operations subcommittees with the defense subcommittees. The intelligence functions already reside to some degree with the defense subcommittee through the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel of the Committee on Appropriations, which includes the chairmen of the full appropriations committee and the defense subcommittee.


Just how far all this interagency change might go is the big question, with aides conceding it will be difficult in an election year to get the few truly knowledgeable lawmakers to make time and throw their support behind this crucial work.

Following are the panel’s recommendations for changes to the executive branch, which can be made more easily if the political will exists:

Executive branch reform should begin with an Executive Order or directive signed by the President that clarifies interagency roles and responsibilities for ―whole of government‖ missions. This directive should:

i. Establish a consolidated budget line for national security that encompasses, at a minimum, Defense, State, State/AID, and the Intelligence Community.
ii. Task both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the National Security Council (NSC) to develop a mechanism to track implementation of the various budgets that support the Comprehensive Approach.
iii. Identify lead and supporting departments and agencies and their associated responsibilities for notional national security missions. This Executive Order or Presidential directive should also establish a process to define interagency roles and responsibilities for missions not specifically addressed therein.
iv. Establish standing interagency teams with capabilities to plan for and exercise, in an integrated way, departmental and agency responsibilities in predefined mission scenarios before a crisis occurs.

Join the Conversation

Good Afternoon Folks,

The best thing to do with “The Independent QDR” is the toss it in the dumpster. Producing this document is not the job of lobbyist hacks, Wm. Perry and Stephen Hadley, who see a declining market in public spending and are trying to form a new market structure for their customer base.

The underlining truth here is since its inception the DoD has been a dismal failure, it has failed to win wars, not our job, it has spent $trillion of dollars on weapons system that never fired a shot in anger and many that just never worked, Missile Defense, to DoD specifications, or the expectations of Congress or the American People. Why would anybody not on crack cocaine even consider the consolidation of the DoD with Homeland Security, Deptartment of State and the Intelligence Agencies?

This is one area where the private sector could serve as a model. Break up the departments into the its smallest independent units and examine each unit. And as P&G, IBM, General Electric etc. would do, get rid of the on performing units.

The Navy Air Force budget battles of the 1950’s should have been a lesson, but the Defense Industry managed to get their own loyalists into the process and started 50 years of picking the tax payers pockets by selling the snake oil of ideology.

The establishment of such a consolidated budget as proposed here in this article is nothing more then awarding the various industries a renewal of their licenses to steal.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

part 1
Though we have recently been in agreement, here I must disagree with Byron. Please look at the concept of deterrence — it is a valid military strategy and has worked marvelously. The US spent quite a bit of money on ICBMs, SLBMs, nuclear warheads, etc — that have not ever been used. They enforced deterrence, and the best weapon is often the one that is so frightening that no ones dares risk it’s use. As one example, the money spent on the B-1 was well worth it, as the Soviets spent themselves into poverty building radars to track the B-1.
How many newspaper stories can we quote that say that this weapon or that weapon is too fragile, too expensive, too something? The Abrams tank was “too sensitive to dust” but would you rather be in one of those during the invasion of Iraq, or a Russian built T-72?? There are still lots of rusting hulks of T-72s out in the desert, while the Abrams tanks rolled on.

part 2
The DoD, for all of its problems, has been extraordinarily successful. Even I think we take on too much today, but the American military has fought well and responded to tragedies all over the world — normally simultaneously.
In some areas I do agree with Byron, and would eliminate parts of the DoD (and other agencies) that do not perform well or are un-needed. I would scrap missile defense immediately — it is a nice idea but is not ready for deployment. I would stop spending money on stealth technology since it will not be important in likely future conflicts.
I also think that a consolidated budget is not a good idea — mostly since the larger the budget, the easier it is to hide stuff in there.

All they will wind up doing is establishing yet another office that will argue for control over all the others which is the problem already — A single budget is a bunch of bull — yeah we need some thining out in the government big time. There are too many offices responsible for the same thing and it expands throughout the other branches. There should be one program office per item for each branch of service that submit thier request to a central DOD office in charge of the program over all branches that reviews the requirements and asks the pertinent questions of why you need this and why cant you just use this like everyone else, or why are you asking for it to be compatable with non existing systems. This would remove a lot of wasteful spending trying to develope items not needed or modifying a item to thier requirement that cause issues for all the other branches using that item.

For example The M4 switch over — the M855 &856 ammo was specificaly altered to operate in the longer M16 barrels, No body questioned this because they are under different programs and no one talked to the other, had there been a 5.56mm weapons system office responsible for all weapons and ammo in the 5.56mm range they could have pointed this out before it became an issue rather than after and it wouldnt have taken 9 years to come up with the M855A1 round to fix the issue. Same can be said with mods to other weapons and thier ammo which caused issues in the field. This main program office should be made up of reps from all the branches in one location to allow them to face to face with each other so you dont have the Army denying the Navy or vice versa, it will be a multi branch conclusion that applies to all made by subject experts rather than over lunch by good ole boy networking.

One certain need is a program office to insert commas and periods into Boomer’s sentences.

I do agree that we sure could use some central office that forces various services to use common uniforms, common equipment, common radio frequencies, etc. But then you see mistakes like the F-35 — where one aircraft will be certain to disappoint all users. Like the F-111 before it, trying to solve everyone’s problems with one airframe ends up with it meeting the needs of no service.

Items like fighter jets and bombers should always remain mission specific to thier respective branch. But as you pointed out uniforms — field gear — small arms — ammo — artilery — mortars — commo gear and etc. should be universal to lower cost and reduce the number of contracts to manage. It makes no sense and waist money to have AMC, JMC, NAVSEA, ARDEC and Rock Island all having separate contracts at the same contractor for the same item with only a slight variation between the item to make it office specific such as the color of it, or stampings. One office with one contract would be more cost effective and require way fewer personnel to travel to the sight for audits on the tax payers dollar than what currently occurs.

Boomer — the best example there is uniforms. How many d@mn patterns do we need?? When I go on an AF base now I see people with the tiger stripe uniform, covered by the European green bullet proof vest, wearing a helmet with a three color desert cover!! The Army alone must have four or five different patterns — their normal gray/green, MARPAT, etc.

I agree on all points. Great post.

If only winning had anything to do with worrying about how many colors of uniforms there are.

As Byron points out the DoD is dismal in winning wars and getting worse because it’s job is really only about feeding contractors. And it’s little wonder that a cold war is it’s preferred type of “war” — it isnt war at all but a peace with unlimited spending and without ever having to prove anything in battle.

Belive it or not, being able to identify your enemy by what he is wearing is very important. When all the uniform transition was going on we flat out told units to give wide safety margins of our op zones or they risked being killed by us due to thier mix and match appearance. We took multiple cammo patterns with us so that the bad guys could never be dressed the same, which made target identification very easy during fire fights. One pattern does not work — too easy for the enemy to integrate by dressing the same and causing you to hesitate during a gun fight which can get you killed. All units in the military should employ this easy tactic. Yeah fighting rebels is different, but we dont always just fight rebels either.

Oblat demonstrates that he is the Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck of Dod Buzz comments — just makes up junk to shock us. Hey that DoD sure got their *** kicked by Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, huh? Tell Gen Schwartzkopf that the DoD can’t fight anymore, I’d like to see what he does to you behind the building.
The DoD has it’s problems but you gotta turn your brain on and think of improvements, not just jabber claims that are so easily proved wrong.

Good Afternoon Folks,

I’m not exactly sure of where Boomer and the Colonel are on this but think there is a fundamental agreement that giving each of the services their own budgets and to decentralize the dod is a good idea.

As far as putting the DoD, State and the Intelligence I don’t think so.

Rumsfeld Wolfowitz and Feith tried that and we got Iraq. I will agree that we haven’t had a Sec. of State since Jim Baker, the Department of State in an Ideal environment would be the one calling the shots. I see the DoD’s mission is to provide State with either the implied use of military force or its actual use, its the job of State to determine when the military is its most viable option. Any merging of the two would confuse both the public and as it did in Iraq confuse other countries.

Intelligence is a non military activity. Other then for tactical planning and providing platforms for data gathering the military should build a brick wall between themselves and the Intelligence Community.

The not mentioned activity is DHS, which is, if it can be believed is more screwed up then the DoD. I hope that there enough adults in the DHS and DoD to read and understand what “pose comitatus act” means. As I write this there are 1,200 National Guard Troops, I assume they have been Federalized, that are working working for the INS/ICE under the direction of a bumbling idiot bureaucrat name Alan Bersin, a college room mate of Al Gore.

Bersin has wormed his way into high profile Government Jobs for agencies that were screwed up and when he left they were even more screwed up. One would think that there is a raft of law suits here just waiting for an event, if so Bersin will provide it.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Wow, here I am agreeing with Byron again!! The Iraq invasion was partly justified by a shadow CIA (shadow in that it was a parallel effort and also the illusionary qualifications of its members) set up in the DoD, who falsified intel to reach a predetermined conclusion. George Tenet was cowed into supporting a phony policy, and was paid off with a cool medal.
The State Department should negotiate with all other countries — foes as well as friends — and when negotiations are futile, should hand over to DoD who can then pound them flat if needed.
Most of the Intel community should just collect and analyze information — and hand it off to others who decide what to do with it. When they are corrupted into exclusively a targetting arm of the DoD — we hit the wrong people at the wrong time.

*required

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