I'm glad to see that the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is getting some attention in the blogosphere and elsewhere. It seems to me that critical questioning of the defense budget and the Pentagon's strategic assumptions has become somewhat more common than it has been in years. Let's hope that continues for a long time.
The QDR has provoked a potentially confusing array of responses. To Fred Kaplan, the QDR shows that Rummy Surrenders Slate 02/03/06.
Counterinsurgency theorist William S. Lind in The Long War Antiwar.com 02/09/06 might give the impression that the whole thing is Rummy's baby.
This paper from the Project for Defense Alternatives (PDA) asks: Do the Forces Match the Missions? (It's formally titled "QDR 2006: Do the Forces Match the Missions? DOD gives little reason to believe" by Carl Conetta; PDA Briefing Memo #36; 02/10/06) leaves the impression that Rummy got stiffed on his project of "transformation" to "netcentric" warfare but got his way on counterinsurgency.
DefenseTech.org has been discussing the QDR since it was published, starting with this 02/03/06 post. One post is even titled QDR: Kerry's Pentagon 02/03/06.
Ironically, these seemingly exclusive takes aren't necessarily incompatable. The QDR is written in general terms. But it does seem that Pentagon's post-Vietnam focus on conventional warfare and avoidance of counterinsurgency planning is still driving the Pentagon's strategic thinking, for better or worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment