-
ViaSat to modify Air Force JSC
Published: May 13, 2008 at 2:07 PM
CARLSBAD, Calif., May 13 (UPI) -- The U.S. Air Force announced it has contracted ViaSat Inc. to implement a new communication link on the joint communication simulator. -
DynCorp International names new president
Published: May 13, 2008 at 1:51 PM
FALLS CHURCH, Va., May 13 (UPI) -- Defense contractor DynCorp International Inc., based in Virginia, has named a new president and chief executive officer. -
HemCon selected for LHP development
Published: May 13, 2008 at 1:30 PM
PORTLAND, Ore., May 13 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army announced a contract with HemCon Medical Technologies Inc. for the development of battlefield resuscitation lyophilized human plasma.
-
Analysis: China copter deal -- Part 1
Published: May 13, 2008 at 4:58 PM
By MARTIN SIEFF
UPI Senior News Analyst
WASHINGTON, May 13 (UPI) -- The long freeze in Russia's enormously lucrative arms trade with China may be coming to an end as the Kremlin has agreed to sell Mi-171 transport helicopter assembly kits to Beijing. -
Military Matters: A time to cut -- Part 2
Published: May 13, 2008 at 11:03 AM
By WILLIAM S. LIND
WASHINGTON, May 13 (UPI) -- How can the United States seriously cut its military spending while retaining and improving its national security? -
Defense Focus: Numbers count -- Part 2
Published: May 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
By MARTIN SIEFF
UPI Senior News Analyst
WASHINGTON, May 13 (UPI) -- Wars destroy lots of weapons systems as well as lots of people. That is why major powers still need lots of soldiers and lots of relatively cheap, easily manufactured and easily replaced weapons systems. -
Outside View: Russian-Iran nuke moves
Published: May 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM
By PYOTR GONCHAROV
UPI Outside View Commentator
MOSCOW, May 13 (UPI) -- Has Russia decided to join the U.N. sanctions against Iran? Will the new president shift Russia's policy regarding Iran to the West? -
Analysis: European defense contracts
Published: May 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM
By LEANDER SCHAERLAECKENS
UPI Correspondent
BRUSSELS, May 12 (UPI) -- U.K. Ministry of Defense announces FRES contract; After France, U.K. sells to Libya; Saab profits drop on back of Gripen costs -
Military Matters: A time to cut -- Part 1
Published: May 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM
By WILLIAM S. LIND
WASHINGTON, May 12 (UPI) -- At a recent book party for Winslow Wheeler's new history of the military reform movement of the 1970s and 1980s, I was asked for my views on the prospects for genuine reform. I replied, "So long as the money flow continues, nothing will change." Chuck Spinney, a reformer who spent decades as a polyp in the bowels of the U.S. Department of Defense, agreed.
Latest Headlines
Most Popular
- Australian safety official loses license
- News anchor apologizes for saying F-word
- Web program helps drivers fight tickets
- Man forced to sit on toilet sues JetBlue
- Man charged for tossing M&Ms at cop
- UPI NewsTrack Quirks in the News
- Too tiny dress costs teen her prom
- Artificial lawn causes storm in Florida
Thompson Files: Delay U.S. defense review
Published: May 6, 2008 at 10:40 AM
By LOREN B. THOMPSON
ARLINGTON, Va., May 6 (UPI) -- It is now nearly 20 years since the Berlin Wall was breached, providing a powerful symbol of communism's impending collapse. That event also marked the end of an era in American defense planning, because the military challenge posed by the Soviet Union had taken most of the guesswork out of what kind of defense posture the nation needed.
When a hostile country has thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at you, it doesn't take much deliberation to realize you are in grave danger. So the main goal of U.S. strategy throughout the Cold War was to assure that those warheads would never reach America. Every facet of national-security activity, from counterinsurgency to conventional warfare to intelligence collection, was informed by the need to keep Soviet nukes in their silos.
Things are different today. There is no overwhelming threat around which to organize our defense preparations, despite the Bush administration's attempts to make the global war on terror that crusade.
History will record that once Sept. 11, 2001, focused the nation's attention on the challenge posed by "Islamo-fascism," Bush's team did a good job of keeping the terrorists at bay. But precisely because al-Qaida has not managed to mount a follow-on attack in more than six years, it cannot provide the central danger around which our defense preparations are organized. Hence the Bush administration's concept of capabilities-based planning, a tacit acknowledgment we don't know which threats will be of greatest concern in the future.
In such circumstances, it makes sense for the U.S. Congress to mandate a quadrennial review of defense programs and policies, to assure that military preparations remain in sync with changing security challenges. But we have now had four such exercises -- including the 1993 Bottom-Up Review -- and a pattern is beginning to emerge.
The reviews that are conducted during the first year in office of a newly elected president tend to be disorganized and incomplete. The reviews conducted during the fifth year of a presidency that has recently seen its popular mandate renewed tend to be more deliberative and useful.
There are two obvious reasons for this disparity in results. First, it takes a long time to staff the security apparatus of new administrations, so conducting a comprehensive review during the first year in office means many key policymakers may not yet be in place. Administrations returning for a second term typically carry over many senior personnel.
Second, defense postures need to be driven by strategy, but the schedule mandated by law for delivering the findings of quadrennial reviews leaves little time to develop a strategy before the trade-off of policies and programs must begin. Thus, there is a tendency to carry over the strategic assumptions of the preceding four years -- which doesn't work so well when a new president inherits unpopular policies.
That is the situation in which we find ourselves today, and it leads to an obvious conclusion: Next year's Quadrennial Defense Review needs to be delayed until the new administration has time to staff policy positions and develop a new defense strategy.
Rushing into another QDR a few months after Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is elected guarantees a suboptimal result in which much of the work has to be done by career personnel using existing strategic concepts because new political appointees have not been confirmed and new thinking has not been formalized.
If Congress wants the QDR to achieve its desired result of tying military preparations closely to security challenges and requirements, then its timing needs to better reflect the way the political system actually works.
--
(Loren B. Thompson is chief executive officer of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank that supports democracy and the free market.)
ARLINGTON, Va., May 6 (UPI) -- It is now nearly 20 years since the Berlin Wall was breached, providing a powerful symbol of communism's impending collapse. That event also marked the end of an era in American defense planning, because the military challenge posed by the Soviet Union had taken most of the guesswork out of what kind of defense posture the nation needed.
When a hostile country has thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at you, it doesn't take much deliberation to realize you are in grave danger. So the main goal of U.S. strategy throughout the Cold War was to assure that those warheads would never reach America. Every facet of national-security activity, from counterinsurgency to conventional warfare to intelligence collection, was informed by the need to keep Soviet nukes in their silos.
Things are different today. There is no overwhelming threat around which to organize our defense preparations, despite the Bush administration's attempts to make the global war on terror that crusade.
History will record that once Sept. 11, 2001, focused the nation's attention on the challenge posed by "Islamo-fascism," Bush's team did a good job of keeping the terrorists at bay. But precisely because al-Qaida has not managed to mount a follow-on attack in more than six years, it cannot provide the central danger around which our defense preparations are organized. Hence the Bush administration's concept of capabilities-based planning, a tacit acknowledgment we don't know which threats will be of greatest concern in the future.
In such circumstances, it makes sense for the U.S. Congress to mandate a quadrennial review of defense programs and policies, to assure that military preparations remain in sync with changing security challenges. But we have now had four such exercises -- including the 1993 Bottom-Up Review -- and a pattern is beginning to emerge.
The reviews that are conducted during the first year in office of a newly elected president tend to be disorganized and incomplete. The reviews conducted during the fifth year of a presidency that has recently seen its popular mandate renewed tend to be more deliberative and useful.
There are two obvious reasons for this disparity in results. First, it takes a long time to staff the security apparatus of new administrations, so conducting a comprehensive review during the first year in office means many key policymakers may not yet be in place. Administrations returning for a second term typically carry over many senior personnel.
Second, defense postures need to be driven by strategy, but the schedule mandated by law for delivering the findings of quadrennial reviews leaves little time to develop a strategy before the trade-off of policies and programs must begin. Thus, there is a tendency to carry over the strategic assumptions of the preceding four years -- which doesn't work so well when a new president inherits unpopular policies.
That is the situation in which we find ourselves today, and it leads to an obvious conclusion: Next year's Quadrennial Defense Review needs to be delayed until the new administration has time to staff policy positions and develop a new defense strategy.
Rushing into another QDR a few months after Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is elected guarantees a suboptimal result in which much of the work has to be done by career personnel using existing strategic concepts because new political appointees have not been confirmed and new thinking has not been formalized.
If Congress wants the QDR to achieve its desired result of tying military preparations closely to security challenges and requirements, then its timing needs to better reflect the way the political system actually works.
--
(Loren B. Thompson is chief executive officer of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank that supports democracy and the free market.)
© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.
» Next in Industry - Analysis:
Outside View: Russia's Blackjack power