1. 1 Quadrennial Defense Review SES APEX Orientation Program September 13, 2005

2. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 2 What is the QDR?  Mandated by Congress  DOD’s Capstone Strategic Planning Activity  Principal aim is to develop guidance for  “Operationalizing” the National Defense Strategy  Shaping the future force  QDR takes a 20-year outlook  Recognizes near term demands  QDR Report submitted to Congress in February 2006  Submitted with the President’s FY07 budget request

3. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 3 Where does QDR fit? Quadrennial Defense Review Organizational Operational Budget Program Review-POM Capabilities Planning Unified Command Plan Transformation Planning Contingency Planning Terms of Reference Resource National Military Strategy National Defense Strategy National Security Strategy Security Cooperation Strategic Context NDS and NMS at www.defenselink.mil/publications BRACBRAC Global Posture Global PostureReview Studies Studies (e.g., Mobility) Service Initiatives Service Initiatives (e.g., Modularity)

4. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 4 How 2005 QDR differs from past QDRs  The U.S. is a nation at war  Defense Strategy was completed before the QDR kickoff  A “rolling QDR”: executable guidance developed as issues mature during the Review QDR will inform the FY07 Program Review.  The Department’s force planning construct will be a major QDR output  Inclusive: Outreach to Congress, industry and allies/partners – benefit from their strategic thinking  An integrated, enterprise-wide review with senior-level participation throughout

5. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 5 2005 QDR Terms of Reference  Outlined guiding principles and assumptions  Summarized strategy  Provided guidance to operationalize the strategy by considering 4 focus areas  Directed formation of six issue teams

6. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 6 Guiding Principles and Assumptions  Foster a structured, open and transparent competition of ideas during the Department’s deliberations  Draw upon lessons learned from Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM  Balance near-term operational demands with longer-term challenges and opportunities  Develop executable guidance as issues mature during the QDR, then follow through with execution roadmaps  Treat the Department’s force planning construct as a QDR output rather than an input

7. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 7 Strategy (1) - Security Challenges Irregular  Non-state and state actors employing “unconventional” methods to counter stronger state opponents—terrorism, insurgency, etc. (e.g., terrorism, insurgency, “unrestricted warfare”) Disruptive  Competitors employing technology or methods that might counter or cancel our current military advantages. (e.g., technological – bio, cyber, or space war, ultra miniaturization, directed-energy, other – diplomatic blackmail, cultural or economic war) Traditional  States employing military forces in well- known forms of military competition and conflict. (e.g., conventional air, sea, and land forces, and nuclear forces of established nuclear powers) Catastrophic  Terrorist or rogue state employment of WMD or methods producing WMD-like effects against American interests. (e.g., attack on homeland, global markets, or key ally that would generate a state of shock and preclude normal behavior)

8. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 8 Strategy (2) - Strategic Evolution Strategic Capability High Moderate Low Perceived Capability Emphasis Lesser Contingencies Future Near Peer Major Theater War ’93 Bottom-Up Review High Moderate Low Perceived Capability Emphasis Lesser Contingencies Future Near Peer Major Theater War ’01 QDR High Low Perceived Capability Emphasis Lesser Contingencies Lesser Contingencies Future Near Peer Future Near Peer Major Theater War ’05 Defense Strategy High Moderate Low Perceived Capability Emphasis Lesser Contingencies Future Near Peer Major Theater War ’97 QDR Strategic Capability  2 MTWs  State-on-State  Cross Border Conflict  2 MTWs  State-on-State  Cross Border Conflict  Smaller Scale Contingencies  1-4-2-1  Ungoverned Areas  Asymmetric Threats  Future Peer  GWoT / Ungoverned Areas  Irregular Warfare  Low-End Asymmetric  1-4-2-1 (State-on-State War)  Disruptive Technologies  Superiority in the Commons (Space, Cyber, Seas, Air)  Industrial Age Near Peer Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Haiti Citadel I & II 11 Sept / GWoT OEF / OIF 4 Challenges Desert Storm Soviet Collapse

9. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 9 Four QDR Focus Areas  Centerpiece of QDR effort is assessment of DoD’s wherewithal to address four focus areas: Building partnerships to defeat terrorist extremism Defending the homeland in-depth Shaping the choices of countries at strategic crossroads Preventing the acquisition or use of WMD by hostile state or non-state actors  Caveats Focus areas are not all inclusive Focus areas are not just in the far term

10. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 10 Six Major Issues  Six Integrated Project Teams examine the following sets of issues in addressing the four focus areas Capability Mix Joint Enablers (e.g., space, logistics, ISR) Roles / Missions and Organizations Manning and Balancing the Force Business Practices and Processes Authorities  A senior civilian and military leader for each issue

11. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 11 Outreach QDR Organization Integration Group (PDUSDP, PA&E, J-5, J-8 INTEGRATED PRODUCT TEAMS Joint Enablers Capability Mix Roles, Missions & Organizations Manning & Balancing the Force Business Practices & Processes Authorities Option Development Recommendations SecDef ⇧ SLRG SecDef ⇧ SLRG Supporting IPT Analysis Resources England Giambastiani England Giambastiani Supporting IPT Analysis Resources Harvey Odierno Harvey Odierno Supporting IPT Analysis Resources DuBois Sharp DuBois Sharp Supporting IPT Analysis Resources Chu Willard Chu Willard Supporting IPT Analysis Resources Krieg McNabb Krieg McNabb Supporting IPT Analysis Resources Cambone Moseley Cambone Moseley DepSecDef, VCJCS ⇧ QDR Co-Leads DepSecDef, VCJCS ⇧ QDR Co-Leads

12. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 12 QDR Phasing and Timelines QDR TOR Phase I First 4 Roundtables (Focus Areas) Phase II 36 Issues – TOR/Taskers from 4 Roundtables & FPC Development Phase IV PR-07 Program Guidance Develop Report & SPG QDR Report, SPG SLRG Guidance (July) PDM Guidance (Sept-Oct) Phase III Major Muscle Movement Options, PR-07 Decisions UNCLASSIFIED

13. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 13 QDR Co-Lead Meetings  Co-Lead Meetings: Day-long sessions Co-chaired by DepSecDef and the VCJCS Vice Chiefs, Under Secretaries, all IPT Co-Leads, CoComs, NGB Chief Other agencies: State, Justice, DHS International allies: Canada, UK, Australia  Objectives: Develop a common understanding of major challenges / threats, desired end states and approaches Take an unconstrained look at the capabilities the nation needs to meet the major challenges / threats Obtain senior leader guidance and priorities Cornerstone of Strategy-Based, Inclusive, and Unconstrained QDR UNCLASSIFIED

14. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 14 Co-lead meetings considering options in 12 major areas: 4 integrated and joint capabilities: −Air −Ground −Maritime −Special Operations ISR Counter WMD Tailored Deterrence Mobility and Agility Persistent ISR / Net Centricity Build Partnership Capacity Homeland Defense Human Capital Strategy 12 QDR Major Muscle Movements UNCLASSIFIED

15. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 15 QDR-2001 construct for shaping / sizing the force (1-4-2-1) (1) Defend the U.S. homeland (4) Operate in and from four forward regions (2) Swiftly defeat adversaries in overlapping military campaigns while (1) preserving for the President a “win decisively” option Also, be capable of conducting limited number of lesser contingencies (e.g., tsunami relief) Updating the Force Planning Construct Strengths Post-9/11 Shortcomings  Introduced Homeland Defense  Associated with forward deterrence  Adapted previous “one size fits all” concept to two broad classes (swift defeat, win decisive)  Maintained ability to fight and win wars swiftly  Does not capture War on Terror nor clearly define Homeland Defense  Limited to forward deterrence in four defined regions  Emphasizes major combat over deterrence, stability operations, and War on Terror  Does not adequately account for duration, scale / intensity and frequency UNCLASSIFIED

16. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 16 Next Big Steps  Complete reviews of Major Muscle Movement options  Develop: QDR Report (Feb 2006) FY07 budget request (Feb 2006) Strategic guidance for FY08 and beyond Implementation Roadmaps Chairman’s independent risk assessment  Interagency and allied consultation  Roll-out: Congress, allies, industry, public, internal UNCLASSIFIED

17. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 17 Backups UNCLASSIFIED

18. QDR Integration September 13, 2005 18 Major Events Driving Change LEGEND Presidential SpeechesDoD Reports US Military ActionUSG Reports Terrorist ActivityCommission Reports  QDR ‘01  Homeland Security  National Security Strategy  Combating Terrorism  Secure Cyberspace  Protection of Critical Infrastructures  Weapons of Mass Destruction  9/11 Commission 2005200420032002200120001999 Riyadh London / Egypt Musharraf assassination attempts Bali Istanbul USS Cole 9-11 / OEF Afghanistan  QDR ’05 Due Feb 06 Citadel Speech ICitadel Speech II LiberiaHaiti Libya OIF Iraq Beslan, Russia Madrid  Defense Strategy  War on Terrorism Plan  Silberman/Robb (WMD)