Reserve Component Issues From The Quadrennial Defense Review

Hearing by the House Nat. Security Subcomm. to understand the process and rationale behind the manpower, force structure, and other decisions announced in May 1997 as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review. Witnesses: Rep. Steve Buyer and Gene Taylor; Richard Alexander, Nat. Guard Assoc. of the U.S.; Max Baratz, Army Reserve; Fred Becker, Jr., U.S. Navy, Ret., Reserve Off. Assoc. of the U.S.; James Blaker, Applications International Corp.; Ronald Griffith, Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; Sara Lister, Assist. Sec. of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; William Navas, Jr., Army Nat. Guard; Michael O'Hanlon, the Brookings Institution; Edward Warner and William Lynn, DoD; and David McCloud, Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Partial contents include: (1) Design, Approach, and Implementation of the Quadrennial Defense Review; (2) The Global Security Environment; (3) Defense Strategy; (4) Alternative Defense Postures; (5) Forces and Manpower; (6) Force Readiness; (7) Transforming U.S. Forces For the Future; (8) Achieving a 21st Century Defense Infrastructure; (9) Defense Resources Section; and (10) Comments by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. The DoD is facing the complex challenge of simultaneously supporting continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and preparing its military forces to meet emerging threats of the new security environment. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) articulates DoD's strategic plan to rebalance capabilities in order to prevail in current operations and develop capabilities to meet future threats. The QDR acknowledged that the country faces fiscal challenges and that DoD must make difficult trade-offs where warranted. This report provides an assessment of the degree to which DoD addressed each of these items in its 2010 report on the QDR and the supplemental information provided to the defense committees. Charts and tables.

The U.S. Army War College, in cooperation with the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), the U.S. Naval War College, and the Atlantic Council of the United States, cosponsored a symposium in late F%ebruary 1997 to examine the topic, ̀1National Defense into the 21st Century: Defining the Issues.'1 The purpose of this symposium was to relate the national interests of the United States to its long-term military requirements and to define those challenges which will face the Department of Defense, as well as those issues most pertinent to each of the military services. This symposium was a sincere effort by individuals from the various services, the Army1s and the Navy1s premier professional military education institutions, AUSA, and the Atlantic Council to search for a common under- standing of the difficult issues facing all the services jointly and each of them individually. Over a period of two days, through four panels and three special addresses, the presenters and more than 100 attendees engaged in an enlightening and productive exchange of ideas and points of view. What follows is a report on the four individual panels and the comments of the Honorable John D. White, the Deputy Secretary of Defense; Major General Mark K. Hamilton, U.S. Army, Vice Director for F%orce Structure, Resources, and Assessment on the Joint Staff; and retired U.S. Army General Andrew J. Goodpaster, Chairman of the Atlantic Council of the United States. General Jack N. Merritt, U.S. Army, Retired, opened the symposium by describing its goals and agenda.