| 来源类型 | Research Reports
|
| 规范类型 | 报告
|
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.7249/RR2278
|
| ISBN | 9780833099730
|
| 来源ID | RR-2278-AF
|
| The History and Politics of Defense Reviews |
| Raphael S. Cohen
|
| 发表日期 | 2018
|
| 出版年 | 2018
|
| 页码 | 106
|
| 语种 | 英语
|
| 结论 |
- Few officials believe that any of the dozen major defense reviews in the past quarter century produced a satisfactory answer to questions on national security.
- The process behind writing and staffing defense reviews gives these documents a powerful status quo bias that often leads to recommendations of incremental, rather than dramatic, changes.
- Reviews often failed to anticipate major geopolitical events just a few years out. Even when the reviews did anticipate correctly, policymakers were often disinclined to make major budgetary or programmatic shifts until months, if not years, into a crisis.
- A senior leadership's level of interest often correlates with a review's significance.
- Reviews produced early in an administration tend to matter more than those produced later on because new administrations often are more inclined to use these reviews as ways to signal a new course.
- Outside reviews tend to be more hawkish, both because of the members who are chosen to sit on these reviews and because these reviews are typically not constrained by budgets.
- A review's impact depends as much on the political climate as it does on its analysis. Some of the most impactful reviews were both politically useful and analytically correct.
|
| 摘要 |
- Acknowledge that defense reviews require political awareness, not just analytical depth, and select a representative who can navigate this complex terrain.
- Directly involve the services' senior leadership because these officials are ultimately the ones who must articulate and fight for the services' resourcing needs.
- Explain service needs in a simple, unclassified manner to build a case for the service's budget in external reviews and in the wider policy community.
- Tailor the service's recommendations in light of the political climate to best exploit the opportunities for small wins.
- Keep the target date for the review about a year into the administration to maximize policy flexibility.
- Design a relatively transparent force-sizing construct to sell the numbers to Congress and a wider policy audience but build in additional slack to account for unpredicted events.
- Leverage outside reports to fight for additional resources but do not expect them to make hard trade-offs that come with defined budgets.
- Recognize the trade-offs of having senior-leadership involvement for more impactful reviews, but not necessarily more successful administrations.
- Understand that defense reviews have a built-in status quo bias, and manage expectations accordingly.
- View defense reviews as the start of a dialogue about national priorities. In this sense, the answers in these reviews may matter less than the policy discussions they provoke within the Department of Defense, Congress, and the broader policy community.
|
| 主题 | Military Force Planning
; Military Strategy
; National Security Legislation
; Politics and Government
|
| URL | https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2278.html
|
| 来源智库 | RAND Corporation (United States)
|
| 引用统计 |
|
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物
|
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/108757
|
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714 |
Raphael S. Cohen. The History and Politics of Defense Reviews. 2018.
|
|
文件名：
|
x1524656755766.jpg
|
|
格式：
|
JPEG
|
|
文件名：
|
RAND_RR2278.pdf
|
|
格式：
|
Adobe PDF
|
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
