G2TT
来源类型Report
规范类型报告
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.7249/RR1309.1
来源IDRR-1309/1-A
Defense Planning in a Time of Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of the 2001–2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews, and Implications for the Army — Executive Summary
Eric V. Larson; Derek Eaton; Michael E. Linick; John E. Peters; Agnes Gereben Schaefer; Keith Walters; Stephanie Young; H. G. Massey; Michelle D. Ziegler
发表日期2018-01-31
出版年2018
语种英语
结论 Defense Planning in a Time of Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of the 2001–2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews, and Implications for the Army — Executive Summary | RAND
摘要

This Executive Summary highlights findings from a comparative historical analysis of the four Quadrennial Defense Reviews (QDRs) conducted after 1997 (in 2001, 2006, 2010, and 2014), identifying trends, implications, and recommendations for the Army and Defense Department in order to shape the conduct of and improve future reviews.

,

The summary systematically compares these most-recent four QDRs — developed during a period of nearly a decade and a half of conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere — by examining them in the following categories: organization and process, strategy development, force planning, resources, risk assessment, and reception. The analysis is based on reviews of QDR documentation and defense budget, force structure, and manpower data, as well as structured conversations with individuals involved in each QDR.

,

The authors find that the period under review ended much as it began, with an increasingly apparent gap among U.S. military strategy, forces, and resources, reflected in the changing defense strategies of each QDR. Most QDRs failed to adequately address the growing portfolio of demands on the force, as well as the risks associated with different end strengths and mixes of active- and reserve-component forces. Thus, the focus of future defense reviews should be assessing the adequacy of U.S. forces to support the chosen strategy at an acceptable level of risk, and the budgets needed to support those forces in the near, mid-, and long terms. It will be left to leaders in the U.S. Department of Defense to estimate the funding levels needed to execute the stated defense strategy, and it will be left to the White House and Congress both to agree on the level of defense funding that keeps risk at an acceptable level and to determine how best to pay that bill.

目录
  • Section One

    Introduction

  • Section Two

    Overview of Assessments of the 2001, 2006, 2010, and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews

  • Section Three

    Main Trends

  • Section Four

    Recommendations and Conclusions

主题Defense Infrastructure ; Military Budgets and Defense Spending ; Military Force Planning ; Military Strategy ; Military Transformation ; United States Army ; United States Department of Defense
URLhttps://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1309z1.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/523479
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
Eric V. Larson,Derek Eaton,Michael E. Linick,等. Defense Planning in a Time of Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of the 2001–2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews, and Implications for the Army — Executive Summary. 2018.
条目包含的文件
文件名称/大小 资源类型 版本类型 开放类型 使用许可
RAND_RR1309z1.pdf(517KB)智库出版物 限制开放CC BY-NC-SA浏览
x1517411104086.jpg.p(2KB)智库出版物 限制开放CC BY-NC-SA浏览
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Eric V. Larson]的文章
[Derek Eaton]的文章
[Michael E. Linick]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Eric V. Larson]的文章
[Derek Eaton]的文章
[Michael E. Linick]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Eric V. Larson]的文章
[Derek Eaton]的文章
[Michael E. Linick]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享
文件名: RAND_RR1309z1.pdf
格式: Adobe PDF
文件名: x1517411104086.jpg.pagespeed.ic.42sUxbgwZL.jpg
格式: JPEG

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。