Éditoriaux Défense Sécurité Terrorisme Zones de conflits Logistique Livres de référence Liens
Terre Air Mer Gendarmerie Renseignement Infoguerre Cyber Recherche

Forming the Plan Behind the Defense Budget

Forming the Plan Behind the Defense Budget

By Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service.

Washington D.C. -- (AFPS) May 12, 2002 - The argument over the cancellation of the Army's Crusader artillery system has highlighted a little-known, but important, Pentagon process: the Defense Planning Guidance.

The DPG is where the department takes the defense strategy and applies money to it.

The DPG is not new; the tool has been around for years. It has taken on added importance as Rumsfeld seeks to institute a new military able to face the threats of the 21st century, said a senior defense official speaking on background on May 10.

The Crusader is a good example: DoD announced termination of the Crusader system May 8. The decision, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, was about "a strategy of warfare that drives the choices we must make about how best to prepare the nation's total forces for the future. ... We have an obligation to ensure that U.S. forces will overmatch the capabilities of any potential adversary now and into the future."

The Army has spent $2 billion on the Crusader and would have needed another $9 billion to complete the program. The guidance process that led the Crusader's development started many DoD budgets ago, but a new strategy caused review -- and changes.

The Defense Planning Guidance that the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the services and defense agencies are working on now goes to building the fiscal 2004 defense budget request. That budget will carry forward the transformational aspects of the fiscal 2003 budget now before Congress.

An important note: Some capabilities covered under the DPG will not be ready any time soon. These will not mature until 2010 to 2015. "There are programs that we have under way that have their origins back in the 1980s," said the senior defense official.

The thrust for the DPG comes out of the various studies that were part of the latest Quadrennial Defense Review. The QDR - released last year - defined four major security goals. These are to assure allies and friends, to dissuade enemies from hostile action or from developing threatening capabilities, to deter attacks and finally, if deterrence fails, to defend the country and defeat adversaries. "In order to be able to do these four things in the future, it was our view that we needed to transform the force, given the way the environment was changing and the technical nature of the threat that we were facing was changing as well," said the official.

The force construct also plays a part in DPG decisions. Under this construct the United States must have the capacity to "deter forward." This is in response to "lesser contingencies." "What we want to do over time," the official explained, "is create a force that is capable of rapidly transitioning from that forward deterrent posture and with support from the United States be able to transition rapidly into an effect-based campaign that would be designed to swiftly defeat an adversary in overlapping conflicts, and reserve for the president the ability to win decisively in any given conflict. By that we mean the necessity of either occupation or regime change as part of the conflict.

"(We can) do all that even while looking after defense here at home," the official said. "The question is: What do you need in capability then, in order to be able to meet those goals we talked about and somehow put this planning construct into application."

The 2004 Defense Planning Guidance will build upon the 2003 guidance and change the basic warfighting capability of the U.S. military. It will continue the change from a threat-based approach to a capabilities-based strategy. What that means is the United States does not know what threats may crop up in the future, but the military can develop capabilities that would allow defense planners to field a force to counter and defeat any possible adversary.

The DPG also continues the change from the two-major-theater-war force- sizing construct to the new one: forward defense, two "swiftly defeat" scenarios, with one "swiftly defeat" operation going to "win decisively."

It realizes the need to move from a broad-based political-military engagement to a focused security cooperation. "This will help us encourage allies to develop capabilities that we think will be more useful in the future," the official said. Part of this is a change from "deliberate planning" - a relic of U.S.-Soviet rivalry to "adaptive planning" - a looser, more flexible response.

The final change is the move from a traditional form of warfare, where the United States builds masses of personnel and materiel before engaging in combat, to targeted effects for early superiority. "(Targeted effects) is one way to describe the kind of campaign we conducted in Afghanistan," the official said. "You realize your adversary is himself a networked operation. You look for ways to break down that network and to ensure he can't function. If you do it properly and if you do it well, you develop a level battlefield and battle space superiority over your adversary that is unrivaled."

Some DPG studies under consideration are joint headquarters, force availability, major acquisition programs and the network to meld command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Under joint headquarters the DPG emphasizes joint task force headquarters, more joint training and more joint capabilities.

Force availability has to do with the mix of active and reserve forces and how fast various capabilities will be needed at trouble spots.

OSD and service officials will review major acquisition programs to see if they fit in this new vision. If they don't fit as planned, the study group will ask if they can be modified, if there are other capabilities that could take replace these programs, or should the programs be cancelled.

Building the network to meld the information and get it to the people who need it quickly is crucial to the new strategy. "If we don't do it right, what we'll have is a lot of discrete units that fly around collecting information but we don't merge it properly," he said.

Defense officials will continue DPG work through the summer and in the fall will make decisions on this guidance. The concrete example of DPG work will be unveiled February 2003 as part of the president's proposed defense budget request.


Derniers articles

Verdun 2016 : La légende de la « tranchée des baïonnettes »
Eyes in the Dark: Navy Dive Helmet Display Emerges as Game-Changer
OIR Official: Captured Info Describes ISIL Operations in Manbij
Cyber, Space, Middle East Join Nuclear Triad Topics at Deterrence Meeting
Carter Opens Second DoD Innovation Hub in Boston
Triomphe de St-Cyr : le Vietnam sur les rangs
Dwight D. Eisenhower Conducts First OIR Missions from Arabian Gulf
L’amiral Prazuck prend la manœuvre de la Marine
Airmen Practice Rescuing Downed Pilots in Pacific Thunder 16-2
On ne lutte pas contre les moustiques avec une Kalachnikov...
Enemy Mine: Underwater Drones Hunt Buried Targets, Save Lives
Daesh Publications Are Translated Into Eleven Languages
Opération Chammal : 10 000 heures de vol en opération pour les Mirage 2000 basés en Jordanie
Le Drian : Daech : une réponse à plusieurs niveaux
Carter: Defense Ministers Agree on Next Steps in Counter-ISIL Fight
Carter Convenes Counter-ISIL Coalition Meeting at Andrews
Carter Welcomes France’s Increased Counter-ISIL Support
100-Plus Aircraft Fly in for Exercise Red Flag 16-3
Growlers Soar With B-1s Around Ellsworth AFB
A-10s Deploy to Slovakia for Cross-Border Training
We Don’t Fight Against Mosquitoes With a Kalashnikov
Bug-Hunting Computers to Compete in DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge
Chiefs of US and Chinese Navies Agree on Need for Cooperation
DoD Cyber Strategy Defines How Officials Discern Cyber Incidents from Armed Attacks
Vice Adm. Tighe Takes Charge of Information Warfare, Naval Intelligence
Truman Strike Group Completes Eight-Month Deployment
KC-46 Completes Milestone by Refueling Fighter Jet, Cargo Plane
Air Dominance and the Critical Role of Fifth Generation Fighters
Une nation est une âme
The Challenges of Ungoverned Spaces
Carter Salutes Iraqi Forces, Announces 560 U.S. Troops to Deploy to Iraq
Obama: U.S. Commitment to European Security is Unwavering in Pivotal Time for NATO
International Court to Decide Sovereignty Issue in South China Sea
La SPA 75 est centenaire !
U.S. to Deploy THAAD Missile Battery to South Korea
Maintien en condition des matériels : reprendre l’initiative
La veste « léopard », premier uniforme militaire de camouflage
Océan Indien 2016 : Opérations & Coopération
Truman Transits Strait of Gibraltar
Navy Unveils National Museum of the American Sailor
New Navy, Old Tar
Marcel Dassault parrain de la nouvelle promotion d’officiers de l’École de l’Air
RIMPAC 2016 : Ravitaillement à la mer pour le Prairial avant l’arrivée à Hawaii
Bataille de la Somme, l’oubliée
U.S., Iceland Sign Security Cooperation Agreement
Cléopatra : la frégate Jean Bart entre dans l’histoire du BPC Gamal Abdel Nasser
Surveiller l’espace maritime français aussi par satellite
America's Navy-Marine Corps Team Fuse for RIMPAC 2016
Stratégie France : Plaidoyer pour une véritable coopération franco-allemande
La lumière du Droit rayonne au bout du chemin

Directeur de la publication : Joël-François Dumont
Comité de rédaction : Jacques de Lestapis, Hugues Dumont, François de Vries (Bruxelles), Hans-Ulrich Helfer (Suisse), Michael Hellerforth (Allemagne).
Comité militaire : VAE Guy Labouérie (†), GAA François Mermet (2S), CF Patrice Théry (Asie).