Quadrennial Defense Review

[ian neal]

The last review was released 2 weeks after 9/11. 4 years on and the plans for empire and 'long war' are even more in your face. All sorts of nonsense much of it referring to 9/11 included within

http://www.comw.org/qdr/qdr2006.pdf

Lots more talk of empire (pro and con) from policy wonks who studiously avoid questioning the official 9/11 war on terror narrative

http://www.comw.org/qdr/empire.html

[Jane]

The United States is a nation involved in what will be a long war.

Since the attacks of September 11th 2001, our Nation has faught a war against violent extremists who use terrorism as their weapons of choice, and who seek to destroy our free way of life. Our enemies seek weapons of mass destruction, and, if they are successful, will likely attempt to use them in conflict with free people everywhere

So, they, the peaceful and reasoned Defenders of Freedom” are busy investing in “new equipment, technology and platforms for the forces, including advanced combat capabilities: Stryker Brigades?

Well, the Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance may see things differently!

Stop the Stryker Brigade
This is alert is a collaboration with DMZ-HAWAI'I-Aloha 'Aina, a coalition of grassroots groups addressing the impacts of the military in Hawai'i. For more information read: Stop the Military Land Grab, DMZ's brochure at http://www.kahea.org/lcr/pdf/DMZ_Broch_7.9.03.pdf The U.S. military is planning another invasion of Hawai'i. The U.S. Army is proposing to take over 23,000 additional acres on Hawai'i Island and up to 2,000 acres on Oahu. The Army wants to locate 400 19-ton Stryker armored vehicles, hundreds of additional troops on the Islands of Oahu and Hawai'i. This expansion will degrade and destroy even more of our lands with massive tank trails, expanded runways, live fire training, and troop maneuvers. The U.S. military is the largest polluter in Hawai'i, with over 1,000 identified contaminated sites. Military activities have left thousands of acres of land contaminated with toxic chemicals and hazardous unexploded munitions. We want clean up not military build up. Please take a moment and kokua. Stop the invasion of the stryker brigade in Hawaii's sensitive ecosystems. Demand clean up of existing contamination of our lands. Mahalo nui loa DMZ-Hawaii and KAHEA

http://actionnetwork.org/KAHEA/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=2004447

[freedomfiles]

The interesting issue regarding the former QDR is that it contained the so-called response to September 11th, such as the pre-emptive attack doctrine and regime change against states such as Iraq.

Although the 2001 QDR was released on September 30, 2001 it was drafted in the months preceding the attacks on September 11th.

QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW OF 2001 / DEFENSE PLANNING GUIDANCE

The Quadrennial Defense Review of 2001
Office of the Secretary of Defense
http://www.comw.org/qdr/qdr2001.pdf

Archive of papers and comments prepared in conjunction with the 2001 QDR
Defense and the National Interest
http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/qdr.htm

Defense Strategy Review Page: QDR 2001
Project on Defense Alternatives
http://www.comw.org/qdr/01qdr.html


The Illusion of a Grand Strategy
James Der Derian. The New York Times
25 May 2001.
http://www.comw.org/qdr/0105DerDerian1.html

Today President Bush will deliver what has been billed as a major defense policy statement. His speech has been preceded by high expectations and not a small amount of controversy. In the end, it may not matter. No plan, said Clausewitz, the Prussian strategist, survives the first battle; and the counterattacks have already begun. Congress is likely to put up a fight -- a prospect that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has belatedly recognized this week in his trips to the Hill.

Whatever the outcome, much of the credit, or blame, is likely to be laid at the doorstep of one man: Andrew Marshall. Andrew Marshall is unusual in that he may have the power to make his vision of our enemies -- whether illusionary or true -- into reality. However, the horse-trading, pork-barreling, balkanizing process called ''defense policy making'' has a way of chewing up grand visions, even when they are proclaimed by presidents.

The Military Needs To Live Within Its Means
By Cindy Williams
May 23, 2001
http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/Williams052301.html

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld seems determined to seek an additional $20-to-$50 billion in defense spending in each of the next six years. President Bush and the Congress should reject this demand.

A big rise in defense spending is neither necessary nor inevitable. The budgetary pressures that the Defense Department faces can be offset by reshaping forces to reflect future needs rather than Cold War visions, ditching excess infrastructure, and restraining the impulse to replace every single piece of equipment with a more complicated, next-generation system.

Why the Pentagon Fears Rumsfeld's Review
Philip Gold. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute, 13 June 2001.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program =Defense&id=652

No nation has ever faced the military situation this nation confronts. And the next year or so will determine what triumphs: Pentagon and Beltway politics-as-usual or the 21st-century security needs of the United States.

Testimony Before the Senate Armed Services Committee
June 28, 2001
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010628-secdef3.html

Senator John Warner :

I certainly commend our president when he was a candidate and indeed now that he's president, has recognized that we have a situation here at home where perhaps only in the times of World War II did we consider "homeland defense."

And I'll be scrutinizing your budget submissions to make sure that it's adequate, because we've got to prepare for an attack here at home of a terrorist nature in some form right in the cities here in the United States, and how best this nation responds.

Dreaming About War
Nicholas Lemann, The New Yorker
16 July 2001
http://www.comw.org/qdr/0107lemann.html

In September of 1999, George W. Bush, then just trying out his act as a Presidential candidate, gave his first major speech on defense. The speech was highly significant: Bush had endorsed the Revolution in Military Affairs—or, as it's inevitably called in the acronym-happy defense world, the R.M.A.

Briefing on Defense Planning Guidance
Paul Wolfowitz. DoD News Briefing, 16 August 2001.
http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/010816Wolfowitz.html

We're talking deterrence, we're talking about defeating aggression, we're talking about then the ability to really impose our will. I mean, the phrase here is win decisively, but let's not -- I mean, win decisively means occupation of other countries, change of regime. It's a pretty robust requirement.

Shelton Talks Change, Troops, Transformation
USAREUR Public Affairs, Aug. 28, 2001
http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/htmlinks/Press_Releases/2001/Aug/2001082 8-1.htm

America's armed forces are the best in the world, but "we have significant challenges that we'll have to deal with in the future," Shelton said. One of those challenges, he noted, is to guard against complacency. He reminded them of history, and "the need to make sure that we're never surprised again."

"We were not prepared to carry out the missions our armed forces were given, and we paid a price in blood for having done that," he emphasized.

Another challenge for America's military is change, Shelton said. "We need to make sure that we can change and transform our armed forces today to be prepared to deal with the 21st century threats that we will face, which may look a little bit different" from those of the past, he said.

"We've talked about (ballistic) missile defense and the need to protect American citizens against that, to include homeland security in a larger context."

"But, I think we've got a good game plan laid out," Shelton emphasized. "The Quadrennial Defense Review is helping in that regard. I'm confident that we'll be in great shape for the future."

Savaging Donald Rumsfeld
Philip Gold. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute, 28 August 2001
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program =Defense&id=1045

"No, we don't know whom we're going to fight, or where. But we've got a pretty good idea what we're going to need. First, homeland defense – full-speed ahead on missile defense and counter-terrorism.

The threat of Bioterrorism and the Spread of Infectious Diseases
U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations
September 5, 2001
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_h earings&docid=f:75040.wais

We should not wait for another Pearl Harbor to awaken us to the fact that there is no greater threat to our security than terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction.

Our overriding recommendation is to give the threat of terrorism
with weapons of mass destruction the highest priority in U.S. national security policy. Of the threats that could inflict major damage to the U.S., such terrorism is the threat for which we are least prepared.

The nation needs a national response program, directed by the White House. The program must be coordinated and integrated across the entire federal bureaucracy. And end-to-end systematic strategy to encounter this threat must address all phases of a potential terrorist attack, from detection and prevention to response. Such a strategy must include and coordinate program initiatives by all involved departments and agencies.

Every Nickel Important in 2002 DoD Budget Request
By Jim Garamone / American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6, 2001
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09062001_200109064.html

Rumsfeld told the senators DoD's priorities in the budget. "As we prepare for the new challenges … certainly U.S. homeland defense takes on an increasing importance," he said. Asymmetric threats are the more likely threats in the period ahead, he said.

"The coming years will see an expansion of the risks to U.S. population centers as well as our allies and friends," Rumsfeld said. "We will face new threats. Today we're vulnerable to missile attack. That's a fact. And as has been suggested by the chairman, weakness is provocative. It invites people into doing things that they otherwise would avoid."

Bureaucracy to Battlefield
Donald H. Rumsfeld. DoD Speech, 10 September 2001
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html

Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.

See also :

911 & the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?7.1200