Change Out at Defense

The in-coming administration inherits some of the toughest national security challenges ever. Old demons persist, but new threats have appeared that ignore the traditional dividing lines of foreign versus domestic; military versus civilian; and us versus them. Energy security, decentralized terrorism, pandemic diseases, and the disruption of cyber networks bringing down the financial system or the electric power grid or the government's communication networks are key threats that look radically different than do hostile nation states.

With change as its byword, the new administration needs to look hard at the Department of Defense (DOD). In a sport the president-elect loves, basketball, there is an analogy which, in particular, captures the changes needed at DOD. For DOD to equip itself for twenty-first century threats -- threats that are decentralized and dispersed, and that require coordination between agencies and across national boundaries -- it needs to learn to be both the big man and the point guard.

In basketball, the big man is at the center of the game: the biggest and most imposing player. Today's threats require DOD to learn how to take a turn at point guard as well, using its discipline and national security expertise to develop and guide other players.

DOD is needed to work with agencies across government to communicate and integrate different kinds of information, and to forge trust and collaboration among the agencies.

The attacks of 9/11, and the disaster of Katrina have clearly demonstrated the centrality of information sharing to understanding threats. This is even more true as we try to weave together information about the power grid with that about the intention of terrorists, or information about terrorists developing capabilities in use of computers with vulnerabilities in financial computer networks.

Today's threats require quick, coordinated responses to natural and man-made disasters. Intelligence and operational knowledge from a variety of agencies are needed to understand these new interdependent threats, and to protect the nation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services -- have less history than DOD in providing for the national defense. They need to develop their culture of integrating disparate pieces of information, of collaborating closely and planning ahead in a joined-up fashion. This culture of jointness is one DOD has acquired since it had to transform itself under the Goldwater-Nichols Act. DOD must help other agencies foster their core capabilities, form a team, run the plays, and develop their skills.

As the legendary Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski said: "A basketball team is like the five fingers on your hand. If you can get them all together, you have a fist." The same is true of national security today. If DOD plays the big man, we may be able to respond to some of the threats we face. But unless DOD also plays point guard we cannot create the fist we need to address the unique challenges that will determine America's security in the twenty-first century.

Zoë Baird is President of the Markle Foundation, which works to accelerate the use of information technology to improve national security and health care.

Alec Gewirtz is an avid basketball player.

Comments

[Bonobo]

These multiple roles for the military are very problematic. From the military side, mission confusion, from the diplomatic side, invasion imagery, and from the environment side, an inherent conflict between destruction and preservation. It would be more appropriate to stop leaning on the military for anything other than fighting armies. Let the FBI handle cyberthreats, expand FEMA to international operations, and dedicate a specialized department for overseas policing operations. At least, as long as we"re going to be doing these things, anyhow. This would have the additional benefit of reducing the size and budget of the military, and not tempt future presidents to foolish wars so much when they get frustrated dealing with domestic duties.

[POTUS2008]

the DOD is going to have to be good at a lot of things and not great at a few any longer.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Ms. Baird.....

Couldn't pass up the chance to lament the raw deal you got over what I considered trivialities then and now. I'm convinced you would have made a fine Attorney General. The arguments advanced at the time sure sound ironic in light of the last 8 years...to wit:

"To countenence even a small transgression against the letter of the law by the CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES* ....is unacceptable"

* CAPS indicate indicate pious hypocrisy from members of VRWC**

** vast right-wing conspiracy

And congratulations to yourself AND Alec on your fine closely-reasoned brief (above)......replete with timely B-Ball analogies. Keep 'em coming

High regards
tm

[CaptainStormfield]

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/AmericasDefenseMeltdownFullText.pdf

America's Defense Meltdown. Karela is right of course.

[FearlessFreep]

Are liberals really supposed to be pleased that BO kept Robert Gates in charge of the Pentagon?

[karela]

The military defense of the country has become hopelessly inefficient in direct relationship to the fact that they have a budget that is far too much money. The U.S. defense budget is the highest in the world. It is well over $650 billion/year. China, as the next closest spends 1/10th at $65 billion and Russia at third place spends $50 billion. I think we'd be more competently and efficiently protected if we whacked their budget by a hundred billion the first year and two hundred billion the second year and kept on with that until we got it down to something remotely reasonable, like say only four times as much as the next nation in line or $260 billion. You can waste a lot of money and become hopelessly inefficient if there is no real need to do better. I've known people who lived on $50,000 a year who had more to show for it than people who had an income of $200,000. Haven't you?

[Berettasskeeter]

Your analogies show an imperfect reading of our enemies! China is a dictatorship, not a free republic. The government owns, or has a major interest in, practically all profit centers. The PLA owns, or has a major interest in, almost as much. This masks their cost tremendously. Further, a soldier of the PLA makes a few pennies when compared to the dollar our soldiers earn.
Russia's military all but collapsed in the 90's. Only their strategic missile arms were kept anywhere close to meeting their needs in budgetary terms. According to them, they will begin rearming. If they do, revisit the subject in a few years time and see what their expenditures are.
You, and others, can call for a drastic cut in defense, but when the next war/conflict comes along, it will be you who shares the blame for losses in death and injury!
Semper fi

[Realization]

By allowing the trade deficit to continue, we are major participants in helping the PRC to strengthen its armed forces. Eliminating the trade deficit, both oil and goods, is critical to maintaining U.S. strength as is rejuvenation of the U.S. manufacturing sector. There are two kinds of military strength, actual and potential. It is bad strategy to allow an imbalance such as we now have. Besides the priority has to be "Rich Country, Strong Army", as the Japanese long ago realized. Bloated military expenditures have brought down empires.

Note that the PLA is involved in many business ventures.

Russia is strengthened every day we and Europe fail to break the dependence on foreign energy.

You can think just in terms of the military forces here.

[kasukabe]

The US has in the past been able to rapidly expand its armed forces from a highly professional base (360,000 in 1939 to over 6,000,000 in 1945) to a vast force in short order. People should not get in a fit about how much is spent on the armed forces which is tiny in relation to other countries expenditures vs GDP but there should be a discussion about what effect such a permanent large force (in personnel terms) has on the Republic and the intentions of it's founders with regards to the ability of Presidents to entangle the nation in foreign affairs.

The Cold War may have compelled the US to maintain a large armed forces in relation to the past but the peace was not maintained by sheer manpower ( which was dwarfed both by that of the USSR and China ) but by technological and training superiority. I don't think that cuts in funding are necessary ( though ultimately desirable as a sign of a more stable world ) but money has to be spend both more efficiently and with an eye to enabling a rapid expansion if necessary. Those nations which for many years have been effectively subsidized in their military expenditures by the presence of US troops should also be told that they need to provide more for their own defense if they deem it necessary.