National Defense Into the 21st Century: Defining the Issues
In March 1996, Colonel Jim Blundell of the Association of the United States Army's Institute for Land Warfare and Dr. Earl H. Tilford, Jr., of the U. S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute envisioned a symposium that would bring all the services together for an open and honest meeting aimed at defining the complex issues that will face the services individually and the Department of Defense corporately during the Joint Strategy Review and Quadrennial Defense Review process. This symposium brought together men and women, soldiers, airmen, marines, and civilians from government, industry, academia, and the media to speak and, more importantly, to listen. Every speaker, even those who were clearly the specified advocates for their respective services, emphasized both the need for the current QDR and the absolute conclusion that defending the United States is and will remain a joint endeavor. The honest and forthright exchange of ideas, concepts, and opinions furthered the process and, quite possibly, pushed the Department of Defense closer to a successful QDR. The QDR is an event of extreme importance for the Department of Defense, the individual services, and for the American people. What is at stake is the future capability of the nation's military.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
21st century achieve air power American armed forces Arsenal Ship assessment asymmetric Atlantic Council balance Bosnia budget capabilities challenges civilian Cold War command Congress continue Conversino Department of Defense deterrence environment face fighting and winning force structure Force XXI Frostic full-spectrum dominance future going humanitarian infrastructure interwar period involved Johnsen Joint Strategy Review Joint Vision 2010 joint warfare land forces logistics maintain major Marine Corps military affairs military implications military power missile missions modernization National Defense Panel National Military Strategy National Security naval forces nuclear weapons operations options Persian Gulf War perspective political present preventive defense procurement programs Quadrennial Defense Review require Reserve Components revolution in military Secretary of Defense strategic attack strategic bombing Strategic Studies Institute symposium talk targets threats Tilford today's U.S. Air Force U.S. Army U.S. Military U.S. Navy United Vietnam warfare
Page 27 - Air power is an unusually seductive form of military strength. In part, because like modern courtship, it ap-pears to offer gratification without commitment.
Page 17 - Army will continue to be the only element of military power prepared to exercise direct, continuing, and comprehensive control over land, its resources and its people.
Page 2 - William T. Johnsen, Associate Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, in his paper, "The Future Roles of US Military Power and Their Implications...
Page 17 - Services is that land forces possess the power to exercise direct, continuing, and comprehensive control over land, its resources, and its peoples.
Page 4 - Component would retain primary responsibility for deterrence, for fighting and winning one MTW, and for conducting preventive defense tasks. The Reserve Components would have primary responsibility for deterring and, if necessary, fighting and winning in a second theater of war, should it develop.
Page 8 - At a general level, the review is being conducted by seven panels, each with its own subject area—strategy, force structure, modernization, readiness, infrastructure, human resources, and information oper-ations and intelligence.