What do we mean by "transformation"? An exchange - defense policy, United States

Naval War College Review, Wntr, 2002 by Andrew L. Ross, Michele A. Flournoy, Cindy Williams, David Mosher

What exactly do we mean by "defense transformation"? How might it affect the nation's strategy and the military forces that it deploys? How long might a process of transformation take, and what might it cost? The Secretary of the Navy's Current Strategy Forum held at the Naval War College on 12-13 June 2001 asked one of its four discussion panels to address these issues. Its members had long grappled with such questions from different vantage points.

MICHELE FLOURNOY

I think transformation is one of the most important topics that the defense community needs to grapple with today. Accelerating transformation of the U.S. military and of the Department of Defense more broadly will be a major theme of the new administration's defense strategy when that is unveiled. To be successful, however, the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, will have to be more clear in the guidance he gives on transformation, in terms of the objectives we are striving for, the desired capabilities we want the process to yield, and the trade-offs we are willing to make to accelerate transformation.

I want first to ask, why transform? Why is it so important? Second, I wish to articulate what I think are the primary objectives of transformation. Third, I want to give an assessment of where we are in the process today. Fourth, I will focus on some of the "long poles in the tent"--the things that are hardest to do and take the longest--before concluding with some recommendations. This material is drawn primarily from my own experience in the trenches of the Office of the Secretary of Defense but also from an opportunity I had to serve on the Defense Science Board task force on transformation.

Coming Soon to a Theater Near You: Reasons and Objectives

I see many reasons why we should be treating transformation of the U.S. military as a priority. One is that tomorrow's wars will not be like today's. The primary lesson for any potential adversary of the Gulf War was not to be so stupid as to confront the United States head-on, militarily. Look for weaknesses to exploit; look for strengths to undermine; look for asymmetric means of attacking the United States. A principal asymmetric means will be to deny and delay our access to their regions, to use anti-access strategies against us. The scenarios for which we are currently planning do not adequately reflect those challenges. They do not represent some of the most likely future challenges we will face.

Another reason is that the future is coming sooner than we think. The real challenges to our ability to project power in the face of anti-access challenges do not lie twenty or twenty-five years off. We do not have to wait for the rise of a near-peer competitor in 2025. The proliferation of key technologies and capabilities means that lesser countries, regional powers, will be able to pose significant anti-access challenges to us within the next decade. As I like to say, this threat is "coming soon to a theater near you." Current U.S. capabilities and concepts of operations will be severely challenged, absent transformation.

We should also transform the U.S. armed forces because of the opportunities this allows. New technologies offer new opportunities to be more effective in future warfare. Examples include information technologies, biotechnologies, directed energy--the list goes on. Of course, fiscal pressures will continue, and they will continue to require the Defense Department to do things in smarter ways, to get more efficient. Transformation should support that.

Finally, transformation takes time. If we want to be ready ten years down the road--twenty years, for some new challenges--we need to start the process now. There must be time for the inevitable missteps, failures, and blind alleys, and for learning from them.

Let me turn to the objectives of transformation. I think the primary objective is ensuring continued U.S. military superiority and, with that, our ability to advance and to protect our national interests in the face of emerging and future threats. This means several specific things, such as an ability to project rapidly and then sustain combat power in the face of strategies designed to thwart our ability to do that. It entails an ability to operate across the spectrum of conflict--not only high-end warfare but smaller scale contingencies, presence, and so forth. It means underwriting deterrence and "shaping" with a force that remains combat credible in a changing environment. That involves the transformation of forward presence. In sum, it requires maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. forces. Those are the objectives of transformation, at a very broad level.

The Good News and the Bad News

How are we doing? Here is the good news. The "transformation" section of the Quadrennial Defense Review of 1997, not so long ago, was virtually blank for at least one service. There was not much happening in transformation in 1997--but today there is a great deal. Transformation became a recognized defense priority of the previous administration, and certainly it will be for this one. The military has articulated an ambitious joint vision for 2020. That vision is very broad, with little specific guidance, but it is compelling. Each of the services individually has established transformation "road maps" and "battle labs"; they are conducting transformation activities, war games, concept development, and experimentation. We have come a long way toward translating rhetoric into real activity and action. The establishment of Joint Forces Command has increased the importance, and improved the resourcing, of transformation in the joint arena.