CRS Issue Statement on Military Strategies and Force Structure

CRS Issue Statement on Military Strategies and Force Structure

.

CRS Issue Statement on Military Strategies
and Force Structure
Stephen Daggett, Coordinator
Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets
January 13, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
IS40350
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

.
CRS Issue Statement on Military Strategies and Force Structure

he 111th Congress will be presented with a wide range of national security issues as the
U.S. government undertakes both the intellectual and practical task of updating and
T revising its military strategy and force planning to meet the demands of a rapidly changing
international security environment. Much of the discussion will be shaped by the congressionally
mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), on which the Defense Department is required to
issue a report no later than February 2010, when the President’s budget is due to Congress. The
QDR normally follows a statement of National Security Strategy by the White House. The
strategy report is required to define U.S. global interests and objectives and to describe the
foreign policy as well as military capabilities needed to implement U.S. national security strategy.
The new Administration has not completed a report, however, leaving many aspects of national
security strategy yet to be fully defined.
In recent years, it has very widely been agreed that the global security environment necessitates
an “all of government” approach to national security that combines “soft power” skills, most
often applied by civilian agencies, with the military’s traditional “hard power.” A great deal of
interest has been expressed in reexamining how well the U.S. government is organized to apply
all instruments of national power to achieve its national security objectives, how to balance major
roles and responsibilities among key agencies, and how to integrate agency efforts. The shift of
economic strength from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the rise of China as a major global power,
may become a matter of increasing congressional attention in shaping global economic policy,
foreign policy, and defense strategy. Meanwhile, managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq
and assessing the effectiveness of the Administration’s expanded, though not open-ended,
commitment in Afghanistan will remain a major focus of congressional oversight and debate.
Military force structure issues include what types of ground forces and special operations units
are required for current and future operations, a matter that has been a particular focus of debate
in the Army. The size of the Army and Marine Corps has increased recently, as a means of
meeting the demands of current conflicts. Defense strategy reflects the premise that future
conflicts are likely to be similar to those facing U.S. military forces today, requiring a continued
focus on irregular warfare capabilities. But a very broad range of new challenges are also being
discussed, including challenges that may be posed to the U.S. ability to project power in regions
far around the globe and threats to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities both overseas and in the homeland.
The balance between ground forces, maritime capabilities, and air and space forces may be a
matter of as far-reaching and open-ended a debate as at any time since the 1950s. Nuclear non-
proliferation policy may be a particular focus of attention, with debates intensifying over matters
as varied as global economic sanctions and possible military strikes against Iran, ratification of
the nuclear test ban treaty, negotiations with North Korea, arms reduction agreements with
Russia, and the role of nuclear weapons in reassuring allies and deterring non-nuclear threats.
Defense of the homeland, through military and other means, has been a matter of increasing
congressional concern, with renewed attention on the integration of intelligence garnered from
disparate sources and by different agencies.

Congressional Research Service
1

.
CRS Issue Statement on Military Strategies and Force Structure

Issue Team Members

Stephen Daggett, Coordinator
John Rollins
Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets
Specialist in Terrorism and National Security
sdaggett@crs.loc.gov, 7-7642
jrollins@crs.loc.gov, 7-5529
Nina M. Serafino
Tiaji Salaam-Blyther
Specialist in International Security Affairs
Specialist in Global Health
nserafino@crs.loc.gov, 7-7667
tsalaam@crs.loc.gov, 7-7677
Pat Towell
Curt Tarnoff
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
ptowell@crs.loc.gov, 7-2122
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov, 7-7656
Ronald O'Rourke
Liana Sun Wyler
Specialist in Naval Affairs
Analyst in International Crime and Narcotics
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
lwyler@crs.loc.gov, 7-6177
Jeremiah Gertler
Jennifer K. Elsea
Specialist in Military Aviation
Legislative Attorney
jgertler@crs.loc.gov, 7-5107
jelsea@crs.loc.gov, 7-5466
Amy F. Woolf
R. Chuck Mason
Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy
Legislative Attorney
awoolf@crs.loc.gov, 7-2379
rcmason@crs.loc.gov, 7-9294
Amy Belasco
Lisa Mages
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
Information Research Specialist
abelasco@crs.loc.gov, 7-7627
lmages@crs.loc.gov, 7-7452
Richard F. Grimmett
Mari-Jana "M-J" Oboroceanu
Specialist in International Security
Information Research Specialist
rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov, 7-7675
moboroceanu@crs.loc.gov, 7-6329
Rhoda Margesson

Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy
rmargesson@crs.loc.gov, 7-0425

Congressional Research Service
2