Rethinking the Qdr: The Case for a Persistent Defense Review Anonymous

Publisher Marketing: What about the QDR? (Published in the Washington Post, Defense News, and other outlets) Millions of man-hours spent by talented, highly educated military officers. Contractors anxiously awaiting a chance to get into the fight. Political appointees nervously awaiting the next step. Sound like someone planning a war? In a way, it is. Legislation mandating a Defense Department Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) was passed in 1997--yielding three detailed, thoughtful reports since then; each one providing a degree of new guidance to America's Armed Services. Meanwhile, the Services took on a war-like posture as each one approached. The next QDR, due to the Congress about one year after the Presidential inauguration, promises another pitched battle. A look back at Service budgets that resulted after past QDRs tells the story. In the end, each Service has maintained its fair share of the Defense budget. If we already know the answer, then why the fuss? Aside from the fact that it's the law, there is too much national treasure at stake not to take a harder look than just once every four years. The Defense base budget for FY 07 was $432 billion, $481 billion for FY 08, and is $515.4 billion for FY 09. In order to ensure Defense is properly managing taxpayer's money while still providing the best for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines we must not pay lip service to this upcoming QDR. To date, the QDR has served as a strategic pause, a chance to get inside the Pentagon's cycle of Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution. In addition, each QDR provides a unique opportunity for Congress to evaluate past investments as they relate to ongoing and future demands. In that sense, it is good. It provides the necessary cross-checks on the DOD budget, which accounts for 4.3% of the US GDP and, in 2005, 41% of all world military outlays. Contributor Bio:  Anonymous also known as Joseph Benner