The Insider

Accessible Concept
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 17, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey today signed version 1.0 of the Pentagon's new Joint Operational Access Concept, which "proposes a concept for how joint forces will achieve operational access in the face of armed opposition by a variety of potential enemies and under a variety of conditions, as part of a broader national approach."

"This framework describes how we will gain entry and maintain access anywhere and in any domain: land, air, space, sea, and cyber," Dempsey writes today in a blog post about the document. "No matter how formidable our forces, if we are unable to bring our capabilities to bear in any of these domains, we may not be able to complete the mission or meet our nation’s needs. Our adversaries know this as well."

Inside the Pentagon broke news about the high-level document last month, reporting that an unsigned copy of version 1.0 declared that U.S. armed services must achieve unprecedented synergy to ensure access to contested waters, skies, land, space and networks in the face of emerging weapons.

GMD Protest?
By John Liang
January 17, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Lockheed Martin is weighing its options in the wake of losing a billion-dollar Ground-based Midcourse Defense development and sustainment contract to Boeing.

Missile Defense Agency officials briefed Lockheed last Wednesday on why the company lost the competition, Tory Bruno, president of strategic and missile defense systems at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., told reporters during a conference call this morning.

Bruno said it was still "premature" to say whether the company would protest MDA's decision. "We're still digesting the information they gave us and doing our analysis," he said, adding: "Ask me in a couple days."

AfPak Panel Debate
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 17, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) today renewed his call for the Obama Administration to create a panel of experts outside of government to review U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In a Jan. 17 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Wolf noted that a recent National Intelligence Estimate "paints a very bleak picture of the war in Afghanistan."

Inside the Pentagon reported last November that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey agreed that the government should not "divert resources" to establish the study group proposed by Wolf.

"Secretary Panetta feels confident that, given the security progress we are making in Afghanistan, the success we are having in growing a developing the ANSF, and the ongoing assessments we already do -- and are required to do -- for the Congress, the work of such a group would largely be duplicative," a defense official said at the time.

In today's letter, Wolf challenges Panetta’s argument about progress in Afghanistan. “Your November 3, 2011, letter to me stated that coalition troops are making progress against the Taliban and other militants and that progress is being made on our relationship with the Pakistani government and military. I have enormous respect for the men and women serving our country in South Asia and acknowledge that our troops are performing their mission with bravery and resolve, however, the NIE appears to contradict your assessment,” Wolf writes.

From Wolf's Jan. 17 letter:

Dear Secretary Panetta:

As I am sure you are aware, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 contains language providing your office with $1 million to assemble the Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) Study Group. I request that you do so immediately.

The Los Angeles Times reported last week . . . that the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) paints a very bleak picture of the war in Afghanistan and the future of U.S. operations in that region. It reflects concerns that I have expressed in numerous letters to you over time, especially the importance of understanding Afghan tribal and political structures and the Pakistani military and intelligence services actively cooperating with two of the most deadly terror networks in the region.

Given this stark assessment from our own intelligence community, the need to create the Af/Pak Study Group is clear. The Af/Pak Study Group's analysis and recommendations could bring needed clarity to current and future U.S. military and diplomatic operations. You supported the Iraq Study Group and lent your considerable expertise to that effort, so I am perplexed as to why you do not similarly support the Af/Pak Study Group.

Your November 3, 2011, letter to me stated that coalition troops are making progress against the Taliban and other militants and that progress is being made on our relationship with the Pakistani government and military. I have enormous respect for the men and women serving our country in South Asia and acknowledge that our troops are performing their mission with bravery and resolve, however, the NIE appears to contradict your assessment. . . .

Increasingly we see a trend in Pakistan of moderating voices being marginalized and altogether silenced. While I appreciate that you are "working hard with Pakistan to improve the level of cooperation" so that terrorist and militant groups no longer find safe haven in the country - I am afraid the complexity of the evolving situation in Pakistan necessitates more.

The NIE's assessment could lead to support for the war in Afghanistan eroding among the American people and I feel the same sentiment will soon permeate the halls of Congress. If the president has simply decided that U.S. involvement will end in 2014 and that no further U.S. strategy is needed, he should clearly state that this is his policy and be forthcoming with the American people. If President Obama has not made a final determination on U.S. strategy going forward, I ask again, what harm can come from a group of independent experts using their experience to offer solutions for long-term success?

Following 9/11, I have supported U.S. military actions in the War on Terror. I want to see our soldiers, diplomats and Foreign Service personnel return home with their heads held high, knowing they all played a crucial role in establishing stability in South Asia where countries no longer pose a threat to our national security. I firmly believe that you can help ensure this happens by using the money made available to you to create the Af/Pak Study Group. Establishing this panel quickly will show the American people that the Obama Administration is willing to consider all possible options to achieve success in this volatile region.

I urge you to take these steps immediately before support for our mission in Afghanistan further erodes.

Eyes On China
By John Liang
January 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission plans to hold its first hearing of 2012 later this month, according to a Federal Register notice posted this morning.

On Jan. 26, the panel will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC, to address "China's Global Quest for Resources and Implications for the United States," the notice reads, adding:

This is the first public hearing the Commission will hold during its 2012 report cycle to collect input from leading academic, industry, and government experts on national security implications of the U.S. bilateral trade and economic relationship with China. The January 26 hearing will examine China's Global Quest for Resources and Implications for the United States. The hearing will be co-chaired by Commissioners Richard D'Amato and Daniel Blumenthal.

The commission's most recent annual report came out in November. At least one lawmaker has used China's increased military buildup as a pretext for not cutting any more funds to the Defense Department. Citing that latest report, Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) said in a Nov. 16 statement:

"This year's U.S.-China Commission report to Congress further confirms that China is strategically positioning itself to militarily and economically challenge U.S. influence and capabilities in the Asia Pacific.  China remains steadfast in its commitment to build up the Chinese military, increasing its defense budget to bolster regional dominance and intimidate its neighbors.  In addition, the report makes it abundantly clear that China is actively seeking to exploit the United States' military vulnerabilities as the U.S. government fails to stop the theft and voluntary forfeiture of American technology to Chinese state-owned companies.

"And while China is building aircraft carriers, stealing American technology, and actively seeking 'space supremacy,' Congress is busy dismantling the United States military with arbitrary budget cuts that could total a trillion dollars, diminishing its Navy to World War I levels, and effectively forfeiting U.S. leadership in space.  Those eager to gut the defense budget ought to think twice before ceding U.S. regional influence in the Pacific to an authoritarian nation that violates basic human rights, flagrantly disregards the very notion of intellectual property, and routinely disregards the sovereignty of other nations," said Forbes.

CBO On Sequestration
By John Liang
January 12, 2012 at 10:23 PM

The Congressional Budget Office today released an analysis of the potential effects of sequestration on the federal budget:

That report must provide estimates of the caps on discretionary budget authority for the current year (in this case, 2012) and for each year through 2021.2 In CBO's estimation, a sequestration (cancellation of budgetary resources), which would be triggered by a breaching of the caps, will not be required in 2012. However, CBO's estimates do not govern the outcome because the Administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has sole authority to determine whether a sequestration is required and, if so, the proportional allocations of any necessary cuts. Those determinations are based on OMB's own estimates of federal spending.

Some defense-related excerpts from the CBO report:

By CBO's estimates, if the automatic enforcement procedures were implemented, they would reduce the caps on discretionary budget authority by declining amounts during the 2014–2021 period. For 2014, the reduction would total $93 billion (or 8.7 percent); it would fall to about $88 billion (or 7.1 percent) for 2021. The reductions in the caps for defense programs would be proportionately larger than the reductions in the caps for nondefense programs. The defense cap would shrink by $55 billion each year (that is, by 9.8 percent for 2014 and by slightly smaller percentages for subsequent years). The nondefense cap would drop by $38 billion (or 7.4 percent) for 2014 and by smaller amounts for later years.

The combined limit on discretionary budget authority would decline to $973 billion for 2014 and then steadily increase to $1,146 billion for 2021, when the restrictions specified by the Budget Control Act are set to expire. The separate defense and nondefense caps would follow a similar pattern. For 2013, the cap on discretionary budget authority for the defense category is $546 billion (although sequestration would result in funding below that amount). That limit would decline, in CBO's estimation, to $501 billion for 2014 and then gradually increase to $589 billion for 2021. The cap on nondefense funding is $501 billion for 2013 (before any effects of sequestration) and $472 billion for 2014; after that year, the limit would gradually rise to $557 billion for 2021. (Those figures do not include any adjustments that might be made to accommodate appropriations for emergencies, overseas contingency operations, disaster relief, or program integrity initiatives.)

Ship Gap
By Dan Taylor
January 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

The Navy will take a close look at a looming cruiser and destroyer gap over the next several budget cycles to see how the problem might be mitigated, Vice Adm. Terry Blake, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources (N8), said today.

Last September, the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concern that the Navy would fall below its requirement for 94 DDG-51 destroyers and CG-47 cruisers after 2021, dipping to as low as 65 ships in 2034. Blake told reporters following his presentation at the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium that the Navy would tackle that issue over the upcoming budget cycles.

"You are not going to be, at the current prices, going to be able to afford four or five [cruisers or destroyers] per year," Blake said. "So we are going to have to deal with that. And there's a number of ways to look at dealing with issues such as that."

He said the Navy would consider a range of options, including extending the service lives of vessels and implementing rotational crewing.

"We have highlighted the problem," he said. "We're going to have to have a deliberate discussion over the next several POMs [program objective memoranda] to deal with that issue in the 2020 to 2030 time frame."

Panetta Calls Karzai
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 12, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Defense Secretary Panetta this morning phoned Afghan President Hamid Karzai about a video that appears to show Marines urinating on insurgents' corpses.

Panetta, who has ordered an investigation, "expressed his view that the conduct depicted in the footage is utterly deplorable, and that it does not reflect the standards or values American troops are sworn to uphold," Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a statement.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos also condemned the video in a statement this morning.

DOD & Norway
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 12, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta hosted the Norwegian defense minister, Espen Barth Eide, this afternoon for their first official bilateral meeting. Panetta "noted that Norway is a strong ally and friend, and he praised Norway's decisive contributions to the war in Afghanistan and to last year's successful NATO operations in Libya," Pentagon spokesman George Little said in a statement, adding the two men discussed the new U.S. defense strategic guidance and bilateral defense cooperation issues, as well as ways of expanding the strong military partnership between the United States and Norway.

"Secretary Panetta affirmed the commitment of the United States to the NATO alliance and to the principles of smart defense," Little said. "He told his Norwegian counterpart that he looks forward to seeing him soon at upcoming NATO meetings in Brussels."

Justification And Approval
By John Liang
January 11, 2012 at 9:35 PM

The Missile Defense Agency today released its official justification for awarding Raytheon a $583 million sole-source contract to build two AN/TPY-2 early warning radars for the United Arab Emirates:

If any source other than the incumbent is awarded a contract to build the radars, that source would have to undergo the MDA Quality, Safety and Mission Assurance (QSMA) Directorate Production Readiness Validation program, with an estimated duration of 15 months (based on historical data for the development and implementation of AN/TPY-2 Radar # 1), prior to commencing production. The 15-month program includes approximately three months to determine allocation of prime and subcontractor work efforts; one month to determine key processes subject to Government review and approval; five months for an Initial Production Risk Readiness Risk Assessment and Industrial Capabilities Assessment; two months for a Low Rate Initial Production Approval Rate Capability Review; and four months to conduct Manufacturing Process Verifications (MPVs) and 10-15 delta MPVs per element. The program would be conducted at the prime, subcontract, and critical sub-tier supplier levels. This additional 15-month program, as well as the time required to conduct a competition, would result in substantial schedule delay.

It is in the Government's best interest to procure the FMS UAE Case AE-B-UAF AN/TPY-2 radar hardware and services from Raytheon, at this time. Raytheon is the only responsible source currently able to meet the program milestones for radar, spares, and equipment delivery on schedule.

As InsideDefense.com reported earlier this month, the contract is part of a $3.48 billion deal for which the U.S. and UAE governments signed a letter of offer and acceptance on Dec. 25. Further:

According to a statement from Pentagon Press Secretary George Little, the contract will deliver two THAAD batteries, 96 missiles, two AN/TPY-2 radars and 30 years' worth of spare parts, support and training, including contractor logistics support. “Acquisition of this critical defense system will bolster the UAE's air and missile defense capability and enhance the already robust ballistic missile defense cooperation between the United States and the UAE,” Little said in the statement.

New EELV Contract
By John Liang
January 10, 2012 at 10:52 PM

The Air Force has awarded United Launch Services a $1.5 billion contract "for Atlas V Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) launch service in support of a Defense Meteorological Satellites Program 19; a Mobile User Objective System-3; three National Reconnaissance Office missions; and Delta IV EELV launch service in support of Air Force Space Command-4, two Global Positioning Systems, and Defense Meteorological Satellites Program-20 missions," according to a just-issued Pentagon statement.

Work will be performed in Decatur, AL, and should be done by June 30, 2014, the DOD statement reads.

Inside the Pentagon reported last month that the EELV program, the main provider of launch vehicles for U.S. military and intelligence satellites, faces a $1 billion funding gap because the proposed budget buys six fewer boosters than needed. That gap is part of a larger $4.1 billion shortfall due to "problematic funding issues," according to White House guidance. ITP further reports:

The problems in the Pentagon's budget blueprint for fiscal years 2013 to 2017 are identified in the Office of Management and Budget's Nov. 29 passback memorandum to the department, which urges DOD to address the concerns by "adding back funding, finding specific offsets, or by restructuring programs." Inside the Pentagon obtained a copy of the document.

On EELV specifically, ITP reported:

The passback calls for $360 million in FY-13 for two boosters, $180 million in FY-14 for one booster, $180 million in FY-15 for one booster and $360 million in FY-16 for two boosters. DOD should fund the program sufficiently or demonstrate why the additional launchers are unnecessary, OMB writes.

"Moreover, the Air Force's proposed new multi-year, multi-core acquisition plan may not allow sufficient funding, or opportunity, for commercial launch providers to compete for satellite launches in later years," the passback states. "DOD should make a determined effort to include commercial competition in the outyears of its acquisition strategy." The guidance also expresses concern that the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office have made different assumptions about launch efficiencies; OMB urges the two organizations to ensure that the budget assumptions are consistent.

Fired Up
By Jason Sherman
January 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

The Pentagon has awarded F-35 engine maker Pratt & Whitney $194 million to acquire long-lead materials associated with building F135 engines for the Joint Strike Fighter's sixth production lot -- a planned total of 37 aircraft, 31 of which are slated for U.S. forces.

“This contract allows Pratt & Whitney to acquire raw material and begin production of F135 engine parts to support our customers and meet the F-35 production schedule,” said Chris Flynn, Pratt & Whitney's vice president for F135/F119 engine programs, in a statement today.

Engine deliveries are slated to begin in June 2013, according to the statement.

The sixth early production lot -- which DOD and F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin must still hammer out an agreement to execute -- is slated to include 18 conventional-takeoff-and-landing aircraft for the Air Force after lawmakers last month cut one F-35 from the Pentagon's fiscal year 2012 budget. The buy will also include seven aircraft carrier variants for the Navy and six short-takeoff-and-landing variants for the Marine Corps.

In addition, the production run is to include four conventional-takeoff-and-landing variants for the Italian air force and two such aircraft for Australia.

Industry Sounds Off
By John Liang
January 6, 2012 at 7:32 PM

In the wake of yesterday's issuance of the Obama administration's proposed strategic defense guidance, three major industry groups today began a full-court press to ensure defense spending doesn't get cut more than it has to. This afternoon, the Aerospace Industries Association, the National Defense Industrial Association and the Professional Services Council issued a statement:

Impending cuts to the defense budget will stifle the ability of the defense industry to deliver innovation and urgent wartime capabilities according to a report released by the Defense Industrial Base Task Force today. The Task Force, composed of companies from AIA, NDIA and PSC, was formed last October as a result of Defense Secretary Panetta's meeting with representatives of AIA's Executive Committee in September.

This report paints an alarming picture for the future of the aerospace and defense industry," said AIA President and CEO Marion C. Blakey. "Yesterday Secretary Panetta outlined very severe reductions in the defense budget. Any further cuts will cripple crucial industrial base capabilities in the national security sector."

The report, based on an industry analysis initiated by the Task Force, concluded that smaller budgets would make the industry less innovative, force the layoff of skilled technical personnel, freeze investments and escalate the pace of mergers and acquisitions. Respondents expect that cuts to procurement and R&D will be frontloaded in the first several years.

"The findings and conclusions of this report emphasize the critical need for government-industry dialog and partnership," said NDIA President and CEO Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Lawrence Farrell. "Especially in this time of shrinking defense budgets, government needs to communicate openly and often with industry to ensure impacts to the industrial base are deliberately managed, rather than left solely to market forces."

The Task Force sent the report to Secretary Panetta on Nov. 11. On Dec. 22, Deputy Secretary Ashton Carter, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy Brett Lambert met with Task Force representatives to discuss the paper.

"We were very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the paper with Secretary Carter and his team," said PSC President & CEO Stan Soloway. "We strongly believe that the impacts could be partially mitigated over time, particularly if DOD focuses heavily on 'how' it is buying and, in so doing, genuinely incentivizes the kinds of innovation that is necessary."

Industry acknowledges that in the current economic environment, budget reductions are necessary. However, the U.S. defense industrial base is a national strategic asset. The draconian approach if sequestration is triggered will cause the loss of critical skills and capabilities as companies make business decisions based on these radical cuts.

Iranian Ship Rescue
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 6, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Navy forces on Thursday rescued an Iranian fishing ship from pirates in the Arabian Sea, the naval component of U.S. Central Command announced today. The pirates had been holding the captain of the Iranian ship and his crew as hostages, according to the statement from U.S. Naval Forces Central Command:

ARABIAN SEA – Forces assigned to the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, rescued an Iranian fishing vessel from Pirates in the northern Arabian Sea, Jan. 5.

At approximately 12:30 p.m, an SH-60S Seahawk from the guided-missile destroyer USS Kidd (DDG 100) detected a suspected pirate skiff alongside the Iranian-flagged fishing dhow Al Molai. Simultaneously, a distress call was received from the master of the Al Molai claiming he was being held captive by pirates.

A Visit, Board, Search and Seizure team from the Kidd boarded the Al Molai and detained 15 suspected pirates who had been holding a 13-member Iranian crew hostage for several weeks. The Al Molai had been pirated and used as a “mother ship” for pirate operations throughout the Persian Gulf, according to members of the Iranian vessel’s crew.

The pirates did not resist the boarding and surrendered quickly.

“The Al Molai had been taken over by pirates for roughly the last 40-45 days,” said Josh Schminky, a Navy Criminal Investigative Service agent aboard the Kidd. “They were held hostage, with limited rations, and we believe were forced against their will to assist the pirates with other piracy operations.”

According to members of the Kidd boarding party, the Iranian crew said they were forced by the pirates to live in harsh conditions, under the threat of violence with limited supplies and medical aid.

“When we boarded, we gave them food, water, and medical care,” said Schminky. “They had been through a lot. We went out of our way to treat the fishing crew with kindness and respect.”

“After securing the ship and ensuring the safety of all persons on board, we began distributing food and water to both the crew and the suspected criminals as is our standard practice in Counter-Piracy operations,” said Schminky. The pirates were detained on the Al Molai by the Kidd boarding party until the next morning when they could be transferred to the USS John C. Stennis where the matter will be reviewed for prosecution. The pirates currently remain on the Stennis.

“The Captain of the Al Molai expressed his sincere gratitude that we came to assist them. He was afraid that without our help, they could have been there for months,” said Schminky.

Carrier Deal
By Christopher J. Castelli
January 6, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta hosted the U.K. secretary of state for defense, Philip Hammond, at the Pentagon Thursday afternoon for their first official bilateral meeting, which included a discussion of the new defense strategy as well as the signing of a deal on aircraft carriers.

The two secretaries “discussed the new U.S. defense strategic guidance and compared notes on the UK's recent experience with its Strategic Defense and Security Review,” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a statement. “They spent a good part of their meeting discussing innovative approaches to defense in an era of fiscal austerity, and agreed that NATO must continue to invest in military capabilities despite the imperative to achieve fiscal discipline.”

Further, Panetta and Hammond signed “a Statement of Intent on Carrier Cooperation and Maritime Power Projection that will serve as the framework for increased cooperation and interoperability on the use of aircraft carriers, as well as provide the basis for the U.S. to assist the U.K. Royal Navy in developing its next generation of aircraft carriers,” Little said. “This cooperation is a cutting-edge example of close allies working together in a time of fiscal austerity to deliver a capability needed to maintain our global military edge.”

Views from the Hill
By Jason Sherman
January 5, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Early reactions from lawmakers to the Obama administration's new defense strategy are rolling in.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

The highest priority of the U.S. government and the Congress is to provide for our national defense. This objective will undoubtedly be influenced by budget realities, especially in this time of fiscal crisis, but the one thing we truly cannot afford is a budget-driven defense strategy. The current and emerging global threats to our national security are more complex than at any time that I can recall. Therefore, I will closely, carefully, and thoroughly review the defense strategy that the President announced today and examine whether it meets our national security objectives.

I understand the need for reductions in defense spending, but we must also address the broader cultural problem plaguing our defense establishment: the waste, inefficiency, and ineffective programs that result from an overly consolidated military-industrial-Congressional complex. We must eliminate the shameless cost overruns that characterize too many of our defense programs. We must cut Congressional earmarks and pork-barrel spending on programs that the military does not request and does not need. And we must continue to identify greater efficiencies in our defense budget.

The United States must continue to lead the world in order to ensure our economic prosperity and national security, which is vital to the future of our country and the opportunities we provide to our children and grandchildren. For that reason, when it comes to how we fund and procure our defense programs, business as usual will not cut it. I intend to ensure that our national defense strategy and budgets continue to strengthen America in its position of global leadership.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee:

Today’s announcement marks the conclusion of an important strategic analysis of the threats that our country faces today, as well as in the future and how we can best address those threats moving forward. It represents a synopsis of the global threat environment, and presents a broad strategy to address those threats.

This review comes at an important time. Congress has been engaged in an ongoing debate about how best to meet the spending reductions stipulated in the bipartisan Budget Control Agreement without undermining our national security objectives. I have consistently said that we can rationally evaluate our national security strategy, our defense expenditures, and the current set of missions we ask the military to undertake and come up with a strategy that requires less funding and strengthens national security. I believe this review provides a framework to achieve that goal.

Not only does the strategic review clearly articulate the threats we face, but it also shows that simply spending more money on defense does not necessarily makes us safer – spending more wisely and effectively does.  Clearly, we do not have an endless amount of resources, and that should be taken into consideration, but it should not be the driving force behind our national security strategy. As demonstrated by the strategy laid out today, the Administration fully understands this fact.

The Administration has put together a significant string of foreign policy successes, including the death of bin Laden, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the elimination of much of al Qaeda's leadership, the end of the war in Iraq, and supporting the uprising in Libya.  Today's announcement lays out a strategy that will enable the United States to build on those successes and confront the threats of today as well as in the future, wherever they may emerge.

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), House Armed Services Committee chairman:

This is a lead from behind strategy for a left-behind America. The President has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense.  This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs. In order to justify massive cuts to our military, he has revoked the guarantee that America will support our allies, defend our interests, and defy our opponents.   The President must understand that the world has always had, and will always have a leader.  As America steps back, someone else will step forward.

An honest and valid strategy for national defense can't be founded on the premise that we must do more with less, or even less with less.  Rather you proceed from a clear articulation of the full scope of the threats you face and the commitments you have.  You then resource a strategy required to defeat those threats decisively. One does not mask insufficient resources with a fuzzy world view and a strategy founded on hope and a hollow force.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), House Armed Services readiness subcommittee chairman:

This morning, the Administration released an eight-page document that purports to be a strategy review of our nation's defense. Cloaked by the simplicity of this review is the reality of an increasingly complex array of threats faced by our nation, ranging from terrorists, to rogue states and emerging national competitors seeking to thwart the United States' global reach.  Unfortunately, this review dangerously fails to identify risks assumed by drastic budget cuts.  This laundry list of vague 'priorities' is not a strategy for superiority; it is instead a menu for mediocrity.  And while we agree with the President that it is indeed time to shift our national security focus toward the Asia-Pacific, it is difficult to effectively project power in the region while at the same both Congress and the President are actively dismantling the greatest military the world has ever known.  The President can now claim this document as a 'review' of national security priorities, but I fear that it serves simply as as political cover for an Administration more committed to a stimulus-style domestic agenda than it is to preserving a strong national defense.

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL):

Over the last several months, we have heard dire warnings from our top military chiefs and even from Secretary Panetta about the serious consequences of defense cuts of this magnitude. I took their warnings very seriously, and I’m disappointed that the President is apparently willing to accept the grave risks of massive defense cuts.

The President’s new strategy relies on the flawed assumption that by retreating from the world and reducing the size of our military, we can make our threats go away. This strategy of appeasement has never worked. Shrinking and weakening our military made us less safe under Presidents Carter and Clinton, and it will make us less safe under President Obama as well.

I believe that America should speak softly and carry the biggest stick. A strong, effective military is critical to deterring our enemies, keeping America safe and preserving our interests around the world.

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA):

This new defense strategy announced by the Administration today misses the mark. It leaves several questions unanswered, asks for unacceptable “trade-offs” from a force that will be asked to do more with less, and potentially compromises commitments to U.S. allies. I have long-stated that our military must be driven by sound strategy, not budgets, and that our top priority must be the safety and security of this nation. This announcement today lays the groundwork for a future military strategy driven by budget cuts.

We cannot ignore challenges with our fiscal future, but also must be vigilant to evolving 21st century threats from those who wish us harm. My resolve is to ensure that this nation does not face unacceptable risk or is put in a situation where our military is not resourced to do the job the country needs it to do. Our men and women in uniform must be equipped with the necessary equipment, support and benefits they need and deserve. I will be looking carefully at not only this strategy but also the Fiscal Year 2013 Department of Defense budget to be released in February and will continue to support policies that keep America as the leading global force.