Roles And Missions

The Government Accountability Office has released a report assessing the Defense Department's execution of the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review, which House authorizers have taken steps to abolish due to the lackluster quality of past reviews.

GAO, in its July 31 report, asserts DOD "did not provide sufficiently detailed information about most of the statutorily required elements of the assessment." Additionally:

DOD's process for assessing roles and missions missed key principles associated with effective and comprehensive assessments. Specifically, DOD limited its process to leveraging the prior review that resulted in the Defense Strategic Guidance; by doing so its process did not include the following:

* A planned approach: DOD did not develop or document a planned approach that included the principles or assumptions used to inform the assessment.

* Internal stakeholder involvement: DOD included limited internal stakeholder involvement. For example, DOD gave the armed services a limited opportunity to review the draft prior to its release.

* Identification and involvement of external stakeholders: DOD obtained limited input from relevant external stakeholders, such as Congress, on the specific guidance and direction they expected of the roles and missions assessment.

* Time frames: DOD did not develop a schedule to gauge progress for conducting the assessment and completing the report, which may have contributed to the report being provided to Congress over 5 months late.

Prior to the report's release, Inside the Pentagon provided a preview, noting the House version of the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill includes language that would remove the requirement for the QRMR altogether. Senate authorizers did not include such a provision. ITP further reports:

"There's been consistent disappointment since the first QRMR with DOD's efforts," said a House staff member. "The last one was particularly bad because they, frankly, took the Defense Strategic Guidance report and slapped a cover page on it and said that's a QRMR."

The House staffer acknowledged that "GAO may come back and say it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if we're telling DOD they have less money and should do fewer reports, then let's start killing the ones that don't turn out so good."

The QRMR is theoretically aimed at answering several questions vital to understanding the DOD's mission, according the FY-14 defense authorization language.

Questions that should be answered include: "(1) The core mission areas of the Armed Forces; (2) The core competencies and capabilities that are associated with the performance or support of such core mission areas; (3) The elements of the department that are responsible for providing the core competencies and capabilities; (4) Any gaps in the ability of the elements of the department to provide for core competencies and capabilities; (5) Any unnecessary duplication of effort; and (6) A plan to address identified gaps and reduce unnecessary duplication of effort."

The House staffer acknowledged that periodically wrestling with such broad questions would be good for DOD, but noted "widespread" feeling among staffers and lawmakers that the QRMR was not the vehicle to accomplish such a task.

"It's like, 'I get why the Navy has an army, but I don't get why the Navy's army has an air force,'" he said. "There's an interesting philosophical question as to whether DOD can do this by itself and on a regular basis. Also, how much does the secretary of defense want to take on the services? To date, you haven't really seen one going to bat on a regular basis because nobody wants to adjudicate it."

The lack of rigor behind the QRMR, the staffer said, is due to the fact "there are huge disincentives not to do it."