Pentagon Miscalls On Its Quadrennial Defense Review
Conservative think tank hits Pentagon and
Rumsfeld as key to rubberstamp blunders.
Every four years, the Pentagon releases its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), more accurately the Quadrennial Defense Rubberstamp. Usually, it offers the same, more of the same or less of the same.
That is true of this QDR as well, with one interesting exception. Perhaps uniquely in the annals of strategic planning, this QDR promises strategic failure a priori.
In a speech announcing the QDR, Secretary Rumsfeld said, speaking of our Fourth Generation opponents, “Compelled by a militant ideology that celebrates murder and suicide, with no territory to defend, with little to lose, they will either succeed in changing our way of life or we will succeed in changing theirs.”
It would be difficult for war objectives to be stated in more maximalist terms. Either they will succeed in turning us into Taliban-style Muslims or we will turn them into happy consumers in globalism’s Brave New World. Since most Americans would rather be dead than Talibans and most pious Muslims would rather perish than lose their souls to Brave New World, Rumsfeld has proclaimed a war of mutual annihilation. That will indeed be another Thirty Years’ War, with little chance of a renewed Westphalian order as the outcome.
It is easy enough to define alternate, less ambitious objectives that might avoid the strategic disaster of a long war. We might say that our objective is to be left alone in our part of the globe, to enjoy peace, prosperity and an ordered liberty at home, while we left Islamics alone in their traditional territories. Sadly, from the Pentagon’s perspective, such a strategy would fail the pork test: it would not guarantee to keep the money flowing, which is what QDRs are ultimately about.
But the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have serious powers, if they once again choose to exercise them. Chairman Hunter’s response to the QDR suggests that the HASC may do just that. If it happens, not only might the relevance of many weapons programs come into question, so might Rumsfeld’s demand for maximalist objectives in a permanent war for permanent peace.
The theory of permanent war failed for Trotsky. I don’t see it working for Rumsfeld, either.
The Free Congress Foundation is a traditional Conservative think tank. William Lind, one of their directors, hopes Congress “may refuse to rubber stamp the QDR”. I ain’t holding my breath.
Posted: Tue - February 14, 2006 at 06:06 AM